Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Julian Assange's Unauthorized Autobiography

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the unleash-the-biography dept.

Books 122

macwhizkid writes "After signing a major book deal for his autobiography, Julian Assange backed out (allegedly worrying about self-incrimination) but failed to return his £500,000 advance payment. The publisher is understandably unhappy with this outcome, and intends to publish the 'world's first unauthorized autobiography' from an early draft Assange submitted. The book will be in stores tomorrow, but I'm still hoping it'll be published early on WikiLeaks..."

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Excerpt from Chapter 17 (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37471972)

I knew that strange woman at my door wanting sex must be into me because I'm totally hot, not because it was any kind of setup. You see, the Julinator is really smart that way. And the Julinator trusts his intuition. She was so into me that she stole my laptop later that night as a souvenir of an awesome night when I rocked her world. That's just the kind of impression the Julinator makes. Besides those CIA types are all guys, right? The Julinator learned that from those Jack Ryan movies.

Hey, why is my lawyer calling at this hour?

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (2)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37472770)

Man. I'm not sure why the spooks haven't just capped Assange yet, but I'm glad they haven't. This dude is more entertaining than Mike Tyson on crack.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (1)

jdpars (1480913) | about 3 years ago | (#37472986)

He seems like a fun crazy to let roam. Mostly harmless.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (1)

horza (87255) | about 3 years ago | (#37473660)

Why would they assassinate Assange? He's not actually leaking the information, only publishing from anonymous sources. His murder wouldn't actually solve any of their problems, just push them elsewhere.

Phillip.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37473966)

he's the one convincing people to leak

pop off the head, and the rest would be less likely to follow in his footsteps

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474656)

If he went down, many others- like myself- would step up.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474752)

Groups like anonymous are doing more harm than assange, and they literally have no head. Anarchists do not need a head. Terrorists do not need a head. Complex forces of change do not need a head.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37476316)

We'll revisit this idea once anyone actually does something that "forces change".

In the meantime, it's just a circus that gets people thrown in jail for zero net gain.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 3 years ago | (#37473744)

Because he's a narcissistic figurehead and generally impotent, The spooks are having more fun figuring out who of the underlings present the more credible threat. The spooks will probably use monitoring Assange as a training exercise to break in newbies.

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37473982)

he neutered himself with the sex-crime thing

they probably would have dropped him in the north atlantic if he hadn't done that

Re:Excerpt from Chapter 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474220)

Are we still allowed to call black people spooks?

It gets worse when he gets into the mood... (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 3 years ago | (#37474926)

"Assange touched my pussy," claims ex-WikiLeaker [thinq.co.uk] :

...the "mad Australian" let nothing get in the way of his quest for mastery. Not even a feline.

"Julian was constantly battling for dominance, even with my tomcat Herr Schmitt," says the German.

"Ever since Julian lived with me in Wiesbaden he (the cat) has suffered from psychosis. Julian would constantly attack the animal. He would spread out his fingers like a fork and grab the cat's throat.

(and let me just note that - with such violence against cats - Assange crossed the line, broke all limits, as far as I am concerned)

Drupal (3, Funny)

cornface (900179) | about 3 years ago | (#37471982)

Packt Publishing presents: Julian Assange's Drupal Made Easy

Re:Drupal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472042)

And since it's from packt it'll be on drupal 6.

Re:Drupal (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#37472336)

And be riddled with errors - grammatical, spelling, and technical.

Re:Drupal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472630)

And dripping with semen.

Re:Drupal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37473760)

10/10

Re:Drupal (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 years ago | (#37472048)

It'll get 8/10 in a slashdot review even if it doesn't exist.

that's fucking awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472024)

"Assange So Paranoid Even His Autobiography Is Unauthorized"

This seems funny (4, Interesting)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 3 years ago | (#37472030)

If someone backs out on a contract with you, you don't just take what you have and say "oh well, we'll do with what we have." You hit them with breach of contract and get your money back. I wonder if he and the publisher had this planned from the get-go to put plausible deniability on the book.

I thought that too, except .... (5, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | about 3 years ago | (#37472086)

Maybe the publisher feels they stand to profit more by publishing the now controversial book, based on what they've already got?

If they sued over breach of contract, sure - they could try to get their money back, but as we all know, court judgments are FAR from a guarantee of getting repaid. With a character like Assange, perhaps they think it's a FAR better bet to take a chance on making money from his rough draft they possess than by counting on the court system to make him cough up the money?

