Sampo: The Journal of Abundant Media pete @ slis | resume | shelob | otaku soundsystem | lawn wranglers
SAMPO!

Fatback at Dahlak: Washington, DC

The views expressed on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not represent my employer, Media Matters for America

Social Media & Research
Blog Research on Genre
BROG Research Blog
SLIS Blogs

Crew
ChikinSandowichi
Dopaminergic
Dystopianethic
Easily Amusing
Esperanza
found_drama
A Found Object
Ickyfoot
lady3jane
Modus Ponens
m00se
Pyrex
Radikal_Papi
Real Tegan
Rites
Synaptic Clog
thewrongtim Winona

LibraryBlogs
Abada Abada
Librarian.Net
Tame the Web

Creative Commons License

RSS

Sat, 16 Jul 2005

The Right to Read

There's an interesting situation up north...

This morning, Sarah mentioned that her copy of the latest Harry Potter novel, which she pre-ordered months ago on the promise that it would arrive today, the day of it's official release, has been in Bloomington for days, apparently sitting in storage at UPS. This got me thinking about the embargo that has been placed on the book by the publisher, an embargo that led to a Canadian 'John Doe' injunction prohibiting consumers who were sold the book by mistake from reading it.

J. K. Rowling’s legal advisers said that the author was entitled to prevent buyers from reading their own books even though they had not broken the law.

“The fact is that this is property that should not have been in their possession,” said Neil Blair, a legal specialist for Christopher Little, the author’s literary agent. “Copyright holders are entitled to protect their work. If the content of the book is confidential until July 16, which it is, why shouldn’t someone who has the physical book be prevented from reading it and thereby obtaining the confidential information? How they came to have access to the book is immaterial.”

British lawyers described the injunction as “unfair and excessive” but added that the reader did not have a right in law to read the book. Korieh Duodu, a media lawyer for David Price Solicitors and Advocates, said: “I have never heard of such a wide-ranging order. One sympathises with the reader from a non-legal point of view, but property rights often trump civil liberties. There is no human right to read.”

So, do human beings have a fundamental right to read? Though we're obviously not comparing like things when we talk about the U.S. and Canadian legal traditions, I don't doubt that we would have seen similar results in this country. Is your right to speak matched by your right to hear, or do the rights of the speaker extend to the point where they can effectively block you from hearing if they so choose?

Richard Stallman has asked Potter fans not to buy the book based on the action described above. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him.

comments permanent link


Sampo Method

The Sampo Method: Still The Best!

Match all of the following conditions: date added in the last two weeks, genre does not contain "mix," limit to 10 songs, sort by most often played."

Callin' U (Guitar Mix)			A:xus
Mr. Brown				Bob Marley
Bird in Hand				Lee "Scratch" Perry
You've Been Loud Too Long		Asha Puthli
Fred Wesley & The JB's			Blow Your Head
Getting to the other side		Bohannon
Filler					Minor Threat
N.Y. State Of Mind			NaS
The Hand That Feeds (DFA Remix)		Nine Inch Nails
Public Enemy No.1			Public Enemy

comments permanent link