Madeleine McCann Books

Have you finished reading the book yet WLBTS?

CF - you bought a version as well. Have you managed to read yours yet?

Interested to hear more thoughts on it.

Yes, I know I should just go and get my own. Too lazy and don't want to be contributing to the pockets of S and S.

Another point of interest - the last batch of positive (fake) reviews for the book on Amazon are dated 17th September, all reviews since then have been 1-star.

Andrew wrote:Have you finished reading the book yet WLBTS?

CF - you bought a version as well. Have you managed to read yours yet?

Interested to hear more thoughts on it.

Yes, I know I should just go and get my own. Too lazy and don't want to be contributing to the pockets of S and S.

I got about half way through, but I'm quite busy at the moment, not much time for reading.

I should imagine it's quite a chore to read and hard to stomach if from what I gather seems a pile of poo.

Just noticed this actually.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4QYWBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=looking+for+madeleine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oXUpVKmMNI6WavuBgYAE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=looking%20for%20madeleine&f=false

For anyone like me who can't be arsed to pay. I believe it's the first 3 chapters of said book.

Wow, I've never heard of two authors disowning their own book less than three weeks after publication! Is this a first?
It does seem to have been a spectacular own goal for writers who apparently 'nearly' won a Pulitzer Prize. No doubt all the 'haters' are to blame.

All posts gone and replaced with this one called 'Closed':

"I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case."

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/closed.html

I find this very intriguing, given the Summers & Swan Great Facebook Purge of 2014.

Andrew wrote:Have you finished reading the book yet WLBTS?

CF - you bought a version as well. Have you managed to read yours yet?

Interested to hear more thoughts on it.

Yes, I know I should just go and get my own. Too lazy and don't want to be contributing to the pockets of S and S.

Had read about 7 pages, then tried again 2 nights ago and read about 4 more.......at this rate it will take a long long time

wlbts wrote:All posts gone and replaced with this one called 'Closed':

"I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case."

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/closed.html

I find this very intriguing, given the Summers & Swan Great Facebook Purge of 2014.

Eh?  That is interesting indeed.  Unless another wind up. 

Blimey. Very interesting indeed.

Looks like something is certainly 'happening' behind the scenes.

Or has he just been Farter Cucked.

Andrew wrote:
Or has he just been Farter Cucked.

That is what I would have assumed, if it hadn't been for the purge of the S&S FB page.  It could be coincidental timing I suppose.

ETA - 'men in suits' could be libel lawyers, but could also be Operation Grange detectives.

ETA 2 - in either case, I don't understand why they would have stopped this blogger from commenting on the S&S book.

I think he's simply infringing copyright - looks pretty obvious to me, he's quoted way over the allowed limit as far as I can see.

Tigger wrote:I think he's simply infringing copyright - looks pretty obvious to me, he's quoted way over the allowed limit as far as I can see.

Yes, perhaps that's it. He could have deleted that stuff and kept on commenting though.

You're not infringing copyright if all you're doing is providing an analysis of printed material. He's correctly attributed all quotes. And nothing he's said is libellous as far as I can see - he's quoted existing documentation, in the same way that a news outlet refers to material that's already in the public domain.

Chapter by Chapter ... closed down

quote

BLOG NOW CLOSED

Monday, September 29, 2014
Closed

I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case.

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

ETA sorry. I just saw it's already being discussed in another topic ...

Châtelaine wrote:Chapter by Chapter ... closed down

quote

BLOG NOW CLOSED

Monday, September 29, 2014
Closed

I have been persuaded by men in suits that I should not publish another post about the McCann case.

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Strange eh Chatelaine, already posted and being discussed on this thread..

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t121p15-looking-for-madeleine-chapter-by-chapter-review

SNAP Candyfloss

Yes Canada. That would be my take on it as well.

Although Copyright law is a subject I know very little on. I say very little, I mean I don't know anything so Tigger could be right.

Interested to see what develops.

Just to add. I think if it was O.G that had a polite word to stop then would he refer to them as the 'men in suits'? He seems very genuine and sincere so I wouldn't of thought he would be sarcastic if it was O.G.

I see the 'men in suits' comment to refer to Carter ruck being in touch.

Bit like the 'men in black' coming round to stop you reporting on any aliens

From: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook
Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.
Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be
The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.
Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.
To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.

Tigger wrote:From: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook
Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.
Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be
The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.
Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.
To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.