Re:I thought that too, except .... (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | about 3 years ago | (#37472152)

Parent is probably correct -- Julian will have trouble coming up with the money now and with his legal troubles they aren't likely to get the advance back anytime in the near-future. Also, even if it was a draft they probably have slipped in a editor (i.e., ghost-author) to 'clean things up' and embellish to their hearts-delight.

Re:I thought that too, except .... (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#37473128)

Also, even if it was a draft they probably have slipped in a editor (i.e., ghost-author) to 'clean things up' and embellish to their hearts-delight.

The article states is was ghost-written by Andrew O'Hagan, who "had asked for his name to be removed from the book," so it doesn't sound like this guy was "slipped in". Ghost writers are standard fare for autobiographies.

Re:I thought that too, except .... (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 3 years ago | (#37472450)

He supposedly spent his advance on legal fees.
Hilarious.

Re:I thought that too, except .... (2)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | about 3 years ago | (#37472990)

The bbc article on it gives far more detail:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15009028 [bbc.co.uk]

...particularly the comment: "After sitting with a ghost writer for more than 50 hours of taped interviews, he decided he wanted to cancel the contract. "

Re:I thought that too, except .... (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 3 years ago | (#37474238)

This is quite true. My parents were involved in a long drawn out trial in which it was determined their investment money was obtained fraudulently. They currently get about 50 bucks a month from the individual of the 50,000 USD they invested since the individual cannot afford to pay anyone anymore after going bankrupt. It was found the criminal was liable only for the principal without taking into account inflation, nor interest. It was from a typical investment scam, and though we may scoff at it now, it was 50 years ago before pop-culture could take lessons like these and spin them into comedies like "Party Down"'s episode ""Investors Dinner". Their investment was actually for something which is ridiculously wide-spread now as well, MRI's.

Re:This seems funny (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#37472094)

It isn't funny at all, just smart business.
If they fight to get all their money back, they will spend money and chances they will not get it back or only part of it and a bunch of legal battles.
So because he is in breach of contract, all bets are off so they will publish the book and make millions of pounds off of it.
So they will get their money back and a profit.

Re:This seems funny (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 years ago | (#37472196)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this also means Assange won't see any royalty checks either?

Re:This seems funny (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#37472266)

Probably not.
Just because you made a global stir it doesn't actually mean you are actually smart.

But he should be OK with it. He is against those greedy capitalist making money anyways. He should live in poverty to prove his point. (Granted 500k Pounds, isn't quite poverty)

Re:This seems funny (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#37473182)

(Granted 500k Pounds, isn't quite poverty)

It might be after he's done with all his lawyer fees. The article reports that the money is currently in escrow for exactly that reason.

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37473264)

But he should be OK with it. He is against those greedy capitalist making money anyways.

Where the fuck do you get this impression?

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37473464)

Local Tea Party meetings.

Re:This seems funny (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 years ago | (#37472578)

The publisher probably will pay those. They're carrying on as though contract has not been breached, Assange would have standing to sue, at the very least. The cost of royalties is nice, predictable, and already budgeted.

Re:This seems funny (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 years ago | (#37472888)

I assume he will.

If I had to guess he was too far along to pull out. (Like that’s never happened before.). He got the advance and he delivered the book. He wanted to cancel the contract (and return the advance) but the publisher said “Thanks, but no – we will publish what we got”. The contract should still be in force.

Re:This seems funny (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 3 years ago | (#37472978)

he was too far along to pull out. (Like that’s never happened before.).

All good things in life happen thrice...

Re:This seems funny (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 3 years ago | (#37475018)

He probably will get any promised royalties unless they separately sue him for breach of contract for only having done part of the work.

Basically it sounds like they are just accepting what he did submit and going forwards as described in the contract.

Re:This seems funny (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 3 years ago | (#37472644)

What I haven't seen mentioned is the obvious. If they sue and win, the contract is most likely undone and they don't have rights to the book. If they leave the matter as is, they have paid for the rights to his autobiography and thus can publish it.

Re:This seems funny (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 3 years ago | (#37475056)

Yeah; my first thought was along the lines of what others here are saying. Julian and the publishers' people (and their lawyers) probably got together and worked this out as the best publicity stunt ever. The "autobiography" (ghost-written as usual) gets published, Julian gets "plausible deniability" for everything in it, the "scandalous" situation gets lots of free publicity, lots of books get sold, and so on. I'll bet they're reading this and chuckling, while sharing some beers. And it doesn't even matter that the geeks here see through it, because they're a tiny part of the market, and our discussion just adds to the publicity.

