Does Disclaimers provide sufficient legal protection

Dear Publishing Experts,

 

I am writing a book related to the finance industry which will have tips etc... However, I am not a finance expert or work in the financial industry so I state that I am not a professional, financial adviser etc.. in my disclaimer and is wondering if this provides legal protection.

 

As to the decription in which it is categorised, can it be catergorised as "fiction", educational etc... instead of "finance and economics".

 

Looking to you all for advice.

 

Marcus

Comments

  • You can put your book into any category you like but would you buy a

    a financial tips book which is listed in the fiction category?


  • marcusxman wrote:

    Dear Publishing Experts,

     

    I am writing a book related to the finance industry which will have tips etc... However, I am not a finance expert or work in the financial industry so I state that I am not a professional, financial adviser etc.. in my disclaimer and is wondering if this provides legal protection.

     

    As to the decription in which it is categorised, can it be catergorised as "fiction", educational etc... instead of "finance and economics".

     

    Looking to you all for advice.

     

    Marcus


    I would add to what Dan said with >> considering what you have posted here, Marcus, why on earth are you publishing such a book?! It's a bit like "I am not a surgeon, but can I remove your brain?" (And it is 'do', not 'does').   Smiley Frustrated

  • I have to second Kevin's question. Why would anyone buy a book from someone who says up front that they have no expertise or experience in the subject?

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • In the spirit of the question: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Or financial advice. Or any other kind of advice.

     

    We're just some guys out BSing over the fence with no intention of any of us acting on any of this, clear?

     

    It is my understanding that the SEC closely regulates financial advice within the USA. So whether a particular remark violates the rules for financial advice depends very greatly on what it is that you say. For example, if you were to say, "Listen, folks, you should run out and invest everything you've got in pork belly futures," I'm pretty sure that you'd be on the wrong side of the SEC.

     

    On the other hand, if you were to say "I heard that pork belly futures had a good return. I wonder if that's true" you'd probably be safe. And if you said, "I dunno 'bout you, but I'm gonna invest in Pork Belly Futures," well, that's a really good question, and since I Am Not A Lawyer and This Is Not Advice, there's no way in Heck I'm going to voice an opinion on whether that's legal or not.

     

    Are you starting to catch my drift here?

     

    See, FIRST of all, to know what's legal to say and what's not with respect to financial advice (because of that pesky old Uniform Professions Code, you see) requires someone who IS A LAWYER which means that you're asking the wrong folks, as I Am Not A Lawyer and to my knowledge neither is anyone else here (to the best of my knowledge and belief).

     

    SECOND of all, Financial advice from someone who is not a Licensed Financial Planner is like legal advice from someone who Is Not A Lawyer (such as Yours Truly). Sure, it's an opinion, but are you so desperate for opinions that you'll just take any old opinion? If I'm BS ing with a neighbor over the fence, sure, telling him that he ought to put his life savings into Pork Belly Futures is pretty harmless, especially since he probably keeps his life savings in a coffee can behind his headboard. But if I'm talking to someone who might actually do it, then there is a very real risk that he's going to come back and ask me why he lost his shirt following my advice. Which brings us to...

     

    THIRD of all, someone who takes your advice and loses his shirt just might be inclined to punch you in the nose, and it's entirely possible that a jury might consider that justifiable, or at least excusable.

     

    So my advice to you, just as two guys BS ing over the fence, so to speak, is not to even suggest that someone invest in something unless it's pretty obviously a joke, as with my mention of Pork Belly Futures, which I do NOT endorse nor recommend, as I Am Not A Financial Planner, and This Is Not Advice.

     

    And if you still want to go through with this project, go talk to an HTG lawyer first.

  • Invest in helium. It always rises.

  • That's what they said about dough but I always knead more.

  • Skoob

     

    Sorry, my bugbear; it is first of all, secondly and thirdly. The 'of all' is only

    applied to the first instance, not the second and third.

     

     

  • I'll make a note of that so that I can carefully misapply it in the future. Smiley Tongue

     

    How are you with split infinitives?

     

    (Yes, you're right; I got caught up in my own diatribe and made a stylistic goof).

     

     

  • How are you with split infinitives?

     

    They often go their own way leading happy separate lives once they have decided who gets the adjectives.

  • Thank You Skoob_Ym

     

    Maybe I just worded my question incorrectly.

