GONE TO POTTER


The Times reports on the gagging order that has been made against a number of Canadians who came across early-released copies of the latest Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince. Copies of the novel, which is officially launched on Friday, were put out by accident by the Real Canadian Superstore in Coquitlam on the west coast of Canada. The bookshop realised its mistake, but not before 14 people had bought copies. The Canadian publishers sought and obtained a “John Doe” order from supreme court of British Columbia issued a court order preventing anyone from “displaying, reading, offering for sale, selling or exhibiting in public” the books. Under the terms of the injunction, Under the terms of the injunction, those who bought the book aren’t allowed to even read their books, and are being encouraged to return them to the Canadian publisher. Author JK Rowling’s literary agent said:
“Copyright holders are entitled to protect their work. If the content of the book is confidential until July 16, which it is, why shouldn’t someone who has the physical book be prevented from reading it and thereby obtaining the confidential information? How they came to have access to the book is immaterial.”
It’s at times like this that the IPKat wishes that he wasn’t such a blackletter lawyer. While strictly the contents of the book may constitute confidential information, the idea of injuncting innocent purchasers in the interests of having a showy launch leave the IPKat frankly horrified. The IPKat points out that it’s a bit of a strange situation since, while the purchasers may be in possession of the “container” for the confidential information, until they’ve read the book, they cannot know what the confidential information is. In other words, rather than being injuncted to prevent them from disclosing the information, the purchasers are being injuncted to stop them even coming into possession of the confidential information.
GONE TO POTTER GONE TO POTTER Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, July 14, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. OH NAUGHTY IP KAT!!!
    The word is 'enjoining' not 'injuncting'. Injunction is the noun. Enjoin is the verb.
    Bad bad cat.

    The IP Dog.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.