Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga

Re:Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga by iib on Monday February 07, 2022 @07:26AM (#30243832)

I am in the process of reading it. I never understood the disclaimer at start, that "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental." in works were I saw it. Is this usually written to defend one legally, even though the events have clear, non-coincidental resemblance to real-life events?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga by idealmedtech on Monday February 07, 2022 @08:23AM (#30244454)

Precisely. There was a film early in the industry's history (Rasputin and the Empress, early 1930s) that depicted events from a real person's life in a very negative (and most importantly, false) way and the studio got the pants sued off them. Hence the disclaimer

edit: it was Rasputin! Here's a Slate article describing the events: https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-beh...

edit2: Here is a secondary source from Stanford, which is drier, but also less subject to hyperbole: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/HistoryWired/Davis/DavisAu...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wall Street was the real winner of the GameStop saga by lkrubner on Monday February 07, 2022 @02:13PM (#30249560)

A roman à clef is protected legally. It's why a movie like Citizen Kane was protected, despite the fact everyone knew it was about Hearst.

[ Parent | on HN ]