An Odd Quashing Of Free Speech

[Luke T.]

So...nobody is outraged/bothered/annoyed that the government can prevent someone from talking about a book they read?

 

[pgwenthold]

Like Aristotle, I think there are different kinds of "good". The Potter books are good in the sense that they are entertaining and imaginative, with engaging characters and an interesting plot. They aren't "good" in the sense of Great Literature, but then, sometimes Great Literature is Great but not very good at all.

I agree. Charlotte's Web, for example, may not be Great Literature, but it's an awesome book.

Five bucks says Dumbledore bites it, or at least appears to, in this book.

I've started a Harry Potter speculation thread over in History & Lit. BS comments are welcome there...

 

[richardm]

So...nobody is outraged/bothered/annoyed that the government can prevent someone from talking about a book they read?

Well, in order of importance, firstly it's not the government, it's a court injunction. The booksellers were under contractual obligation not to release the books until the release date. They released them early apparently by mistake, and the lawyers pounced.

Secondly, on Saturday they can talk about it all they want. So it's just a few days delay.

Last and least, every time one of these books comes out there is a huge circus, with literally millions of people getting their copies at the same time. It's a bit of a spoilsport attitude that would want to reveal the secrets before the book was even available to them.

 

[Luke T.]

Well, in order of importance, firstly it's not the government, it's a court injunction.

If the court isn't the government, what is?

The booksellers were under contractual obligation not to release the books until the release date. They released them early apparently by mistake, and the lawyers pounced.

So shouldn't it be the bookseller who is pounced on? Not the buyer?

Secondly, on Saturday they can talk about it all they want. So it's just a few days delay.

So it is okay to suppress free speech about a work of fiction as long as it is for a finite period? What is your time limit?

Last and least, every time one of these books comes out there is a huge circus, with literally millions of people getting their copies at the same time. It's a bit of a spoilsport attitude that would want to reveal the secrets before the book was even available to them.

And that warrants government intervention? Spoilsportedness?

 

[drkitten]

Well, in order of importance, firstly it's not the government, it's a court injunction.

The courts are usually considered to be a branch of the government. Remember "Three Ring Circus"?

The booksellers were under contractual obligation not to release the books until the release date. They released them early apparently by mistake, and the lawyers pounced.

So the booksellers screwed up. Why should their patrons have to suffer for it?

Last time I got a pair of glasses, the optometrist messed up (and used a higher grade of glass than I had specified in the contract). He apologized and threw in the upgrade for free. If he had tried to charge me for the upgrade, I might have told him to re-make the glasses. But if he had not even noticed the mistake until I had left the store and then come after me later with a demand for payment, I would probably not have been that charitable.

 

[richardm]

The courts are usually considered to be a branch of the government. Remember "Three Ring Circus"?

Really? I tend not to think of them that way. Possibly it's just me.

So the booksellers screwed up. Why should their patrons have to suffer for it?

In what way are they suffering from it? The purchasers have been asked to return their books, and if they do so they will receive them back on Saturday signed by the author. If they choose not to do so, they can keep the books - but they are bound by an injunction not to reveal any of the plot to the media.

Last time I got a pair of glasses, the optometrist messed up (and used a higher grade of glass than I had specified in the contract). He apologized and threw in the upgrade for free. If he had tried to charge me for the upgrade, I might have told him to re-make the glasses. But if he had not even noticed the mistake until I had left the store and then come after me later with a demand for payment, I would probably not have been that charitable.

Don't think this is quite the same thing. It is not as though the people who have the book are going to be asked to pay for it again on Saturday.

 

[richardm]

If the court isn't the government, what is?

The court was asked to intervene by Party A vs. Party B. That is far from uncommon. It's not as though the Prime Minister stepped up to try to suppress it. If someone successfully sued McDonalds for making them obese and got awarded damages, would you say that "The government has fined McDonalds for making people obese!"? That seems a strange way of looking at things.

So shouldn't it be the bookseller who is pounced on? Not the buyer?

The bookseller could have been prosecuted under the terms of the contract, but this doesn't appear to have happened. Instead, the buyers - who were not contractually bound - have had to have an injunction raised against them to stop them revealing the plot.

So it is okay to suppress free speech about a work of fiction as long as it is for a finite period? What is your time limit?

On a case by case basis, sure, why not? There are cliffhangers and plot devices that have successfully been kept secret for more than a year. So why not endeavour to keep them so for a few more days?

I suspect that two buttons have been pressed, here: "GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION" and "FREE SPEECH", which mean that any answer I give will be unsatisfactory to you, because to you they are completely sacrosanct. So I propose a 99 year minimum period, just to be arsey

And that warrants government intervention? Spoilsportedness?

Again, it is the courts arbitrating between Party A and Party B. Don't want to give the impression that it's the Prime Minister making a personal intervention! It is much the same sort of court intervention that happens hundreds of times a year, and frankly it seems no more trivial than a lot of the bullsh!t that comes their way.