     

    I just wanted to convey my experience and highlight mistakes I made so other can learn from them and to identify hidden pitfalls I encountered.  The book is meant to be educational whilst at the sametime instructional.

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Marcus

     

     

     

    .

     

     

  • You only need a disclaimer if you are offering advice, but such a disclaimer would put people off taking it. If you are only writing about your personal experiences then you are not offering advice as such, only observations to do with yourself.


  • marcusxman wrote:

    Thank You Skoob_Ym

     

    Maybe I just worded my question incorrectly.

     

    I just wanted to convey my experience and highlight mistakes I made so other can learn from them and to identify hidden pitfalls I encountered.  The book is meant to be educational whilst at the sametime instructional.

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Marcus

     

     ___________________________

     

    In that case, I think that your book would probably be fine with disclaimers. You would need for it to be very clear that you are not offering financial advice, but are sharing your experiences.

     

    If you make any broad statements such as "I would never again invest in pork belly futures" then I would suggest prefacing it with "I am not a financial planner, but speaking for myself, I would never again ..."

     

    And remember that I am not a lawyer, and we're just two guys chatting over the fence.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Would any one like to buy a map to a secret Bolivian goldmine? Almost guaranteed to be a map.

  • Curiously, a former tenant once left some papers which purport to be the plans for a time machine.

     

    The first page is water-damaged, and I cannot make any statements about the efficacy of the device one might make from these plans... but I'll sell them to you cheaply...

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    The interesting thing about time machines is that if anyone at any time in the future invents one, then the users have always been around. Unless they apply a law that states they can only go back 20 years, or whatever, and of course the non-interference clause.

  • One might find that they have very specific limits imposed by, say, Planck's Constant. One might find that the "distances" one travelled in time were "Quantized," that is, one might go to a certain date in 1932, plus or minus two or three hours, but not to 1931 0r 1933. Then the next "Shell" would be a bit broader, say a date in 1857, plus or minus three months. or 1769, plus or minus six months, 1684 plus or minus a year...

     

    And beyond that, the time travel would be outside the radius of the Strong Temporal Force (which is regulated by the "color" attribute of the spacetime at the moment we call "Present"). The the Electro-Weak Nuclear Force would make your time travel extremely unstable.

     

    As an example of why the first time traveler might not have gone back to the moment when he first invented the time machine to tell himself how to do it.

     

    Further, the time traveler might find that time is compressible and non-linear, so going to the first shell, finding himself in 1932, then returning home for a few months and jumping to the first shell again, he finds himself in 1935. Or the next day in 1932.

     

    So it's not as simple as one might think.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    One might find that they have very specific limits imposed by, say, Planck's Constant. One might find that the "distances" one travelled in time were "Quantized," that is, one might go to a certain date in 1932, plus or minus two or three hours, but not to 1931 0r 1933. Then the next "Shell" would be a bit broader, say a date in 1857, plus or minus three months. or 1769, plus or minus six months, 1684 plus or minus a year...

     

    They need to fit it with a better clock, then. But possibly they are using tachyons and not photons, or something we don't even have a theory for yet. 'Times,' named after the great future discoverer, Mr Dubious Tims.

     

    And beyond that, the time travel would be outside the radius of the Strong Temporal Force (which is regulated by the "color" attribute of the spacetime at the moment we call "Present"). The the Electro-Weak Nuclear Force would make your time travel extremely unstable.

     

    Well, I did say at any time in the future, not now. What will they know and be capable of in 10,000 years that we are not now?

     

    As an example of why the first time traveler might not have gone back to the moment when he first invented the time machine to tell himself how to do it.

     

    I missed that. What example? But that aspect in many SF stories can only really be possible based on the technology available to the man in the past. Would there be any point going back even just 100 years with the design for a digital camera? Although that aspect has been covered also. "Create a spacewarp Jim?!! But this is 1920!"

     

    Further, the time traveler might find that time is compressible and non-linear, so going to the first shell, finding himself in 1932, then returning home for a few months and jumping to the first shell again, he finds himself in 1935. Or the next day in 1932.

     

    No doubt a problem that could be sorted out by people not so rigidly minded.

     

    So it's not as simple as one might think.

