« Sony-BMG Deal with iMesh? |
Main
| Patents "More Burden Than Benefit" at Venture Level »
July 11, 2005
Canadian Judge Issues Harry Potter Gag Order
Posted by
Should people who bought the latest Harry Potter book before the release date be forced not only to return the book but also turn over "any photocopies, photographs or electronic copies of any portion of that book," as well as take a strict vow of silence about any elements of the story? A Canadian court thinks so. University of Ottawa law professor/uber-copyfighter Michael Geist thinks not:
People have legitimately purchased the book, yet now face violation of a court order if they fail to return it immediately, discuss it, or do anything else with the book. While a court might look skeptically on an attempt to bring an action against a purchaser who fails to return the book, why the court would grant such a broad order that reaches down to the underlying purchasers suggests that this could turn into a real horror story.
The
order could have been a simple injunction covering the bookstore in question; instead, it sounds like something from the PATRIOT Act. Is this truly necessary?
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Like YouTube for Business Documents
- No You Can't
- Like A Stack of Books 348 Feet Tall
- How Much Potter Does Rowling Own?
- Like Hope, But Different
- It's More Complicated, And More Interesting
- Can E-Zines Succeed?
- Bye Bye (Buy?) Baidu
1. matt on July 11, 2005 3:29 PM writes...
somehow i think that if the book in question had been along the lines of "how to make a better pancake" the court would have either thrown the case out all together, or at the very least only issued an injunction against the offending bookstores. however, since the book in question is both famous and highly sought after, they feel compelled to go way overboard with the ruling. what ever happened to the "justice is blind" ideal?
Permalink to Comment2. Kevin Kenny on July 11, 2005 9:52 PM writes...
Does Canadian law have the "first sale" doctrine,
Permalink to Commentor is that a US aberration?