On July 9 2005 the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued an astonishing injunction against anyone who had bought or obtained a copy of a book.
The injunction, a John and Jane Doe order, forbade anyone who had received a copy of the book from:
• copying the whole or part of the book;
• disclosing any information from the book;
• selling displaying or publicly exhibiting the book;
• making any use of the book;
• destroying, concealing, parting with possession of the book OR any notes or descriptions of it;
• returning all copies, notes or descriptions of the book BUT deleting electronic copies;
The extensive order seems more reminiscent of censorship in apartheid South Africa than a constitutional society such as Canada. The ban on disclosing any information amounts to a ban on talking about the book. Almost the only thing that wasn’t banned was thinking about the book, perhaps due to difficulties in enforcement.
Why would a court do that?Did the book terrify children with graphic descriptions of eldritch midnight spell casting?
Did the book seduce tender young minds to practice the dark arts?
No, this was about money.
The release date for the sixth book in the best selling Harry Potter series had been set as 16 July 2005. The publishers had supplied the books to retailers with strict instructions that they not be sold before that date. Real Canadian Superstore inadvertently sold fifteen copies.
As a consequence J K Rowling and her Canadian publishers sought and obtained the far reaching injunction against bona fide purchasers and their lawful successors in title. The relief was ostensibly based on copyright and intended to try to prevent advance information about the book from affecting sales.
Certainly the events don’t seem to have affected sales, according to Wikipedia
“In 24 hours, the book sold 6.9 million copies in the United States alone, roughly about 250,000 books per hour, making it the fastest selling book in history. It generated over $100 million in sales”
It seems inconceivable that a court would give such a far reaching order in an action based on defamation or privacy. A criminal law which prevented even the destruction and discussion of censored material would most likely be found unconstitutional. What interest could override freedom of expression so dramatically?
Since the reasons for judgment have not yet been forthcoming from the
Victoria Supreme Court we don’t know.
However based on Statements by Raincoast Books it seems that the right of publication was the basis.