dan brown

[Dixie]

It's funny to me how they use those as their evidence.

LOL To me they do not have any evidence. They just want their share of the delicious cake Dan is tasting

I can't wait to see the movie!!

[tikay]

Hi girls!
I have been trying to keep my opinion to myself because I basically dissagree with you but I didn't feel a need to say so...yet. I have to say something now.
Considering that the book authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" have a perfect right to file suit on the grounds of plagerism, if their tome has been in fact plagerized...I have to go with these people.
I just put my self in the position of both parties.
If I have a future book including the copyright rights and responsibliities....I hope to have the same right to sue in such a case. If they have been ripped off they have rights like everyone else. I think that if they are envious of the fortune and fame is of no consequence....it does not even matter. They are saying he ripped them off in some ways...if this is so he should have to pay. If it is found to be untrue then he has the exact same rights to file a suit against them for damages to recover any lost fees and downtime (lost wages) for court appearances... lawyers fees and the like. at least he has the money to fight them if he is right. He can afford a decent lawyer unlike some of us....and I believe, that
Dan Brown did not have to use any particular names sothat he may have been in effect giving them and their publishers the finger, so to speak....if so he may have stuck it to himself, doing the book as he did insted of leaving out any connections to them without their prior permission. Thus... he has just made a grave mistake, and is being brought to justice....under copyright laws...because he did not honor the same protection he has on his own book....in my opinion. He is playing a game he should lose if he does not respect the work of other writers. That deserves to be combated.
If he is going to write he should follow the rules like anyone else. He may have asked for permission and they refused then he went ahead and did it anyway...we dont have all the details.

Well....I had to just say that under the first amendmant we have a right to free speech but under the copyright infringment laws we do not have a right to benefit (financially) from other persons works without permission.
Last point is there are about a hundred books (at the very least) about the illuminatti/ white brotherhood/ and secret societies...so they may have a hard time proving that he plagerized from their book and not someone elses so it must be very close....or exact even I think. and the anagram of the name ...well that may be impossible to prove...that there is any connection other than pure coincidence, unless hthese forces (people) were already engaged in some sort of battle or rivalry... so they will probably lose out there.

It is basically political ....something they need to fight out in court...proving thier case or losing and may the best man win.
Ethics are not something to smirk about though. If Dan B. did something un-ethical...let him pay for it I say.
That does not mean I cant appreciate his book or that he writes fairly well...just that he needs to pay the consequences for his mistakes, like everyone else.
Too bad sometimes money takes precidence over justice systems in this country...I am sick of people who have money doing anything they like and getting away with it. I think of Michael Jackson who most probably molested little boys (and got off) in more ways than one...and of OJ Simpson...who probably KILLED two people and did not have to serve time....much harsher examples but I think the person who disregards the rights of his neighbor and laughs at the laws meant to protect them...should be made to pay. Otherwise pure chaos might ensue...
anyway...my opinion.
I still liked Dan's book...but it was sort of redundant for me because I knew most of what he wrote about already.

[MissLT]

I agree with your post, but one thing is, didn't Dan have a list of reference where he got the source from? I mean, he wasn't that careless, was he?

[tikay]

Can you tell I finished my paralegal classes? Hahah-haah!
so happy that, that is over! I am doing internship at Van Nuys Couthouse....putting motions and lawsuits into files... for the last couple o days....first day I put four files...papers, in the wrong year! The wrong files entirely!
OMG I couldn't figure out how to fix the problem at first because i was so stressed out about what I had possibly done...then I couldn't decide if I should go tell or not....I could not at first because I was freaking out about it. I needed to come up with a remedy first...so I told first thing next morning and asked to remedy the situation....going through every file and finding the lost documents to put them in the right file number - the right year of the case, number.
Imagine if I had said oh well let them worry about it....what would have happened to those peoples cases?
Maybe the files would have been discovered in time to be put right by the persons whos case came up first and maybe not.
I did not want to be responsible for someones case being blown because I was not trained as to the importance of not making on mistake in filing/ because I was careless for five minutes.
I remembered the 7000's was where I had made the mistake and went through all 1000 files in a few hours. 2003 files were returned to thier proper spot and 2006 was back to normal, within a couple of hours....no sweat...except for all my stress for about six hours til I figured out what to do and how to do it.
peace everybody!
SO! do good works, & be a good person, and good things will come to you....even if it takes a very long time! (Llike in my case!)

My personal (made-up) quote of the day.
I may be a head case, but, at least my head is in a good place!

[tikay]

A list of referance is no good without permission. All plagerism is...is not having gotten the proper authority from other authors when you use their wording. If he had asked for permission and they refused to give it this may be the problem.

[MissLT]

A list of referance is no good without permission. All plagerism is...is not having gotten the proper authority from other authors when you use their wording. If he had asked for permission and they refused to give it this may be the problem.

This is what I'm thinking, too. I don't think he wouldn't ask for their permission to use their work as a reference for his book. I mean, the guy should know better since he's a writer. And the wikipedia article said,

"In the book Brown also mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail as an acclaimed international bestseller (chapter 60) and claims it as the major contributor to his hypothesis."

He did mention them and gave out the source. I wonder they're going for this case because their permission to him was verbal; therefore, they could say he never actually asked them for their permission?

[tikay]

I've watched a documentary about the DaVinci code, and they did mention something about the holy blood and the holy grail. That book came way before the da vinci code. That's why they said he's stealing their work. I'll check for this info again.

I downloaded a documentary about it not long ago. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail talked about their book and The Da Vinci Code, and other authors as well. They didn't seem very happy with Brown's novel. I remember one of them talking about the postures of Christ and Mary Magdalene in Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and saying something like "...which we first pointed out, not Mr. Brown".