I think this is referring to the use of other peoples' material in your own thesis or argument, such as when you develop your own book about something and are promoting your own ideas in it, and you use other peoples' work to support your own. ie, if the blogger we're talking about had decided to write his own book about Madeleine, and to back up his arguments he'd used work from others in his published thesis, then the above copyright law would apply.

In this blogger's case, he's not writing a book about his own thoughts, he's providing a detailed chapter by chapter critique about a published book. In which case, he'd have to provide detailed quotes from the Swan and Summers book, and from other sources, in order to illustrate his criticisms. I just can't see that this violates any copyright at all, to be honest. I will of course accept a correction if I'm wrong, however that's my detailed understanding concerning the use of copyrighted material in one's own work. There's a difference between writing your own book to promote your own thesis, and writing a critique of a published document and using material from that document (and other documents) to illustrate your criticisms.

Here's a web page that describes exactly this situation:

http://copyrightuser.org/topics/criticism-and-review/

No, imo it's still a fair use issue. It looks to me that if he'd gone through all the chapters there would be no point to reading the book.

That would hurt.

I understand that Summers and Swan's facebook page has had all the comments wiped including their answers.

So what is happening? I understand that some of their replies to negative comments were very rude.
Wouldn't help sell the book? Just a theory.

Can't see anything except a desperate attempt at damage limitation for a book that apparently has had more reviews than copies sold.
Or perhaps Clarence is giving advice... or even Bell Pottinger.

Tigger wrote:

I understand that Summers and Swan's facebook page has had all the comments wiped including their answers.

So what is happening? I understand that some of their replies to negative comments were very rude.
Wouldn't help sell the book? Just a theory.

Can't see anything  except a desperate attempt at damage limitation for a book that apparently has had more reviews than  copies sold.
Or perhaps Clarence is giving advice...  or even Bell Pottinger.

Ha! I agree with you there. I think it could be damage limitation. Or else something's about to break in the case (we can only hope) and the police have advised that anything that could compromise the prosecution should be removed from public viewing....?

Something is going on...
The McCann files has not been updated since 15th August
"Stop the Myths" ( rinses mouth) has been "closed for maintenance" for days
S&S facebook purged of the book
And now Richard Phillips visited by "men in suits" (which implies more than a letter from a solicitor).

Nicked from Twitter. S and S facebook page. Before and after.

Win ‏@winnower1 now
Why write a #McCann book you don't want people to talk about? Current: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218 … vs yesterday: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Pr6o8q_50YJ:https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218 …

Comments left on Richard's closed blog.

Hopefully he might explain exactly what's going on or find a way to do so without getting himself into 'trouble'.


6 comments:

Lillybet MilesSeptember 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM
That's such a shame. You probably had more readers on your site than the book had. Perhaps that's the problem? Bad publicity for S&S.

But you are not alone with your analysis Richard, there are many others who have read the book and also feel that S&S failed miserably in many areas, especially as they are supposed to be investigative journalists. Least of which is their lack of references and links to the information they supposedly sourced (as outlined here):

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Book.htm

Reply

ROMAnticaSeptember 29, 2014 at 10:59 AM
Big shame, but hardly surprising. Big powers at work here

Reply

Joana MoraisSeptember 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Could you be more explicit as to who has threatened you? And are you ok? best rgds. Jo

Reply

ObsrvrSeptember 29, 2014 at 1:33 PM
The blog/ book review was factual. I can not see the problem.

I am sorry you were intimidated :-(

Reply

Lesly FinnSeptember 29, 2014 at 1:38 PM
So sorry that you have been "got at". Is it possible that you could post the DNA stuff again somewhere else? Or send it to Joana? I am very interested to read it again but neglected to make a copy ...
Best wishes x

Reply

Tom DurbinSeptember 29, 2014 at 2:40 PM
This is a joke and I fear for everyone's liberty.

Reply

One for me and WLBTS over at the other place regarding that blog.

Getting very tiresome now.

Re: My McCann Thoughts blog not blogging any more
Post unchained melody Today at 3:28 am

No doubt a joke blog brought to us by AndrewR, What Lies Behind the Sofa, Team McCann,
Media Monitoring Unit plc, etc

MI5 are all over this this for one reason - Political cover up. Who and Why ?

Paedophilia is the why (for future political progress). Who is the who?

All speculation, of course