I wonder if it'll be worth reading. Anyone know where we can find it on wikileaks?

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472098)

Well, gee, that depends on what the contract says, doesn't it? Perhaps they're betting they'll make more on selling the draft.

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472104)

If someone backs out on a contract with you, you don't just take what you have and say "oh well, we'll do with what we have." You hit them with breach of contract and get your money back..

Unless you think that what you have will get you more than £500,000. What's Assange going to do: sue over a contract that he already broke?

Re:This seems funny (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37472814)

He may not have broken anything.

These are professional publishers. They're probably used to all sorts of things going wrong with relationships with writers, and don't just hand over advances without something in the wording to protect them.

They almost certainly bought the right to publish anything Assange gives them with the first dollar they handed him. They almost certainly also bought an exclusive right to do so.

What they didn't get in terms of cooperation in completing the book is balanced by what he won't get in terms of further pay.

Whether he thinks he should get more or not is going to be up to him suing them. They certainly have no reason to sue him. They have the data; and they know how to edit. Game, set, match: Publisher.

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472106)

This ain't difficult, son. There is more profit in publishing the book. No need to look for a conspiracy where one doesn't exist.

Re:This seems funny (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 3 years ago | (#37472148)

You may hit them with "breach of contract", but in this case the added drama may increase book sales, more than anything else could.

It still may have been planned from the start, but the purpose of the plan may have been as simple as "free advertising".

Re:This seems funny (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 3 years ago | (#37472330)

Speaking of sales, I wonder how long it will be before - or indeed if - the book gets Blaired* [metro.co.uk] ... will it be before or after Assange himself goes on a 'potholing holiday'?

Taking all bets!

*Disclaimer: I have no firm opinion on the legality or morality of Assange's actions, but what happened there really did appeal to my love of whimsy.

Re:This seems funny (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 years ago | (#37472172)

Actually.... I would think that what you do is make a decision based on the current situation.

Yes, maybe...even probably you CAN sue (hell, you can always file a suit right, even if you don't have jack shit). However, that doesn't mean that its your best move, or even a smart one.

Take the ex-roomate who screwed me out of rent and bills. I had options, a lawyer advised me i could sue him outright, or I could call each incident a separate incident, and keep it in small claims court to do myself on the cheap. Either way, I was likely to win judgements for much of it, if not all.

That said.... the guy was a con artist, had little to nothing in his own name, and skipped town. Winning would have been purely symbolic if he had nothing that the courts could make him give up.... in the end, it may have cost me more...with no ultimate benefit.

So depending on whether it is worth sueing, maybe you do decide to "go with what we have"....if doing so is worth more than winning the lawsuit. Likely it is here. A lawsuit might recoup some, might lose a little.

So you can take door number one with a chance of recouping some of your money with a possibility of just losing more in the end.... or... take door number two, where you expect to likely make a tidy profit, possibly the same profit that you planned in the begining.

Now which choice do you make?

Re:This seems funny (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472204)

If someone backs out on a contract with you, you don't just take what you have and say "oh well, we'll do with what we have." You hit them with breach of contract and get your money back.

You're aware that you're talking about Julian Assange, right? Spend the next ten minutes trying to work out a scenario wherein someone sics lawyers on him, finds him (that is, gets through the layers of paranoia embedded deep within him to hide his location and activities), hauls his ass back to whatever jurisdiction is needed for legal proceedings, and ultimately manages to get five hundred thousand quid out of him sometime EARLIER than the next twenty-five years (money which, inevitably, has already been spent).

I'd say this is probably the best idea they have: Threaten to release the draft. If Assange comes out of hiding to protest, nail him and get money back. If he refuses and stays hidden, carry out said threat (which I suppose at that point would be a "promise", more than a "threat"), leading to a marketing campaign as an unofficial biography of the man who wanted to reveal everyone's secrets but wouldn't share any of his own. It's brilliant, really.

(I only added the "spend the next ten minutes" caveat in there to hopefully stave off you falling into an endless loop and overheating your brain looking for an answer that will simply never decide to exist. Think of it as a short-term memory watchdog circuit for your logic senses.)

