J.K. Rowlings has a very clumsy publisher. Her Harry Potter books have a habit of slipping out of their boxes at an alarming rate, sometimes stolen, sometimes found in fields – always mere days before their official release dates.
You’d think people would catch on.
A gagging order has been issued by a Canadian court after a handful of lucky Harry Potter fans snapped up the new book ahead of this Saturday’s release date.
JK Rowling’s highly anticipated sixth book in the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, was inadvertently sold to 14 people at a supermarket near Vancouver. Its contents have been kept a tightly guarded secret and the subject of mounting speculation. Even publishers and critics have been barred from glimpsing a copy until it is unveiled at midnight parties being held at bookshops across the globe this Friday night.
The offending shop quickly realised its mistake and whipped the wizardry tale off the shelves.
“It was an inadvertent error on behalf of one of our staff,” said Geoff Wilson, a spokesman for the Real Canadian Superstore.
Justice Kristi Gill at the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered customers not to talk aboaut the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released.
The injunction notice
So, there we have it.
It’s not enough that the courts in this land feel they must shield Canadians from testimony at “public” inquiries. It’s not enough that they protect the identities of virtually every sex offender who is clever enough to assault members of his own family.
Now the courts are using gag orders to help book marketers generate hype.
Even Harry Potter and his gang couldn’t have conjured up a better potion for a marketing campaign than the accidental leak of the latest Potter book from a suburban Vancouver store, a marketing expert says.
[…]
“Not in his magic spells could he work one this effective,” said Lindsay Meredith, a Simon Fraser University marketing strategies professor. “My straight-up hunch is this is some of the best damned PR I’ve seen in a while. They didn’t pay a penny for it and it’s way more powerful than advertising.”
Nope. The taxpayers did.
I had hoped I’d heard this incorrectly on the radio this morning. What possible basis did the judge have for her ruling?
Kate, a good take here:
http://www.101-280.com/archives/000541.html
“But why stop with this? If publishers can unilaterally assert intellectual-property claims to discussions about plots over and above any functional nondisclosure agreements, why not declare that book buyers only have a limited 12-month license for discussing any book, so as not to devalue the subsequent movie rights? Sure, that’s too stupid to happen, but by how much?”
The answer is quite obvious Kate….it’s a magic book acting in character.
The Cdn publisher (as with other countries) apparently signed a confidentiality agmt re: release dates. Their distributors had to have signed something similar, ergo unless the judge wants to cancel out massive precedents, he would have had to order the ‘cease & desist.’ But Kate, I’m not sure why you’re saying the taxpayers are footing the bill (other than the fact that we pay CBC’s bills), as this would have been a civil court, not a criminal court, and it wouldn’t be a trial, but a lawyer for the publisher and likely a lawyer for SuperStore arguing in front of a judge, max I’d guess an hour. The loser (in this case, SuperStore) would pay court costs, if other civil matters (like divorce proceedings) are any example.
I can understand the publisher having legal remedies against the seller, but how can the purchasers be bound by that? If the purchasers blab and it hurts book sales (as if) then then the publisher can sue Superstore for damages for breaching their contract. But telling people they can’t talk about a book they’ve read?
What a country, first they tell us what we can know about(adscam) then what is illegal to say(David Ahenakew) now they tell us when we can read and talk about books already in our possession.
This country’s courts are starting to scare the heck out of me.
Kate,
Your so funny. I needed a smile this morning and got it here.
JV
The problem with the ruling is that there is no privity of contract between Raincoast (the Candian publisher) and the ultimate buyer. No doubt Raincoast has an actionable claim against the Real Canadian Stupid Store (and Rowling has one against Raincoast), but that’s where it ends. This was a really bad decision.
“Justice Kristi Gill at the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered customers not to talk aboaut the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released.”
Ah, prior restraint, something that the US courts even in their current heights of disregard for the First Amendment allow only for imminent clear and present dangers to national security. But apparently in Canada, it’s acceptable as part of something as ordinary and trivial as a marketing campaign.
The condescending paternalism of this is breathtaking: rather than let individual private parties take the fall for their errors, it’s apparently better for the heavy hand of government (and the courts are no less an agency of the state) to shut everyone up on pain of imprisonment for contempt.
I’m a huge Harry Potter Fan – but all this legal crap about release dates drives me crazy. The buyer certainly can’t be held liable for all the messed up (perhaps illiterate) sellers. (Mac’s in Calgary, Superstore in BC – I’m sure every city has one!) If I’d got an advance copy you can be damn sure I would have told my like minded friends – but I’m not nasty enough to spoil the plot for them. Anyone who loves these books just wouldn’t do that to another fan. The courts in this country have been overstepping their bounds for a while and this is just another example of it. Reviewers of any note just don’t spoil the plot twists of any book or movie they review.
