My apologies if we did this at the time it happened. I can’t imagine that we would NOT have commented on it, and yet I don’t recall any such thread, nor does a bit of searching seem to reveal it.
ANYWAY…
Apparently a store in Canada mistakenly sold a few editions of Half-Blood Prince before the official release date. Alarmed at the prospect of having spoilers out in the world prior to the official release date, the publishers sought a gag order against any such revelation. The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s order agreed to enjoin anyone from “…copying or disclosing all or any part of Harry Potter #6 or any information derived therefrom including without limitation the story, plot or characters of Harry Potter #6 to any person prior to 12:01 a.m. local time on July 16, 2005 without the consent of the Plaintiffs’ solicitors.”
That makes perfect sense to me.
Here’s where I am scratching my head: the Court’s order also forbids anyone from: “…displaying, reading, offering for sale, selling, exhibiting in public…” the book in question.
Now, the bolded prohibition is what surprises me. The Court enjoined people who had in good faith purchased a book from reading that book.
I realize it’s ambiguous, but my assumption is that they meant people weren’t allowed to read it out loud to others, in other words as part of a performance. I agree it wouldn’t make sense to say that someone couldn’t read it privately to themselves.
I seem to recall that Bricker is correct; they were preventing from reading the book. In fact, I believe that the books were confiscated until the release date, and returned autographed by JKR.
IIRC, the books still technically belonged to the publishers prior to the release date, which is why it was legal to have the seized: the stores had no right to sell books they didn’t own.
Something you couldn’t legally have? What was illegal about buying the Harry Potter book before the release date? If the store sold the book before the release date, then perhaps they were in violation of their contract with the publishers, and the publishers could seek monetary damages against the book store.
But if I go into a bookstore and buy a book, I have not committed a crime, even if the bookstore shouldn’t have sold it to me. No one has the right to tell me what I can do with that book. I can read it and post the plot synopsis on the internet if I want to.
It’s ridiculous that the courts got involved and slapped an injunction on citizens who legally purchased the book. As far as I’m concerned, they had absolutely no right to do that. This is a matter for tort law between the bookstore and the publisher, and that’s it.
If the bookstores didn’t own the books, they couldn’t sell them. If I buy something from someone with no right to sell it to me, I don’t have it legally. I didn’t necessarily do anything wrong, but that doesn’t mean I get to do with the property whatever I wish.
The bookstores didn’t own the books? Sounds to me more like they were in violation of their agreement with the publisher. That doesn’t mean they don’t own the books, it means they may be liable for damages for violating the agreement.
I have a hard time seeing how the purchaser of the book could be prosecuted as well.
It would seem to me that the problem lies in contract, not in tort. (Although the negligence of the bookstore’s employees does lead one to think of tort.)
The publisher supplied the books to the bookstore prior to the release date (the publisher’s consideration is the books) on the condition that the bookstore would not sell any books until the specified date and time (the bookstore’s consideration is its promise). The bookstore sold some books before the specfied date and time; therefore, the bookstore is in breach of its contract with the publisher.
Okay so far.
The purchasers of the books entered into a contract with the bookstore when they bought the books. They each paid $X (the purchaser’s consideration) for their copy of the book (the bookstore’s consideration). The purchasers’ contracts were with the bookstore, not the publisher. Thus, it would seem that, not being a party to the contracts between the purchasers and the bookstore, the publisher could not order a court to say anything against the purchasers, only against the bookstore. Privity of contract governs, it would seem, but I’m on unsure ground here.
What I do find interesting is that this case was argued at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and not at the Supreme Court of Canada level. I’d be interested to hear what the SCC has to say on the “purchasers may not read what they have acquired through a legal contract with the bookstore” issue.
Dunno… IANAL, but if the contract states that title to the books doesn’t pass to the bookshop until a certain date, then selling them before that date is stealing, and the customer to whom they are sold is receiving stolen goods. Sort of.
Clearly, the court was convinced (perhaps because no one appeared to oppose the request), that the law of the jurisdiction allowed it to conclude that anyone who was in possession of the book prior to the proper release date did not have legal possession of the book. This is clear from the requirement that all such people return the book “forthwith.” You will notice that section 2 of the injunction prohibits anyone from possessing the book prior to the release date.
Now, I am not an expert (hell, not even reasonably versed in) in Canadian law. Perhaps the court was acting beyond its actual legal powers, simply because no one objected. Or, perhaps the facts behind the dispute were sufficient to make clear that no otherwise innocent purchaser of the goods was able to purchase the actual title to the books.
Enjoining someone from reading something they are required to return forthwith doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Now, if they had not been compelled to return the books, that would be a different story…
The Supreme Court of BC is the entry level court for this particular type of action. It’s highly unlikely that an injunction banning the reading of a book would be upheld by the Court of Appeals or any higher court in the land.
Chalk it up to a company using the court for a publicity stunt, and a fangirl judge playing along.
The injunction was, it would appear, obtained ex parte; probably on an emergency basis. I’m no expert on BC procedure, but if it was anything like Ontario procedure, as part of the process the applicant must make an undertaking to pay any damages caused by the injunction, should it turn out that the injunction was wrongly granted. Normally, one must then return before the court a short time later, with notice to everyone, for a determination if the injunction was correctly granted.
In short, the court basically states to applicants in this situation “okay, because this is an emergency situation in which you claim something bad will happen right away unless this remedy is granted, and you have given us your evidence which on its surface appears convincing that this is the case (the test being: a good case, irrepairable harm to you, and the balance of convenience favours you), we will grant you this extraordinary remedy. But be warned: if on a full review of the evidence we find out you were wrong in your claims, we are gonna make you pay everyone involved for any inconvenience they may have suffered, and all their costs including any legal fees”.
The problem faced by courts in such cases is that the “harm” alleged is the release of a secret; if you don’t move instantly to contain it, the damage will be done - and the courts are not in a position to evaluate on such short notice and in the absence of evidence from the opposing side whether the release of a secret was wrongful or would in fact do damage.
I’m no lawyer, but it’s very difficult to ban reading in Canada. You can ban stuff from entering the country on grounds it’s obscene (and ultimately lose in court) or you can try to ban the spread of information for a few hours (such as election results) but there aren’t any grounds to ban reading for reading’s sake. About the only thing that’s outlawed is hate literature, and I don’t think Harry Potter qualifies.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter or Rights, but I dunno if “freedom to read stuff” is part of that. Normally of course the two go together - as the reason a court may wish to interfere with expression (that is, publishing stuff) is precisely to prevent others from reading it - but in this rather odd case, it is the person whose expression it is (that is, the owner of the intellectual property rights in the book, thus indirectly the author) who is seeking the restriction on reading.
Seems to me that what is essentially going on here is not really akin to banning hate literature or the like, but rather an attempt to contain for a time what is alleged to be a secret. In effect, the “legitimate owner” of the secret is saying "you guys, you were given the secret before it was supposed to be released: don’t read it, lest you be tempted to tell it to others … ".
Now, how one is supposed to enforce that is another story.
