Monday News: Ladies are spending more money on books than men; Breaking down the science in Breaking Bad; and Lance Armstrong’s publishing fraud lawsuit
Publishing NewsFirst-Amendment / lawsuits4 Comments
Women Led 58% of Book Spending in 2012 – Ladies, you are spending too much. Or not enough. According to the NSA of books, Bowker says that the lady buyers are responsible for 58% of the dollars spent on books. I buy Ned’s books for him and I’m guessing that happens in a lot of households. GalleyCat
Breaking Bad’s science advisor fact checks some of the show’s greatest chemistry moments – GigaOm fact checks some of Breaking Bad’s use of science. For the uninitiated and/or uninterested, Breaking Bad is the story of a chemistry teacher with inoperable cancer who begins cooking meth and becomes the source of the purest, highest grade meth in his territory. The scientists say that good Meth is never going to turn blue without an additional additive and the best way to dispose of a body is lyme not hydrochloric acid. Or the wood chipper aka Fargo? GigaOM Tech News and Analysis
Judge hears arguments about Lance Armstrong’s books – Lance Armstrong’s lies about his decorated cycling career is on trial by consumers who bought his book “It’s Not About the Bike” published by Random House in 2000. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have argued that there is lowered First Amendment protection to be afforded to Armstrong’s book because it was commercial speech designed to be part of a larger fraud Armstrong perpetrated on the public.
By marketing himself as a drug-free All-American hero, Roddy argued that Armstrong induced consumers into buying books they would not have purchased if they had known the truth about his cheating and doping. If they had known Armstrong’s story was a “fairy tale,” Roddy said, “nobody would have paid more than a penny” for the books.
The parties seem to agree that the lies within the the pages of the book are all protected speech and it is the marketing around the book that is the subject of the lawsuit. In essence, the plaintiffs argue that this is a truth in advertising claim whereas the defendants want the case to be measured under First Amendment right to free speech. USA Today
… because it was commercial speech designed to be part of a larger fraud Armstrong perpetrated on the public.
Sleazy and priceless. It’s OK because he meant to deceive everyone in the first place. This has awesome written all over it.
I am not sure what I think about the Lance Armstrong lawsuit. Sure he lied and falsely represented himself but can we sue people for not being truthful in their biography? What about those people who write “tell-all” biographies on others without their consent. Sometimes those types of books can be incredibly inaccurate . Do readers have a right to sue after reading those books?
I used to buy all of my Mom’s books (paper and e). Even tho she’d have counted as a female buyer herself, she wouldn’t have bought a fraction of the quantity if left to her own devices.
Interesting percentage on the book buying. I thought the stereotype was that “boys don’t read”. If that were true, I’d have expected the percentage to be much higher!