Slashdot Mirror
Da Vinci Code Author Sued
riptalon writes "Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code, is being sued in the
UK for using ideas from a previous non fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
in his novel. The Bangkok Post states that 'The question the court is facing is whether you can copyright an idea, a conjecture.'"
Isn't the problem for the authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" that they claim their book is fact? If it were fiction, then they would probably have a viable copyright claim, but while they claim their book is fact, they have the problem that facts are not generally copyrightable. Ironic really!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Don't be too hard on the lawyers - it's just 99% of them that give the rest a bad name.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I forgot where I heard it, but someone had a fantastic joke about it:
Christians are protesting the DaVinci Code and developing texts refuting it. Apparently they're having difficulty believing that a book can be fiction.
Boy did I mangle that one. Anyway. -1 Overrated for ME!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Also, portions of the book were plagarized from Leigh's and Baigent's work.
One slight problem - Plaguerism does not equal copyright infringement. It commits an academic offense. Not legal, ethical.
As a writer of fiction, Brown has no obligation to give two shakes of a rat's ass about plaguerism. Now, he might want the world to take his writing a bit more seriously than "mere" fiction, in which case he has only hurt himself (if you can include "written a best seller that spawned a sure-blockbuster" in the definition of "hurt"). But as for legal remedy? As much as I enjoyed HB:HG, I'd have to agree with another poster that Baigent and Leight most likely just want to cash in here.
I have no patience for this untalented loser.
I thought it a fairly cute book. Get over yourself, 'kay? You don't have to read it or like it, just as you don't have to read or like "The Cat In the Hat", either. But you'd look like an idiot criticising the grammar therein.