View Single Post
Old 09-12-2011, 10:25 AM   #27
crich70
Grand Sorcerer
crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
crich70's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,310
Karma: 43993832
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monroe Wisconsin
Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
She said that the stories from the book in question were published separately, by a publisher (publishers?) that isn't part of the Big 6. I don't get why the problem publisher is unnamed. Her wiki page links to a Random House page as her brief biography.
I think it's a matter of legality Sil_liS. Suppose you and me have an argument and I post about it (from my viewpoint) somewhere on the web and name you directly. You could then accuse me of libel. Where as if I just described you as 'a certain mobileread forum member' others could draw their own conclusions about who I was talking about (based in part on past postings probably) and while you may argue that I had libeled you it becomes more legally ambiguous since I didn't name you straight out as the other party. Likewise if she's published with Random House in the past or had dealings with them but doesn't name them as the other party directly it is harder for them to say they've been libeled I think.
crich70 is offline   Reply With Quote