I want the buck!!!!
If you want to get your own copy of 'Da Vinci Code' one of the largest selling fictions ever written, then this may well be your last chance. As the hearing begins on the lawsuit by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh accusing Dan Brown of plagiarism, there is a need for reflect at what we mean by plagiarizing. Is it the the copy cats that we are trying to fight against or the moola that the copy cats have earned we are trying to get our share? Would we have fought so much if the copy cats didn't make it big? The answer I feel would be "No".
I agree it isn't a good thing not being original, but if a person is able to present our work in a better manner, creating interest in a larger group of people wouldn't it be helping our cause itself? In the case at hand the book in question was written way back in 1982. One might argue that books are meant forever, but how many of us have come across The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. How many of us would have been unaware of such a significant theory about the largest religion in the whole world?
Where did these guys get their theory from? It is obvious they would have borrowed it from somewhere else perhaps with a greater effort than Dan Brown . If that original source were to be alive and well today wouldn't s/he have sued Messers Baigent and Leigh had their books been as successful as Da Vinci Code? If the ruling does go for them, they wouldn't be gaining much out of it. Infact this controversy would have made the sale of Da Vinci Code skyrocket. and if at all the book is stopped from being published further , the value of those that are already in circulation will increase. A hundred years from now Da Vinci code will be sold at auction houses than The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Plagiarism is justified to have an ill effect only when the original work still has the same charm. Not when the new work is going to be more widely accepted than the original. and fighting against it just for monetary gains is not something that we should be proud of
I agree it isn't a good thing not being original, but if a person is able to present our work in a better manner, creating interest in a larger group of people wouldn't it be helping our cause itself? In the case at hand the book in question was written way back in 1982. One might argue that books are meant forever, but how many of us have come across The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. How many of us would have been unaware of such a significant theory about the largest religion in the whole world?
Where did these guys get their theory from? It is obvious they would have borrowed it from somewhere else perhaps with a greater effort than Dan Brown . If that original source were to be alive and well today wouldn't s/he have sued Messers Baigent and Leigh had their books been as successful as Da Vinci Code? If the ruling does go for them, they wouldn't be gaining much out of it. Infact this controversy would have made the sale of Da Vinci Code skyrocket. and if at all the book is stopped from being published further , the value of those that are already in circulation will increase. A hundred years from now Da Vinci code will be sold at auction houses than The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Plagiarism is justified to have an ill effect only when the original work still has the same charm. Not when the new work is going to be more widely accepted than the original. and fighting against it just for monetary gains is not something that we should be proud of
posted by Pramod at 2:27 AM
0 comments
