Court silences customers after new Harry Potter book sold too early

[Elrohir]

Link

Court silences customers after 14 Harry Potter books sold too early

Associated Press
Jul. 12, 2005 07:05 AM

COQUITLAM, British Columbia - A handful of people in Canada got a sneak peak of the latest Harry Potter book, but a British Columbia Supreme Court judge ordered them to keep it a secret.

The book was sold to 14 people who snagged a copy of J.K. Rowlings' much anticipated "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," when it landed on shelves last Thursday at a local grocery store.

The book, officially set for release this coming Saturday, has been shrouded in secrecy and its debut has been highly orchestrated to enable everyone - readers, reviewers, even publishers - to crack it open all at once. It's the sixth in Rowling's seven-book fantasy series on the young wizard.
advertisement


But the store slipped up and sold 14 copies before realizing its mistake.

"It was an inadvertent error on behalf of one of our staff," said Geoff Wilson, a spokesman for the Real Canadian Superstore. He said the books were quickly removed.

Justice Kristi Gill last Saturday ordered customers not to talk about the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released at 12:01 a.m. July 16.

The order also compels them to return the novel to the publisher, Raincoast Book Distribution Ltd., until the official release. At that time it will be returned to them.

As an added incentive, Raincoast will include Rowling's autograph and a gift pack.

What the freakin' heck? "We're sorry, but we screwed up and you bought a book too early. You have to give it back to us without reading it, or we'll throw you in jail for contempt of court." Sure it's in Canada, and not the US, but this is still really bizarre.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

A complete over reaction. Big deal about the release date. Surely everyone who wants a copy will eventually get one so who cares if someone gets its a few days early. If there is game coming out I generally order it from a site called gameplay for two reasons 1. it's cheap and 2. they have a tendancy to send out games a few days early.

 

[Bartleby]

It's ludicrous.

 

[Nobody]

I think that the court is justifyed in ordering the people not to revel anythign about the book, or let anyone else see it. I think the "return part" i not inforceable as by the time the court would be able to do anything the book will be for sale. But getting it signed by JK Rowling is insentive to do the right thing

 

[Evie]

There seems to be some weird stuff surroudning that. EVERY english (american) sources I've seen mention "forbidden to read it", but at the same time, not a single Canadian source mentions "reading it". Moreover the Canadian sources talks about the court ENCOURAGING them to return the book, not actually ordering them to do so.

As for "forbidden to reveal it". the content of the book IS JK Rowling's property, and she DOES have a right to keeping it private as long a she wishes. Once she releases the book to the public, then she can't really pull that sort of secret on it, but until then, she should be able to go to court to order people who inadvertently learn the truth to keep it shushed.

 

[Rambuchan]

This is pretty dumb but I can understand it. It is also not new. The Judge has nicely played into the publicity strategy, and has surely bumped up sales with this ruling. (Is he on the pay roll?) Nothing like a bit of court room action and secrecy to lift sales. We've been seeing this kind of thing for ages. I put a note about the release of Electric Ladyland by Hendrix in the Cover Art thread, same kind of goings on. It's all marketing and sadly these methods have been recognised as 'legitimate tools' in a marketeers armoury.

 

[Dell19]

Its a nice way to remind people to preorder the book with the release date close.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Over-reaction. It sounds very weird to me that the judge orders them to not read the book they bought, I would prefer it if judges could not give such ridiculous orders.

 

[Ramius75]

The judges are helping the publisher by further hyping up the book publicity, now that i think of it, maybe its a publicity gimmick.

anyway, its just a children book, and definitely not a classic literature.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Justice Kristi Gill last Saturday ordered customers not to talk about the book, copy it, sell it or even read it before it is officially released at 12:01 a.m. July 16.

I'm pretty sure this violates freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. While distributing copies of the book would be illegal due to copyright, anything else is and should be legal.

 

[Gelion]

Bah..........

 

[IglooDame]

There seems to be some weird stuff surroudning that. EVERY english (american) sources I've seen mention "forbidden to read it", but at the same time, not a single Canadian source mentions "reading it". Moreover the Canadian sources talks about the court ENCOURAGING them to return the book, not actually ordering them to do so.

As for "forbidden to reveal it". the content of the book IS JK Rowling's property, and she DOES have a right to keeping it private as long a she wishes. Once she releases the book to the public, then she can't really pull that sort of secret on it, but until then, she should be able to go to court to order people who inadvertently learn the truth to keep it shushed.

She "released it to the public" somewhere along the line where it was sent to the printing press for X million copies to be made, and certainly when it was shipped to stores it was effectively public. The reason it wasn't available at that point to Tom Dick and Harry is a private contractual agreement between the store and the publisher. That the store goofed up would seem to be a private matter between the two of them, I'm not clear about why a third party (store customers) should in effect be bound by that contract.

 

[S.P.Q.R.]

I can understand the "don't talk about it"- part, but the "don't read it" part is IMHO pretty silly.

 

[h4ppy]

Hmmm, the ruling was fair except the part about giving the book back, that is totally violating Canadians nonexistant right to property.

 

[Volum]

Only in erm.....Canada

 

[searcheagle]

I'm pretty sure this violates freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. While distributing copies of the book would be illegal due to copyright, anything else is and should be legal.

Which reminds us that Canadians do not have such rights spelled out in a constitution.

 

[farting bob]

Its just a bloody book, Its not like they stole it either, they were mistakenly sold it by the shop. I would have gotten a megaphone and stood outside my local bookshop the day of its official release and told evetryone the ending.

 

[North King]

Yes, they should return it.

a) It hasn't been released yet. And decry the Harry Potter books all you like, but they are big news. It's not "just a children's book", people of all ages and all over the world read them. And when they read them, they talk about them. A lot. Letting the people have the books is just asking for spoilers.

b) Having them read the book early goes completely against the author's wishes. Rowling has specifically said she wants everyone to read the book at the same time. It's her intellectual property, and it's her right to decide when people can read it. Case closed.

(coming out of boycott for this lone thread because I can't resist...)

 

[h4ppy]

Yes, they should return it.

a) It hasn't been released yet. And decry the Harry Potter books all you like, but they are big news. It's not "just a children's book", people of all ages and all over the world read them. And when they read them, they talk about them. A lot. Letting the people have the books is just asking for spoilers.

b) Having them read the book early goes completely against the author's wishes. Rowling has specifically said she wants everyone to read the book at the same time. It's her intellectual property, and it's her right to decide when people can read it. Case closed.

(coming out of boycott for this lone thread because I can't resist...)

So creators wishes are more important than property rights? Sorry but that is ridiculous.

 

[.Shane.]

I can only imagine this decision being appropriate if Canada has some kind of laws protecting release dates and such, but that seems prepostorous.

I'd love to know the legal justification. Do we have any Canadian lawyers here?