 

[drkitten]

In what way are they suffering from it?

You answer your own question.

They are bound by an injunction not to reveal any of the plot to the media.

I'd say being told "Don't do this or you will be fined and/or put in jail" qualifies as "suffering," or at least a restriction on their freedom.

Suppose I read it and discovered that it was completely age-inappropriate. (That shower scene between Ron and Hagrid, for example.) I can't warn people that J.R. has gone completely off her trolley and that they should not under any circumstances give this book to their child. It I do, I risk substantial penalties.

Granted, that's an unlikely situation. But that's the point. Neither the publisher, nor the bookseller, should have the right or the authority to restrict what I say about a book that I have bought and paid for.

 

[drkitten]

The court was asked to intervene by Party A vs. Party B.

Which is exactly why it's inappropriate to sanction party C.

That is far from uncommon. It's not as though the Prime Minister stepped up to try to suppress it. If someone successfully sued McDonalds for making them obese and got awarded damages, would you say that "The government has fined McDonalds for making people obese!"?

No, because McDonalds is a party to the dispute. It would, however, be inappropriate for me to sue my doctor for malpractice in allowing me to get fat -- and then the court to find McDonalds' as a result.

The dispute is between the booksellers and the publisher. The resolution thus should also be between the booksellers and the publisher, not the bookstore patrons.

The bookseller could have been prosecuted under the terms of the contract, but this doesn't appear to have happened. Instead, the buyers - who were not contractually bound - have had to have an injunction raised against them to stop them revealing the plot.

Yes. That's the point. The buyers -- who were not contractually bound -- are under no obligation to the publisher whatsoever.

There's a well-established body of case law on this point, under the heading of "trade secrets." And the law is very clear that I am under no obligation to protect a secret that I received without a corresponding provision of "confidence."

 

[richardm]

Okay, well, we're not going to agree on this. I think so long as things like this are done on a case-by-case basis there is no harm.

Let's face it, there is not going to be anything age-inappropriate of that nature in the book. The only motive people would have for going to the media would be to blow the plot and make some money. This, in turn, could potentially reduce the sales from the book, or so it has been argued (successfully) in court. I think it is right that people have the right to take legal steps to protect their income.

 

[Luke T.]

The court was asked to intervene by Party A vs. Party B. That is far from uncommon. It's not as though the Prime Minister stepped up to try to suppress it. If someone successfully sued McDonalds for making them obese and got awarded damages, would you say that "The government has fined McDonalds for making people obese!"? That seems a strange way of looking at things.

That is exactly how I would look at it. But in the case of someone suing McDonald's, it would involve a jury trial, so the reaction would be "The idiot jury..."

The bookseller could have been prosecuted under the terms of the contract, but this doesn't appear to have happened. Instead, the buyers - who were not contractually bound - have had to have an injunction raised against them to stop them revealing the plot.

On a case by case basis, sure, why not? There are cliffhangers and plot devices that have successfully been kept secret for more than a year. So why not endeavour to keep them so for a few more days?

The key here is that "contractually bound" description. Plot devices have been kept secret by parties to contracts. There is no contract on the part of a buyer of a book. The contract is completely on the seller/provider.

I suspect that two buttons have been pressed, here: "GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION" and "FREE SPEECH", which mean that any answer I give will be unsatisfactory to you, because to you they are completely sacrosanct. So I propose a 99 year minimum period, just to be arsey

Maybe it isn't so paranoid to wish one could buy a freaking book without the world knowing what you are reading and lawyers and the courts goosestepping arm-in-arm on your porch.

Again, it is the courts arbitrating between Party A and Party B. Don't want to give the impression that it's the Prime Minister making a personal intervention! It is much the same sort of court intervention that happens hundreds of times a year, and frankly it seems no more trivial than a lot of the bullsh!t that comes their way.

Government intervention is government intevention. In fact, the institutional, faceless nature of this case makes it all the more insidious.

 

[richardm]

There's a well-established body of case law on this point, under the heading of "trade secrets." And the law is very clear that I am under no obligation to protect a secret that I received without a corresponding provision of "confidence."

Then why did the injunction succeed?

 

[Luke T.]

Then why did the injunction succeed?

A damned good question.

 

[pgwenthold]

Which is exactly why it's inappropriate to sanction party C.

I'm not sure that follows. It is most certainly a complicated legal question about what to do with Party C, who are benefiting from Party B's contract breaking (i.e. illegal) actions against Party A.

 

[Chanileslie]

You know, I work in a bookstore part-time. The Harry Potter book has come in and has been sitting in our 'secure' area for over a week now. For a cool $2 or $3 million (US currency), I could get an 'advance' copy because the 'secure' area which is supposed to be locked up, is not.

 

[Luke T.]

You know, I work in a bookstore part-time. The Harry Potter book has come in and has been sitting in our 'secure' area for over a week now. For a cool $2 or $3 million (US currency), I could get an 'advance' copy because the 'secure' area which is supposed to be locked up, is not.