I don't see what the fuss is all about anyway. I'm going to get The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail so I can figure out. I never thought both books could be compared. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the result of an exhaustive research, whereas Brown's just a fictional novel based on that info.

I guess they also want their share of the cake

They words above, that I have emboldened, is the part that I am commenting on...
I wanted to say something when I read it but I just laughed about them saying that, and moved on...but are they joking....FIRST? they did not first point out anything...the first book on the gnostic version of Christs life and teachings...and the first one on the secret societies will nearly be impossible to find for it happened so incredibly long, long ago...
Thr truths ~ these societies and the gnostics knew have been locked up a bit since Constantine called the mithric cults and the gnostics heretics and ostrasized them in effect causing these religions to go underground...becoming secret.
Still these things have been written about since writing began, the fact they say they are exposing this as if they are the first is ridiculous...the first was so long ago it cannot be known, who was first to write about Jesus and Mary magdaline....about thier possible love affair and marriage and such. The very fact that the teachings were not allowed to be discussed for fear of even death makes it impossible to know for sure what happened....until more inner work is done on the part of humans.
The average person seems to want to gather all their info from the experts...not relying on their own spirit of truth or on guides in spirit form to give them truths. We have a long way to go but I will suggest that sometimes, one just knows when a truth is felt...one just seeks within...and says that sounds right and I somehow KNOW that some things are just truth. In the same way I sometimes feel and know someone is lying...but I cant prove it.

Lastly about them claiming they were the first with the knowledge....well all I can say is SURE YOU WERE...in the way you tell something to a baby.
geez where did they get all their research done ...by studying which texts....people always seem to want credit for knowledge that is often so very....collective actually, for lack of a better word for it. They studied something to come up with the words strung across their pages did they not?
Now being first to tell becomes less important. Is it the truth to me? I believe in all truths...I believe that Jesus may have been wed to Mary in his heart and soul which to me is all that matters....if he had a sexual relationship with a woman...this would be a good way to experience the full nature of being human and a man of the earth ...right? I believe that he came here for this experience no? I would try to discover all facets for better comprehension if I were the man Jesus, including all things of which my brother partook , which includes a facet known as sexuality. Anyway sex was only made a sin by people trying to vie for power over the masses. The Bible has some literal truths and then it has some embellishments meant to suit a cxertain purpose.
Ask any theologian what they think...if they have studied even as I have they will tell you it is a possibility that Jesus was WITH Mary in a variety of devine ways.

LOVE to you all!

[MissLT]

"Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," sued Random House, which also published their book. Random House denies the claim.

Baigent and Leigh claim Brown appropriated their ideas and themes in writing his book, which has sold more than 25 million copies worldwide since its 2003 publication. "

This is from the Yahoo news link that I copied and pasted in page two. So, to me Brown had their permission to use their book as a source. Therefore, their lawyer said,

"Jonathan Rayner James, a lawyer for Baigent and Leigh, said the case did not relate to the theft of specific parts of text but to the appropriation of themes and ideas.

"Brown copied from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' and therefore the publication of the resulting novel is an infringement of my clients' copyright," he told the court. "

They're suing him for extending their, as others called, pseudohistory idea about Jesus.

[tikay]

A list of referance is no good without permission. All plagerism is...is not having gotten the proper authority from other authors when you use their wording. If he had asked for permission and they refused to give it this may be the problem.

This is what I'm thinking, too. I don't think he wouldn't ask for their permission to use their work as a reference for his book. I mean, the guy should know better since he's a writer. And the wikipedia article said,

"In the book Brown also mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail as an acclaimed international bestseller (chapter 60) and claims it as the major contributor to his hypothesis."

He did mention them and gave out the source. I wonder they're going for this case because their permission to him was verbal; therefore, they could say he never actually asked them for their permission?

The very fact that the book is mentioned may be the problem with the publishers or authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail...if he did not have permission to use this even...in his referance to them he is making a mistake....unless they gave him the go ahead.

If they gave him the okay but are trying to sue now that would make them very wary~ to file a suit in this case, because they would be in comtempt of court if they are found out, and even verbal permission is a basic contract.
If he can prove a verbal agreement was made....well nearly impossible unless there were witnesses present...anyway it is not likely that they would sue in the case he had permission in any form. They would lose if there was any witness on either side saying they heard the plaintiff give permission... because of the subpheona process.
(Perhaps they would win if they had witnesses who would lie for them in court.)
I believe he has done certain things without using the proper channels but I could be wrong too.

[tikay]

"Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," sued Random House, which also published their book. Random House denies the claim.

Baigent and Leigh claim Brown appropriated their ideas and themes in writing his book, which has sold more than 25 million copies worldwide since its 2003 publication. "

This is from the Yahoo news link that I copied and pasted in page two. So, to me Brown had their permission to use their book as a source. Therefore, their lawyer said,

"Jonathan Rayner James, a lawyer for Baigent and Leigh, said [b]the case did not relate to the theft of specific parts of text but to the appropriation of themes and ideas.[/b]"Brown copied from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' and therefore the publication of the resulting novel is an infringement of my clients' copyright," he told the court. "

They're suing him for extending their, as others called, pseudohistory idea about Jesus.

Okay now we are getting somewhere!
This is utterly ridiculous! They cant sue for such a thing because they have no monopoly on thoughts.... and on all other histories of such thoughts....the books they studied to get their notions about this? The so called "pseudo" history is not theirs alone...it belongs to every living being, they merely wrote a book on the subject after many had already been written on such things....just look up the subject in amazon.com and you will be led to hundreds of books... for crying out loud! Are they trying to say no one ever thought of the theory before. GOODNESS....they are the fools then. Let them waste their time in court because Dan will just win, and be assured he will win if this is why they are suing. They would have to prove the impossible that no one even considered these things, before their book was written....fat chance there.