Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.

    This distinction may matter, as a summary of a plot may not enjoy the same protection as a leaked video. Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions.

> Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.

Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.

There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.

I acknowledge it's a dick move, but it really is just a spoiler for a book, not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining. I had the book spoiled for me too and it was just something I moved on from, somehow.

The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.

1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.