Bad Reporting & Random House's Twisted Spin
This piece by Rachel Deahl from the April 20, 2006 issue of Publisher's Weekly Daily conveniently neglects the truth of the matter: I did not sue Random House.
The reporter in this case also reflects the defamatory nature of truly sloppy reporting, saying that I "had tried to cash in on his own copyright infringement case."
A little fact checking would have revealed that Random House sued me, not the other way around.
Doubleday's president and publisher Stephen Rubin was quoted: "We are tremendously pleased that now two Federal courts have found in favor of Dan Brown and that there were clearly no grounds for the claims against him."
No, Mr. Rubin: the facts are clear and on the web that there is a case. But you have a multi-billion-dollar company and enough money for lawyers to game the system.
Regardless of what the courts decide, the facts are there for everyone to see that there is a clear case against Mr. Brown and that is not going away.
The reporter in this case also reflects the defamatory nature of truly sloppy reporting, saying that I "had tried to cash in on his own copyright infringement case."
A little fact checking would have revealed that Random House sued me, not the other way around.
Doubleday's president and publisher Stephen Rubin was quoted: "We are tremendously pleased that now two Federal courts have found in favor of Dan Brown and that there were clearly no grounds for the claims against him."
No, Mr. Rubin: the facts are clear and on the web that there is a case. But you have a multi-billion-dollar company and enough money for lawyers to game the system.
Regardless of what the courts decide, the facts are there for everyone to see that there is a clear case against Mr. Brown and that is not going away.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 5:50 PM
31 Comments:
I am glad to see you are still keeping up with getting your case heard. I read "The Da Vinci Legacy" after I read "The Da Vinci Code" with some scepticism, but found your book a joy to read. David (of goliath fame) had it easy compared to your battle with the corporate monster. I wish you well and will continue to enjoy your books and blogs.
Thanks
Thank you for your kind words and best wishes.
While my case amply shows that the U.S. Court system may be "of the rich, for the rich and by the rich" I have faith that justice will eventually be done.
Bad reporting is rampant these days. None more evident than in science where denier sceptics get equal billing with NASA and NSF. Justice can be found if the facts are actually reported and listened to. Let's hope they will.
More of the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25book.html
Imagine it. A half-million first book deal for a teenager. And a plaigiarist to boot.
Well, in today's publishing climate:
- truth is irrelevant;
- honesty is its own punishment,
- and those who believe in integrity should be prepared to be satisfied solely by the emotional satisfaction it provides because it will certainly not be rewarded.
I don't believe in "plagiarism". The idea is somewhat less important than ability to put it across. Otherwise you can argue that Shakespear should not be given any credit for any of his plays.
shlemazl: I would agree. Ideas are not protected but tge "ability to put it across" certainly is. That's called expression and that is what Dan Brown stole from me.
60 Minutes did a piece on the FACT page claims and the Plantard hoax. In other words now they know DVC is based on a fraud. And that's just the storyline, not that he stole the structure and scenecraft from other authors.
Well, that is to say from you specifically and exclusively. I mean when the same people are doign the same things on the same page there's a lot to question. My view is Code should have been pulled like the Harvard girl's recent half-million dollar atrocity.
Yes, Mark, I agree.
But we can never forget that Random House/Bertelsmann has the billions to make sure that they can buy the justice they want.
That much is clear.
But I believe the truth will come one one day and the lies will catch up to all of them: RH, Dan, Blythe etc.
RH's Karl Rove-like spin and smear machine cannot last forever.
Sure is Rovian indeed. Still it's good the Harvard girl is being taken to task. They found more taken from other authors today. Precedent?
Penguin dropped the Indian girl.
Random House made sure that she was a sacrificial offering.
This is hypocrisy at its extreme. They will cover up for Dan Brown and crucify anyone who plagiarizes them.
The textual similarities in my case are as similar as those in this one ... and mine has hundreds more plagiarisms to boot.
But RH can't STAND to be plagiarized ... but plagiaring others is okay.
Unfortunate that hypocrisy is not a crime. We could put away Random House, its execs, lawyers ... and while we're prosecuting for plagiarism, we could lock up Congress, the White House and the RNC and DNC.
They are all such a waste of oxygen.
Yes. It was Little Brown not Penguin. Big liars get over. I can see that clearly.
- truth is irrelevant;
- honesty is its own punishment,
As someone who until recently worked in the publishing industry for a decade, I've felt their deep cynicism towards original ideas. They've lost their way, where the currency of ideas is second to financial and proprietary games. Perhaps that's why we're seeing a trend toward shameless retreads, even plagiarism when it fills a market niche.
Whether or not you find satisfaction in your case, I hope you find consolation in your achievements. I for one cannot console myself with that miserably written Da Vinci Code; is this good literature? As consumers, we have power over the media giants. We don't need them, but they need us.
It is indeed depressing when the liars win. I posted that I "thought" I was the youngest Eagle Scout ever at just 13 on my blog and someone came along with a citation of a new winner at 12.5 after 30 years and called me a liar. Funny how actually lying about the actual date worked for L. Ron Hubbard?
I know publishers certainly don't want the work I've submitted to date. Seems like a bad time for any business except shammery.
An honest mistake is not a lie.
Thanks. Are you going to see the movie? And what is your opinion of of your publisher? I'm thinking about just slushpilng my global warming novel with them first as to avoid the drear prospect of flubbing around with "not for me" 75 times over two years like I've been doing.
I saw it and thought they did a good job. It stuck to the book to the letter. McKellan was really good.
No, not planning to see movie. Like the book, it seems like a waste of time and money.
I no longer have a publisher.
My FORMER publisher? Better than some, worse than others.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow. I sure sorry to hear that. What pardon the expression, crucifixtion
If I may be so bold, from my research into Lew's case and having read all of the books in question Brown via Blythe copied made up history created by Lew complete with certain mistakes, a dead give away.
Tinaw:
No, not concepts. I've written about this issue estensively on this blog over the past two years.
If you go back to the main page,
http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/
and read the material at the top,
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 are trying to make me pay the 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
You will find linkks to the several hundred detailed and significant inatances of plagiarism.
Thank's Mark ... it's hard when someone comes late to the game and has not read the facts.
You betcha. From what I've seen getting the check to clear is the important thing. Fraud artists seem to get them easier than artists or craftpersons.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for the kind words, Michael.
Yes, even if I were to lose all the legal rounds (rigged, as we have demonstrated, by Random House's billion$$$), the truth is clear to those who take the time to look at the evidence.
Post a Comment
<< Home