Ridiculous Book, Ridiculous Case
March 14, 2006
More on authors trying to assert copyright on historical “fact” vis a vis the DaVinci Code. Am I the only one that finds this sickly funny? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail are just trying to have their cake and eat it too…
Tags:
Books and Reading, Meta
All me-stream all the time.
content rss
March 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I haven’t read the Dan Brown book, and am not likely to. But I can’t feel too bad about the guys snapping at his heels—I also haven’t read the atual case proceedings. The Slate article seemed awfully pro-Tom-Hanks movie, but that’s probably reading too much into confluence of corporate interests. And of course every drop of ink helps sell more popcorn at that upcoming dog, eh?
March 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Well, this isn’t the only piece I’ve read about the case. I just find it ironic– they insisted that they were uncovering historical facts, which makes their case untenable. So, should they be allowed to assert copyright over historical events? Or should they just take their whingeing elsewhere (at the time, I’m sure it seemed like great marketing to insist that they were documenting history, now they smell money and all good sense disappears).
March 14th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Not sure about the corporate interest angle. Slate is owned by WaPo– and Slate’s critics have a pretty good history of slamming all kinds of Sony/Columbia/Ron Howard pics. In fact, I see nothing at all to tie the Slate article to the movie. Is that just some kind of knee-jerk reaction with you?