Re:This seems funny (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#37473402)

You're aware that you're talking about Julian Assange, right? Spend the next ten minutes trying to work out a scenario wherein someone sics lawyers on him, finds him (that is, gets through the layers of paranoia embedded deep within him to hide his location and activities), hauls his ass back to whatever jurisdiction is needed for legal proceedings,

You're not informed [cbsnews.com] , because his current location is known and he is pending extradition to Sweden at the very moment:

"Assange must wear an electronic tag, report to police every day and observe a curfew. He also must stay at a registered address - a 10-bedroom mansion in eastern England owned by Vaughan Smith, a WikiLeaks supporter and founder of London's Frontline Club for journalists."

and ultimately manages to get five hundred thousand quid out of him sometime EARLIER than the next twenty-five years (money which, inevitably, has already been spent).

This is the most difficult part. However, supposedly the money is in escrow to pay for his lawyers, so it really depends on who has rights to it first. Common sense says the people who gave it to him under contract should get it first, but the law isn't always common sense.

Anyways, I agree that publishing was the smart thing to do, despite all of the above. I was just correcting the misconception that Assange is some master of concealment that could disappear like a ghost.

It's all in the money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472278)

If someone backs out on a contract with you, you don't just take what you have and say "oh well, we'll do with what we have." You hit them with breach of contract and get your money back.

Not if you still have a valid contract and stand to make more money by publishing what you have.

Since JA presumably signed the contract giving the publisher the rights when he accepted the check, he presumably has no way to back out or block publication. He can fail to cooperate further, but the publisher already has the material and the rights.

A measly half-million UKP recovery, minus whatever JA has spent and can't recoup, minus attorneys' fees, minus the chance that JA will just declare bankruptcy....versus whatever the book will bring in if published. And publisher obviously anticipated that the book would take in more than the half-million UKP that it advanced to JA.

Re:This seems funny (1, Informative)

macwhizkid (864124) | about 3 years ago | (#37472286)

I think it's more likely a calculated decision on the part of the publisher. Given what the NYTimes and Guardian both reported when they had to put up with him for the cable releases, Assange seems like the kind of person who would actually try to take the money without really considering the potential consequences.

I'm sure they're confident that the character alone is well-known enough by now to sell at least a couple hundred thousand copies... even if the writing itself is first-draft quality. And I'm sure the free PR from the whole debacle can't hurt either.

Re:This seems funny (1)

horza (87255) | about 3 years ago | (#37473726)

Bit ironic using the Guardian as they didn't seem to consider the consequences of publishing a book with the encryption key that released the entire unredacted archive of US diplomatic cables to the world.

"Assange seems like the kind of person [that steals money]". Nice random made-up observation. Any proof that he is a habitual criminal?

Phillip.

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474430)

Not if they assume he already spent all of the money on legal fees.

Re:This seems funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474644)

You gotta strike when the iron is hot. A court case could hold up the release of this book for years. In 18 months it's unlikely the man on the street is going to remember who Ass-sausage is.

Writers Steal Advances All the Time (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37474764)

In book publishing, writers are notorious for taking an advance payment and never delivering the book. Usually it's never delivering the final draft, which some authors never agree is quite finished. Sometimes it's years of "writer's block", or distractions. The coke and hookers an advance can buy (or more typically booze and cigarettes) can interfere with the discipline part of the creative process. And some publishers will add to the advance to encourage a writer to finish when they get late.

Partly it's because the risks of authors failing to deliver are outweighed by the profits of actually successful books. Of course authors who deliver but whose books don't sell are indistinguishable in the bottom line from authors who never deliver. But partly it's because publishing is full of lame businesspeople who'd rather be book publishers, with the associated status, associations and perks than make more profits. Partly it's because often creativity and reliability are contradictory. Partly it's because the market is as fickle as the authors pool.

Usually the advance isn't nearly this big, and when it is it's unusual not to get a book out of it. But Assange is a celebrity author - the technical and even political market for his story isn't a big book market. So probably they gave the advance knowing they'd get something they could publish and sell while his name was still in the news. Or even set up the whole thing as a publicity stunt. In which case it's working perfectly.

Re:This seems funny (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 3 years ago | (#37474990)

You can't just "back out" of contracts after you sign them. Especially if you don't refund the money! If you can't give the money back, you have little hope of avoiding the terms.

Well, isn't that appropriate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472036)

You know, I'm totally down for what wikileaks did, but I find the irony in this delicious.