Swarm! Swarm!

[/Seinfeld bookstore reference]

 

[Matabiri]

It would be interesting to see numbers for that, actually. How many of them really only read HP? How many go to similar books (the Dark Materials, for example), and use HP as a springboard elsewhere? Be interesting to know.

I can't recall the numbers - this was a newspaper article after the third (?) book was published, I think. Just as the phenomenon was taking off. There were lists of "other books you might like to read while waiting for the next Potter", and booksellers talking about how sales of other books really hadn't risen in connection (see also this rather depressing article on the plight of children's authors).

With the wait for each new book lengthening, though, and the original readership becoming older and more mature, maybe that has changed and they are reading other books in the meantime.

At any rate, current levels of literacy in kids leaving school is too low. In 1998 (just after the first book was published), level 4 (the expected standard for their age) was achieved by only 65% of 11-year-olds in English. It's my opinion that even if you're right and the kids only read HP, then that will still have the effect of increasing their literacy, and I can't see that as a bad thing overall.

I think the level of literacy of the "average" British adult is depressingly low, though. I can be terribly snobbish about these things, and it irritates me when I see so many people reading Harry Potter or Dan Brown (due to the hype) when they could be reading Patrick O'Brien, George MacDonald Fraser, or Raymond Chandler, who are technically much, much better writers (pacing, characterisation, use of metaphor, allegory, extended vocabulary etc.).

Incidentally, I first encountered HP quite late on, when I found Goblet of Fire (the fourth in the series) in a bookshelf in a place I was on holiday at. I thought I'd see what all the fuss was about, but couldn't get on with it at all. The writing style seemed very poor (I'd just finished reading some George MacDonald Fraser so the contrast was particularly stark), and the story confusing with plenty of irrelevancies.

I've tried reading a few, and just can't get past how bad the writing is (although I understand it's improved a lot in the last one or two) - I give up within two pages. There are so many other books I can read instead - I don't feel the need to persist.

Interestingly, an English graduate friend of mine, who does like the books, described them as "wholly subordinate to the plot". That is, consistent characterisation and believability of action (wouldn't a lot of problems be solved by, say, asking Dumbledore about them earlier?) don't matter to Rowling - she's got a plot in her head that requires certain characters to be in a certain place at a certain time, and she'll do whatever it takes to set that situation up, at the expense of the characters. If you don't mind this (and many people don't, it seems), the books provide a grand plot and a rollicking good yarn. If you find yourself shouting, "Oh for goodness sake! Why?!" you probably won't get much out of them.

Bruce Sterling is occasionally similar, at least in the things I've read, but he gets away with it by being ludicrously inventive the rest of the time.

 

[Silicon]

So...nobody is outraged/bothered/annoyed that the government can prevent someone from talking about a book they read?

The Canadian government.

I don't know squat about how their intellectual property laws work.

 

[drkitten]

I'm not sure that follows. It is most certainly a complicated legal question about what to do with Party C, who are benefiting from Party B's contract breaking (i.e. illegal) actions against Party A.

Actually, no. It's a very clear example of "trade secrecy," where the contents of the book is a trade secret of the publishers that the booksellers are contractually bound to respect.

A typical phrasing (I believe this is from Texas) regarding liability is as follows: a person "who discloses or uses another’s trade secrets, without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other if(a) he discovers the secret by improper means, or (b) his disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence reposed in him by the other in disclosing the secret to him.”

Neither a) nor b) applies. There was certainly nothing improper about a bookstore patron buying a book in keeping with normal business practice; the responsibility was on the bookseller to keep the book off the shelf. Similarly, there's no "breach of confidence," since there's no reasonable expectation of confidence assumed in normal business practice between a book buyer and the store.

The bookseller, on the other hand, is clearly in breach of confidence (and of contract) with the publisher.

Again, under typical law (Texas, again) "no defendant may be liable, however, unless he has 'disclosed' or 'used' the secret improperly."

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, no. It's a very clear example of "trade secrecy," where the contents of the book is a trade secret of the publishers that the booksellers are contractually bound to respect.

But what are the legal restrictions on third parties who obtain their information legally from a party who distributed it legally?

A typical phrasing (I believe this is from Texas) regarding liability is as follows: a person "who discloses or uses another’s trade secrets, without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other if(a) he discovers the secret by improper means, or (b) his disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence reposed in him by the other in disclosing the secret to him.”

Neither a) nor b) applies. There was certainly nothing improper about a bookstore patron buying a book in keeping with normal business practice; the responsibility was on the bookseller to keep the book off the shelf. Similarly, there's no "breach of confidence," since there's no reasonable expectation of confidence assumed in normal business practice between a book buyer and the store.

So if a friend of mine steals a DVD, and lets me borrow it (and I know it is stolen), the government can't stop me from watching it.