The pachyderm apologises for the lack of blogging activity as of late. Yesterday, she went to Opening Day at the Del Mar Racetrack. She’s never seen so many
ostentatious extraordinary hats in her life.
The New York Times “reviewed” Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It’s not bad enough for Grey Lady to commit treason on a semi-regular basis; now it has to spoil a long-awaited (say, ten years or so!) surprise for children. Apparently, we are far away from the time when newspapers would say, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.”
What next? Do the editors kick dogs, too?
On the legal side of this issue:
Bloomsbury was “extremely dismayed” to learn that some copies of the book have already been sent out.
“The release date and time embargo of 0001 BST on Saturday July 21 is being enforced unflinchingly and without exception by the publishers,” it said.
Scholastic, Rowling’s US publisher, has announced legal action against US book distributor Levy Home Entertainment and retailer DeepDiscount.com for breaching the embargo.
The NY Times claims that it has bought the book legitimately. Generally, a person can avoid legal issues by being a good-faith purchaser of goods. (“Good faith” in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.) That clearly cannot apply to the NY Times. Any person who purchased the book must know that its sale did not comport with reasonable commercial standards, nor honesty in fact.