Re:Well, isn't that appropriate? (4)

spazdor (902907) | about 3 years ago | (#37472156)

Me too. The WikiLeaks mission is an important and productive one and I applaud and support them.
But Julian himself is just so goddamned hard to like.

nomitave determinism, more frequent than you think (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 years ago | (#37472472)

Oh, come on, the guy's got Ass right there in his name, how much more warning do you want? Does he have to be named Julian as well for you to take proper caution?

Re:nomitave determinism, more frequent than you th (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472892)

Well, it's not like his middle name is Sark... actually, y'know I have never heard his middle name... makes you think, eh?

That does it, to me he shall henceforth be known to me as Julian Sark Assange -- the Ass bit, plus his residence in RL vs. on TV, cancels the Julian Sark charm, while reinforcing the Julian Sark horrible-personness.

understandably? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472116)

What is understandable about getting nothing for your Assange advance? All publishers should advance Julian money for gracing our planet. He is that f***king great.

Leaks (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472124)

I shall download the book from pirate bay. After all, everyone must have access to information.

Re:Leaks (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#37472528)

Of course...wait no. You're a filthy pirate...

Re:Leaks (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37473074)

You can always pay Julian his royalties in BitCoin,

Well, let's just make shiat up. (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 3 years ago | (#37472130)

The publisher is understandably unhappy with this outcome, and intends to publish the 'world's first unauthorized autobiography' from an early draft Assange submitted.

I don't believe a publisher would not be aware of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind [wikipedia.org] , so the claim of being the "first unauthorized autobiography" is a lie.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472314)

If you actually RTFA (I know, right?) instead of just the summary, you would find that it is '"the unauthorised first draft" of [Julian Assange's] autobiography'

They are not laying claim to publishing the first unauthorized autobiography ever. A little critical thinking could probably have figured that out from the summary, too.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 years ago | (#37472576)

Most slash-turds consider critical thinking to be akin to religion.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 3 years ago | (#37474782)

So, something in which most of the world believes?

(Unfortunately, for the latter.)

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472750)

Are you just trolling? I'd say bravo, but the fact is you don't make any sense at all. It's the summary that says it, the GP quoted, and I don't know how in the world you would figure out that the submitter was full of beans from the summary alone without verifying that TFA doesn't include the quoted text.

So, please, enlighten us with your critical thinking skills.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#37472708)

I don't believe a publisher would not be aware of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

How was that unauthorized? Wiki says he sold the rights to it to Columbia Pictures.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 years ago | (#37473436)

Well, if that doesn't qualify, surely this [wikipedia.org] does.

Re:Well, let's just make shiat up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37474788)

Well, if that doesn't qualify, surely this [wikipedia.org] does.

No, wikipedia says "Although it is labeled "Unauthorized" for humor, the book is in fact official". Are you trying to BS people on purpose?

So who will buy a copy? (1)

PastTense (150947) | about 3 years ago | (#37472142)

So who will buy a copy? I expect the major audience--hackers--will universally pick up a copy off torrents, Usenet, IRC or a cyberlocker.

Re:So who will buy a copy? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#37472220)

Hackers are a minority. Liberal Hippies are a huge market that they can make big money off of. They think they are so smart that they can out think capitalism. The capitalist know that and use it to make money off of them.

Re:So who will buy a copy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472382)

If with "hackers" you mean freetards, then yes, you are right. Then there are the leftards, the ones that love moral aberrations such as Assange. They may pay for it. Some.

It's about the goal, not about a face (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 3 years ago | (#37472160)

I don't care about Julian Assange as a person. He's just a face for Wikileaks. It's their goal which is important. This autobiography is just means to fund the goal. You might as well buy some expensive stickers from their webstore.

Re:It's about the goal, not about a face (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#37472226)

To you, maybe. He thinks a bit higher of himself. After all, he thinks his (paid) memoirs should be "one of the unifying documents of our generation."

Re:It's about the goal, not about a face (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472560)

Thanks for the head's-up on the budget - I had no idea we wasted so much money on NASA.

Re:It's about the goal, not about a face (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37475528)

Thanks for the head's-up on the budget - I had no idea we wasted so much money on NASA.

Or how much Americans have paid into programmes like Social Security out of every paycheck that we're entitled to get back, like when we retire.

Re:It's about the goal, not about a face (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37476436)

you're totally entitled to what you've paid in. one dime more? fuck off.

Re:It's about the goal, not about a face (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37476450)

I'm entitled to the interest, too. You fucking Teabaggers are nothing but thieves.

ironic - IP taken from Assange (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 3 years ago | (#37472222)

Who would do a thing like that?

