• 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.
  • NO expert testimony was allowed despite three international plagiarism experts who were willing to testif that it existed.
  • 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.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Dan: Just "Reworking" Not Plagiarizing?

Regardless of how the trial comes out in London, Dan and Blythe are now known as shameless rippers-off of other people's work -- a far cry from their previous statements about their so-called extensive research.

As a university faculty member, I frequently gave an "F" to unoriginal and desperate college students who diligently to altered what they copied in hopes that the copying would not be discovered.

London shows clearly why Random House is so desperate to keep my issues from coming to trial, why they had to sue me to shut me up and why they would not let Dan testify under oath here.

Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 15, 12:25 PM ET

LONDON - Dan Brown returned to the witness stand Wednesday and acknowledged "reworking" passages from an earlier book for his best-selling novel "The Da Vinci Code," but he firmly rejected charges that he ripped off key ideas for his conspiracy thriller.

Brown said "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was "one of the books in the mix" when he and his wife, Blythe Brown, were researching the novel.

He acknowledged "reworking" passages from the earlier book.

"That's how you incorporate research into a novel," Brown said.

No, Dan. That's NOT how you incorporate research, at least not ethically, anyway.

Steal a little here, steal a little there. Alter the little pieces of fabric to hide the source, then stitch them together and produce a totally derivative and unoriginal patchwork quilt that you call your own and hope that no one notices the copying ... or that you have skirted the legalities.


Blogger Mark said...

That's about it. I wonder about using real quotes and positions for fictional characters as well, but attribution would still apply, making it different.

Mon Mar 20, 08:15:00 AM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Well, Steve, I am not much a believer in astrology, nor do I believe that generalizations make for plagiarism.

If you'll take the time to look at the facts, you'll find that there are hundreds of very specific thefts of my ideas.

We're not talking C F G here, we're talking about ripping off whole verses, stanzas and even making the same mistakes in the notated score.

It ain't a pretty tune.

Blatant plagiarists have gone down for a lot less than this.

Thu Mar 30, 03:12:00 PM PST  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Unionsbuerger: Entschuldenung, aber I spreche Deutche nichts sehr gut.

Ich einwillige mit Kommentieren betrachten dem Catholic lehre und Geschichte.

TO OTHER READERS: My German is rusty, but in summary, Unionsbuerger made the point that he thinks that the legends/history regarding Templars, Sarah the daughter of Jesus and similar topics are as believable ro him as many of the myths created by Opus Dei and the Catholic church.

I agreed with his assessment.

Wed May 17, 06:48:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home