     

    Wow! Is that why I cannot do it then?!! But I did say at anytime in the future. It was not that long ago considered impossible to get to the moon, and now SpaceX are taking cash off two tourists for a trip around it in 2 years time.

     

    In one of A. C. Clarke's novels he has a Preface. It says if one uses the technology of today, and the theories of physics of today, SF would be impossible to write.


     

  • Then clarke is wrong. Andy Weir did it with The Martian.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Wrong about what?

     

    The Martian was published in 2011. The Clarke book I got his words from was published in 1994, and about travelling to other star systems millions of light years away, not to the planet next door, which we cannot even do with humans as yet ...

  • Andy Weir used the technology of today -- everything he describes in The Martian is technologically possible today -- and the theories of physics of today. And he wrote science fiction, that is, fiction in which the hero uses science to resolve the conflict. So it is not impossible to write science fiction using the technology of today and the theories of physics of today. So Clarke is wrong. QED.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Again you are missing the point and just being pedantic.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

    Andy Weir used the technology of today -- everything he describes in The Martian is technologically possible today

     

    Not all of it, he was doing the SF thing of extrapolating experimental tech of today and how it may progress in the near future, such as in 2024 ... and that will be one way. $zillions permitting any of it happening of course.

     

    -- and the theories of physics of today.

     

    That is true, but he had no choice because he was writing about 'today'. Clarke and most other SF writers do not, hence Clarke's point. But even so, Clarke often uses theories around at the time he is writing, and is one of the ones famous for predicting technology of the future.

     

    And he wrote science fiction, that is, fiction in which the hero uses science to resolve the conflict. So it is not impossible to write science fiction using the technology of today and the theories of physics of today. So Clarke is wrong. QED.

     

    As I said, it was a quote from the preface in one of his books about interstellar immigration, and he is 100% right about that. Do you read much SF?



    .

  • Tons of it, or as you would say, tonnes of it.

     

    In secondary school, which we call high school (oh that was a while ago), I did a paper on the history of Science Fiction, from Lucien of Samosata to Hugo Gernback, the famous pulp publisher of the 1930s/1940s/1950s.

     

    So, what would be an example of a technological development cited by Andy Weir that is not possible using today's technology?

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Tons of it, or as you would say, tonnes of it.

     

    No, I would say Tons, but I thought Americans only spoke in pounds? Because it sounds a lot more?

     

    In secondary school, which we call high school (oh that was a while ago), I did a paper on the history of Science Fiction, from Lucien of Samosata to Hugo Gernback, the famous pulp publisher of the 1930s/1940s/1950s.

     

    Well done. Only one piece of paper?

     

    So, what would be an example of a technological development cited by Andy Weir that is not possible using today's technology?

     

    All of it? It is not as yet ready, apart from the potato perhaps. As I said, like many SF writers, he looked at what is being experimented with now, and projected it in to the future as no longer experimental and ready (and safe) for use, not the mention economical. Anyhow, I thought the series Mars was better, but much further in to the future. But that did point out one problem they are researching, the effect on the minds of the people they send there. The technolgy would be no help if they all went nuts.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfteeECf5U4

     

    http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/mars/videos/mars-trailer-2/

     

    Like a lot of SF, though, they are possibly being optimistic about the year.

     

    A shame they don't pour $billions in to developing this >>    https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

     

    Anyway, how and why did we get on to this subject?

     

     


     

  • Well, since it has now been demonstrated that the alleged efficacy of the EMDrive hinged entirely upon measurement errors, it would perhaps not be wise to pour funding into it. I am not an astrophysicist, but I did know one (he died recently) and I had the pleasure of discussing the EM Drive with him. It's a pig in a poke.

     

    Even if it did work, the total thrust was in something like piconewtons at best... frankly, having the astronauts flatulate during EVAs would produce more thrust, and faster, than the EMDrive. A more practical acceleration method would be ION drives, which would strip small amounts of ionized gases (technically, plasmas) from water and accelerate it to high speed. KE=MV^2, thus the high velocities of the ION streams would tend to give a reactive KE to the main ship. Drives of this nature ahve achieved thrusts of about 1 newton -- the flatulant astronaut method would still work better, but it's a step in the right direction.

     

    And since extra-terrestrial water is available, it would seem to be a cheap resource.

     

    How did we get here? The usual way: Puns and pedantics.

Sign In or Register to comment.