Knats… Knats…. what are we going to do about all these Knats!!!
Candace is more or less right, the taxpayers aren’t doing any more than paying Judgiepoo’s salary, which would be paid anyway if she’d dealt with another matter or taken the afternoon off.
But the order is obviously out of line, and it speaks volumes about the laziness, incompetence and sheer asshat stupidity, not just of the judge but of the court of which she’s part. Unless every purchaser had been identified, given notice of the hearing and been allowed representation and a chance to make submissions, it’s entirely improper to make an order against them.
And it’s just plain nuts to make an order that cannot be enforced. If you’ve got a copy – who the hell can stop you from reading it? Who the hell can stop you from telling anyone you please about it? Who would know?
I think our American friends might be shocked to realize that the courts in Canada take the view that you are bound by any and every order of the court, whether or not it is valid. If a judge is dealing with facts on which she has no jurisdiction to make an order, or is specifically forbidden by law from making a given order – and she gives that order anyway – you’re bound by it. You must appeal and have a higher court set the order aside.
And in Alberta at least, you can only appeal if the judge you’re appealing from gives you permission. In every province, a judge can simply order you not to appeal, and since you’re bound by that order until you appeal it, then – you can’t appeal it. If it includes a gag order forbidding you to talk about it, then no one could ever know. Maybe that’s never happened, and maybe it happens every day. We’d never know.
So what we’ve seen here is how lazy and corrupt a court becomes once they arrogate to themselves that kind of irresponsible power.
I’m not a lawyer or anything but I seem to remember from an ethics class or something about the invalidity of “un-enforcable” contracts or ruling… I can’t see how the court can possible enforce someone to not read a book, and therefore taht was just a dumb part of the ruling. Not publishing, copying or distribuing the content of the book for personal gain however is already covered under copyright laws. so i don’t see why everyone has such a probelm with that part of the rulling?
I think if I had bought one of the books, I’d have read it and shared it with family members that are also fans, but as someone earlier mentioned, I wouldn’t give the ending away (how tacky!). I would completely ignore the court ruling unless I’d used a credit card to make the purchase (damn paper trails!), although I probably wouldn’t blog about it either way (because even after I buy the damn thing when it’s “officially” released, I probably wouldn’t blog about it…).
Then again, I might be feeling feisty and blog about it because I wasn’t supposed to, and see what happened 😉
If anyone does ahve a copy, send me the last page anonymously, and I’ll post it.
Bah! This is because the new Pope has issued a fatwa on the Harry Potter books- he sez they corrupt children!
The pope thinks Harry Potter is about smoking pot.
And think HollyWood is about something Holy.
Hey I just toss em out …
Please, Dave, tell me you’re joking. I remember the “evil” label when they first came out, and read the book myself before reading it to my (then 6-yr-old) daughter. It’s about good vs. evil. Period. The settings are like those in the Lord of the Rings, so far from reality as to be… um… fiction. Well-constructed fiction, but fiction. Clearly.
Unless the Pope has the same issue with Lord of the Rings?
Candace: Nope-he claims that the Harry Potter books promote an interest in witchcraft!?! (Personally, I’d like to know more about the six hundred grand that was tossed at the ‘Catholic Woodstock’ through the sponsorship program. And while you are at it: who ordered TTC General Manager Rick Ducharme to kiss off six million bucks’ worth of Pilgrim’s Passes? Any connection with that, and the fact that Mr. Ducharme’s salary went from $164,997. to $241,519. per year?)
Not to mention- a ‘donation’ of 1.25 million bucks from Jean Cruton, and a further half-million dollar donation from the Trillium Foundation, all to the same cause…….
You want Stephen Harper to lead this country- I can tell you who he will have to bribe first, and approximately how much it will cost him, ( but don’t hand over the money until he is in.)
No, dave’s not joking. He’s spreading hate prop-aganda.
“Hate propaganda”!?! Guess you’d better bring charges again the Globe & Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Sun, and various other newspapers, then!
Why? Have they accused the Pope of advocating murder, like you just did?
ebt: Odd- I don’t see anything about the pope advocating murder in what I just said! (And if I accused the Moonies or the Scientologists of getting their paws into the public till, ( and making ‘recommendations’ to the voters via the pulpit, you’d probably be annoyed, too.)
If you’re interested in what the Pope said, there are several religious blogs out there who have actually discussed it with some seriousness. Not all is what has been represented.
So you don’t know what “issues a fatwa” means, dave? And, if your point is that I’d get annoyed if you spread hateful lies about other people, you’re right about that.