Book 'pirate' goes underground after being named by Terry Goodkind

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it can be. In Sweden for example it can be libel even if it is true.

But not in the UK. Truth is an absolute defence against libel in English law.

[Quexos]

You're always telling about the UK, I'm starting to suspect that you might actually live in the UK where people speak English with a funny accent and drive on the wrong side of the way and hate the EU and the Euro.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But not in the UK. Truth is an absolute defence against libel in English law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But not in the UK. Truth is an absolute defence against libel in English law.

Yes, but I am pretty sure that you original suggestion is illegal in the UK so I find it a bit strange that you propose illegal actions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, but I am pretty sure that you original suggestion is illegal in the UK so I find it a bot strange that you propose illegal actions.

<sigh>

Evidently the concept of "humour" is not one which translates well.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Quexos

You have a good sense of humor. But seriously he's loaded so why does he need to do this ?

You know, even "loaded" people have principles.
The may not be your principles or mine but they do have them.
And being "loaded" they can actually afford to *act* on their principles without fear of the consequences.

I'm not about to psychoanalyze the guy myself but he obviously thought making a statement about piracy was something that mattered to him.
And that's all it is; a statement.

He's not starting a war or a (likely) long (and expensive) legal fight. He is just saying that pirating his work and publicly announcing it is not something he approves of. (He just said it with a bit of "panache". Or in modern terms, attitude. )

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

<sigh>

Evidently the concept of "humour" is not one which translates well.

Aha, so you really think that Terry Goodkind did a bad thing. Or if not what was the humour?

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by rdfry

He needs a fricken haircut.

his pony tail is what gives him his writing powers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

his pony tail is what gives him his writing powers.

He should let it grow out a bit.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Quexos

You have a good sense of humor. But seriously he's loaded so why does he need to do this ?

i googled his net worth. he's pretty comfortable to say the least.

but to play devil's advocate, maybe protecting his "brand" is what allowed him to accumulate said wealth.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

<sigh>

Evidently the concept of "humour" is not one which translates well.

Especially *british* humor.

Dead parrots and all that.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But not in the UK. Truth is an absolute defence against libel in English law.

Not so. That is one of the most common misconceptions about defamation. The truth is generally, but not always a defence. It depends on the intent.

As William Blake said: "A truth that is told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent."

It is possible to slander someone using the truth. Courts will often suppress names to protect people, even if what is known or discussed about them is true. If you breach such an order you can successfully be sued for defamation. There are other instances where it is not necessary to breach a court order. It comes back to whether the disclosure of defamatory information is in the public interest or purely vindictive.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Not so. That is one of the most common misconceptions about defamation. The truth is generally, but not always a defence. It depends on the intent.

I'm not an expert on UK law, but Harry did say "libel" and not "defamation," which is a broader concept. In the US, for example, where it is much more difficult to prosecute a libel case than in the UK, truth is an absolute defense to libel. But it isn't a defense to certain other offenses involving communication, such as "invasion of privacy," where someone publishes embarrassing (but true) information of a private nature concerning a private individual. I.e., if you find an embarrassing package of love letters that fell out of my pocket, you can't necessarily publish them on your blog without repercussions. (Although you may be able to if I'm a public figure, or if they relate to a matter of genuine public interest.)

But none of these niceties really are at issue in this particular case, where the pirate himself invited the attention by letting hundreds or thousands or millions of people know that he was a pirate. If Goodkind could file a suit against the guy (which would be public document including all of the facts already published, possibly more), he can also make this information public without filing suit.

OT - The background on why some people don't like Goodkind is interesting. I read "Wizard's First Rule," which I liked enough to read the second book in the series, which I didn't like enough to to read any more by him. But since those books are fairly conventional, not to say formulaic, I always wondered about why some people felt so strongly about him.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

An ass? Smarmy?



I'm just not seeing it ....

That's his public image? Looks like he thinks he's too cool for cats.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

That's his public image? Looks like he thinks he's too cool for cats.

Welcome to the Matrix, Mr Anderson....

[Harper Kingsley]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Welcome to the Matrix, Mr Anderson....

<3 !!