Re:ironic - IP taken from Assange (1)

dredwerker (757816) | about 3 years ago | (#37472786)

Who would do a thing like that?

I read that as someone taken his IP address. Makes much more sense as intellectual property :)

Ironic is the right word? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472228)

A better article title? "Wikileaks editor's autobiography leaked" or "Leaker's life leaked" :D I kid I kid

Heh. Karma does exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472520)

Couldn't happen to a better jackass. Probably won't sell, though.

Drama Queens Rule Our Society (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 3 years ago | (#37472754)

See comment title. 'Nuff said.

hih? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472858)

Is Julian Assange a slimeball?

IANAL, but (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 years ago | (#37472944)

I don't think he can back out, can he? A contract is a contract[1]. The other party may choose to let him buy himself out if he offers terms that they agree with; but they're under no obligation to do so.

[1] There are some exceptions, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

Re:IANAL, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37476004)

Right, you can't back out of a legally-made contract. But you need the courts to enforce it, obviously, which costs time and money..

Unauthorized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37472958)

More like unwanted. Who effin' cares about ASSange?

In My Time (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 3 years ago | (#37473100)

Julian Assange backed out (allegedly worrying about self-incrimination)

Vice President Cheney didn't worry.

Re:In My Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37473286)

That's because Cheney doesn't have any positive image left to harm.

Don't take Assange's version of events on trust (2)

Goonie (8651) | about 3 years ago | (#37473174)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Wikileaks, I would take anything said in Assange's "autobiography", unauthorized or not, with several spoonfuls of salt. An article by Robert Manne struggles with some of the computing-related stuff, but fills in some useful background [themonthly.com.au] .

As he puts it:

There is, however, a problem. Journalists as senior as David Leigh of the Guardian or John F. Burns of the New York Times in general accept on trust many of Assange’s stories about himself. They do not understand that, like many natural writers, he has fashioned his life into a fable.

The Guardian (1)

Sephwrath (2467088) | about 3 years ago | (#37473284)

I've been following this in the guardian recently and it seems to me that they have been spending a suspicious amount of time trying to assassinate Assange's character. Just read their take on the recent release of the un-redacted cables... and their other articles that seem to serve no purpose but to try and damage his reputation. They are all collected here if you care to waste a few hours... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/julian-assange?INTCMP=SRCH [guardian.co.uk] All I see are a long list of ad-hominem and poisoning the well fallacies, and this is being generous - some of it they have clearly just made up. You think he's arrogant?... So what? I'd say he has a right to be. Unlike many of the other arrogant people, running their mouths off he's actually done something useful. Doesn't anyone think its ironic the organisation that has done the most to disseminate valuable information is being given the tabloid treatment by what is supposedly one of the UK's leading left-wing papers? Jealousy? People need to grow-up and look at the issues instead of focusing on a fallible man and getting excited when you find a fault. Who else here would stand up to this level of scrutiny as well as he has?

Get it while you can. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 3 years ago | (#37473608)

Assange has lost much of the support that brought him into prominence. His horrible treatment of Bradley Manning has doubtless eroded the confidence of future potential major leakers.

If I was a publisher, I'd be worrying that Assange's days as a household (?) name are numbered and I'd be trying to get my money while he was still somewhat "hot."

Re:Get it while you can. (1)

Sephwrath (2467088) | about 3 years ago | (#37474374)

Err What? How exactly has he treated Bradley Manning badly?... It seems to me that he held up his end of the bargain perfectly.

Not called 'Unauthorized Autobiography' in Sweden. (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 3 years ago | (#37474572)

I have it on good authority that in Sweden the legal term is Book By Surprise.

Books on Assange and Wikileaks (1)

doom (14564) | about 3 years ago | (#37475292)

If you're interested in the subject, I recommend reading the Daniel Domsheit-Berg book: "Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website". If D's account is any guide, erratic behavior from Assange shouldn't come as a surprise. And myself I would expect an Assange autobiography to be even less accurate than is the norm for such a thing, he's apparently into "self-mythologizing".

I've also been looking at Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy [barnesandnoble.com] by The "Guardian", which I'm afraid has a bit of trashy vibe to it, but has some interesting details here and there.

Re:Books on Assange and Wikileaks (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37475574)

You'd trust the word of DDB over Assange?

Re:Books on Assange and Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37476294)

I would trust the word of a scruffy street urchin or a member of Congress over Assange.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?