"Phil Allison" wrote in message
news:5uvt43F1iq1quU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson"
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>>> Ms Wood,
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate that you need to take defamation seriously. Dymocks did
>>>> not
>>>> write the material. Dymocks, by selling the book in question, would not
>>>> be defaming anyone.
>>>
>>>
>>> ** This is where you are 100%, dead wrong.
>>>
>>> Defamation occurs when the defamatory material is disseminated to
>>> others - ie " published ".
>>>
>>> The central issue in defamation is the actual * harm done * to a
>>> person or organisation, not the mere writing of defamatory material.
>>> The harm is done by the publication.
>>
>>
>> **Yep and Dymocks is not the publisher.
>
> ** They are " publishing " the book by selling it to the public - you
> dumb ass.
>
> This is the legal meaning of the word, means to disseminate or inform
> others.
>
>
>>> If a newspaper publishes a letter or article that defames a person, the
>>> newspaper risks becoming the target of legal action.
>>
>> **Yep and Dymocks is not the publisher.
>
>
> ** They are "publishing" the book by selling it to the public.
>
> The harm is done by disseminating the defamatory contents to the public.
>
> That is what they can be sued for.
>
>
>>> Dymocks are merely being cautious in circumstances where litigation over
>>> the material is clearly imminent.
>>
>> **IF the defamation action proceeds (and there is no assurance that it
>> will), THEN Dymocks may be well advised to withdraw the publication. ATM,
>> there is no case to answer.
>
>
> ** Dymocks do not wish to have to answer one in the future - ie that
> they supplied the book to the public with reckless disregard for the harm
> doing that would likely cause the subjects on the book.
>
> The people and the organisation concerned have announced that much of the
> material is completely false and highly defamatory to them and that they
> intend to sue to have publication made illegal.
>
> Any business selling the book now could be held liable for damages in the
> future.
>
> Dymocks are acting responsibly and following what the law requires in the
> circumstances.
>
> OTOH - you are just a ignorant ass.
**So, apparently, are these guys:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-9138601-7119615?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tom+cruise&x=13&y=20
http://www.fishpond.com.au/advanced_search_result.php?cat=all&keywords=tom+cruise&x=11&y=14&type=Search
http://www.seekbooks.com.au/booksearchresults.asp?searchbycriteria=tom+cruise&submit.x=44&submit.y=11&submit=search
http://www.booktopia.com.au/search.ep?keywords=tom+cruise&attribute=title&submit.x=48&submit.y=5&submit=search
http://books.buyaustralian.com/featuredbook1.asp?StoreUrl=buyaustralian&bookid=9781427204097&db=au
Better tell Amazon that they are in big trouble.
Trevor Wilson
|