PLEASE READ THESE FACTS FIRST:

  • Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.


Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Bloggers Making an Impact

We're all aware of some of the major stories that were ignored by the old media and picked up by bloggers.

The Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code story seems to be following that pattern. Google, Technorati, Waypath and several other search devices for blogs indicates that Da Vinci Crock has been picked up by several hundred blogs with links to them from more than 2,000 other sites.

Spanish language and Japanese blogs are the largest non-English blogs to pick up the stories, but we have Finnish, German, Austrian, French, Italian, Canadian and other countries.

The foreign media seem to have started to pick up on this and I've done interviews with some of the largest media outlets in Italy, Israel and Spain. They tell me that the sorts of truth-twisting going on in this case would not be tolerated in their courts. They're also tremendously interested in the Dan Brown affidavit issues.

I understand that Random House has a tremendous promotion, media relations and spin machine, but the truth is out there and it won't go back into the bottle. Bloggers don't fit into a mammoth corporation's pockets quite as well as a lot of the old media do.

Finally, there seems to be a universal befuddlement about why Random House is trying so desperately to deny me a public trial on this. If they have the facts, then they should have nothing to worry about.

2 Comments:

Blogger Jocelyn Smith said...

Finally, there seems to be a universal befuddlement about why Random House is trying so desperately to deny me a public trial on this. If they have the facts, then they should have nothing to worry about.

Now, that's not quite fair. They also have a massive public relations uproar to worry about even if all the facts are on their side.

For example: what if (I'm NOT saying this is the case) you were arguing that YOU had the copyright on the "feminine history of God" argument and nobody else could ever use it. Some writers have done that in past cases, and the law is universally against it. The court would rule against you, BUT, much of the lay public would still say, "but the books are just alike" and condemn Brown for it.

Copyright Law is darn hard to understand. That can work in your favor OR in Random House's favor, but no matter who is right, it's darn hard to explain the details to the quick-to-jump-to-conclusions public. You're talking about why you need expert witnesses to show your "literary fingerprint"--try explaining THAT to a horde of Da Vinci Code fans! And you have a lot less to lose monetarily (at least in plain numbers) than Random House does.

Apologies: studying for exams makes me contrary. I too grabbed this case for my little blog, because it's very interesting and I HONESTLY don't have enough information to make a full judgment. If Dan Brown had a blog on this case, I'd be over there arguing with him too. :-)

Thu May 12, 06:57:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

"If Dan Brown had a blog on this case, I'd be over there arguing with him too. :-)"

Darned good question: Yes, where IS Dan Brown?

He makes no statements and seldom appears in public and only in the most controlled of circumstances.

He won't appear in court, won't even take the minimal time to sign an affidavit.

You make another very good point: it would be wrong for me to argue that I "had the copyright on the 'feminine history of God' argument..."

Random House is INcorrectly trying to tell people that is what I am arguing when my court filings clearly show that I am claiming protection for my expression.

The Random House MISinformation machine does succeed because of the "quick-to-jump-to-conclusions public" AND a lazy, old-media too reluctant (or too much in the corporate bed with RH) to do their own research.

Thu May 12, 07:18:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home