babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Raincoast is a proud sponsor of Freedom to Read Week

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Raincoast is a proud sponsor of Freedom to Read Week
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 July 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.raincoast.com/harrypotter/injunction-commentary.html
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 July 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact that a short-sighted book publisher can, with a straight face, attempt to justify using court orders to stop people from reading is a sign that the law of so-called Intellectual Property has gone way too far.

Despite the bogus legal opinions of Olser Hoskin, it has never been the case that reading the unpublished writing of someone else is illegal without their permission. Copyright law does not purport to prevent people from reading.

And the fact that the courts would issue an ex parte injunction to enforce an artificial embargo invented by the Harry Potter marketing juggernaut tells us a lot about whose interests the courts want to protect. Whatever happened to the requirement of showing irreparable harm?

Read what Michael Geist has to say.

Or Russell McOrmond

Or even Rex Murphy

Edited to add another Michael Geist link.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 July 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, according to Michael Geist, Raincoast Books didn't even get everything they wanted from the court.

quote:
First, Raincoast Books sought an order that not only would curtail basic freedoms but it also targeted individual privacy by literally seeking legal authority to compel disclosure about anyone who may have learned of the contents of the book. Second, the judge that issued this order did indeed consider the consequences of the order and amazingly felt that it was appropriate to limit the freedom to read, freedom of speech, and the freedom of personal property.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 17 July 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A question (and I'd *particularly* like to hear from some of our babble lawyers, if possible)...

Even though the book is widely available now, would it be worthwhile to challenge this ruling just to ensure that it does not become a precedent, because of our court system's reliance on precedence?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 17 July 2005 11:31 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I doubt if it would be worth it. An ex parte injunction would not have much precential value in any case, since no one was there to oppose the Raincoast argument.

The best way to undercut what value it has would be for law professors and other specialists to criticize the judge in law review articles as well as in the more widely available public prints.

The Globe, for example, which was prevented from running a midnight book review (because it must have been based on "stolen" reading), should commission someone knowledgeable to make mincemeat of the order.

What this case shows though, is how pernicious ex parte injunctions (the ones they use against labour unions particularly) can be.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca