Whilst over at Townhall this morning, reading an interesting article by Doug Giles, I noticed that someone by the name of Wolf had plagiarized MY WORDS:
"The jihad which is out to annihilate us, and annihilate freedom and democracy, and annihilate all that the West stands for. This is indeed a battle between two civilizations. In such a battle, there is no room for dialogue, there is room only for victory. For, as Churchill so wisely stated during the Second World War, “Without victory, there is no survival”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say: You ‘interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for ‘interfaithing’!"
These sentences are very distinctive. Wolf had so obviously 'lifted' them out of my essay, 'You 'interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for 'interfaithing'!'
You can verify this by reading his words THERE and reading my words HERE.
I do not object to anyone quoting me, but it is normal and correct custom to state from where and from whom the words come. In this instance, this was not done.
May I remind my visitors that people who do this are actually in breach of copyright law. Please remember when quoting me, or anyone else, that one should give due credit for the originality of the writer. This is the only courteous and correct thing to do. It is the norm and the custom. It is also the law!
©Mark Alexander
13 comments:
Plaigiarism only becomes a problem when someone other than the author gains pecuniary advantage from it.
In instances such as this I would see it as a complement. Someone without your expressive capability or original thought has liked your words enough to repeat them.
I invite anyone to my blog to plaigiarise the hell out of it, because that means that the message will be reaching far more people than it would otherwise, and for me it is the message that is important not my copyright.
The Old Nail:
I disagree with you TOTALLY here. It is only correct to give due respect to the author of the words and statements in question. Not to do so is discourteous in the extreme, and it is also a breach of copyright law.
It's all very well saying that one's words reach a wider audience, but one's words would reach a wider audience when due credit has been given, too.
I am not just a blogger, but an author. Indeed, I am an author first. Unfortunately, I have to try and make a living from my writing. I do not have the luxury of being able to blog and forget about an income. Many bloggers who have retired might enjoy that luxury. Alas, I haven't got to that point yet.
When one must make a living from one's writing, then it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that the author be given all due credit. What if I decide to incorporate those words in my next book? Then, if due credit hasn't been given, people could well accuse me of plagiarizing MY words from someone else!
For God's sake, let's stick to the rules of the game. The person in question said that he couldn't find the authors name, so he tried to pass the words off as his own. A quick search of Google would have informed him of the author's name, namely me.
It is simply not good enough to plagiarize other people's words. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it is illegal!
Mark,
I'm glad to see that you blogged this incident.
The person in question said that he couldn't find the authors name...
Couldn't find the author's name? Well, he copied and pasted the words from somewhere, didn't he? Why didn't he cite that source, be that source this site or another's where he found the words?
Personally, I never quote someone without citing the source, whether I'm writing an article or making a comment.
Wolf passed off the words as his own.
Always:
I agree with you 100%. I disagree with 'The Old Nail' utterly and totally. I think it matters one hell of a lot to cite the source; and, in the rare instance one might not know it (which couldn't have been the case in this incident), then I believe it is customary to state that the source is Anonymous. At least that way, one isn't trying to pass the words off as one's own.
I wonder if the same blogger would use J. K. Rowling's words and pass those off as his own? I doubt it somehow. He's have too much respect for his pocketbook!
Writing something original means that the intellectual copyright belongs with the originator. Imagine taking a manufacturer's very successful recipe for a foodstuff and passing the recipe as one's own! I'd like to observe the fall-out!
Mark,
As I earn my own living as a fine Artist I can relate to what you are saying, but I don't consider, as you obviously do that I 'Have' to try an earn a living in this way, only that I CHOOSE to, and despite the 'old-nail' title I am far from the retirement age myself.
Perhaps this wolf character simply isn't as familiar with copyright law, or indeed writers etiquette as are you or I.
The clue would be in having to plagiarise you at all, for anyone with any original thought or talent wouldn't have to.
To site your sources is one of the first commandments of essay writing, always assuming that the person writing actually attended college to know that, many have not been so fortunate.
The blogosphere is open to persons of all abilities and educational standards, it just seems that your reaction was a bit precious....and before you ask - yes, my paintings have been copied and sold on the internet, it isn't fair, but life's like that... my consolation is they are never as good as an original!
The Old Nail:
As I earn my own living as a fine Artist I can relate to what you are saying, but I don't consider, as you obviously do that I 'Have' to try an earn a living in this way, only that I CHOOSE to, and despite the 'old-nail' title I am far from the retirement age myself.
I think it is hair-splitting to talk about 'choosing to' or 'having to'. Most people have to make a buck here or there. Only the few are blessed with so much money at birth that they really don't 'have to'. But, like you, I choose to earn my living this way. Though maybe I am a little older than you; so the term 'having to' is perhaps a little more appropriate in my case. After a certain age, many doors close on one.
I am glad for the clarification about your age. With the name you have chosen, I really did think that you might be of retirement age, sitting back enjoying a very comfortable retirement. And if that had been the case, I would certainly not have begrudged you the luxury, either.
Perhaps this wolf character simply isn't as familiar with copyright law, or indeed writers etiquette as are you or I.
Yes, maybe he isn't. We can say that if we wish to cut him some slack. But somehow I doubt that he is unfamiliar with copyright laws. Only the stupid are that clueless. Wolf comes over as anything but stupid. On the contrary, he comes over as being very intelligent.
The clue would be in having to plagiarise you at all, for anyone with any original thought or talent wouldn't have to.
It's a ready source of original words. That gives us a clue, too.
To site your sources is one of the first commandments of essay writing, always assuming that the person writing actually attended college to know that, many have not been so fortunate.
Maybe not. But, as I have already said, his own writing is erudite enough.
Anyway, I do not wish to belabour what Wolf has done. As far as I am concerned, it is forgotten about now. But I did want to draw this to people's attention, because the principle is wrong; and I wanted to establish that those words were indeed mine. They were very distinctive.
The blogosphere is open to persons of all abilities and educational standards, it just seems that your reaction was a bit precious....
I'm sorry if my reaction came over as 'a bit precious'. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why they should have. For you to understand how this happened, you ought to know that I went on to Townhall yesterday morning quite by chance. It was early morning; and I was reading what people had written. When I stumbled upon my own very distinctive words, and I hadn't been given due attribution, I was rather shocked, disappointed, and, it has to be said, rather annoyed. It wasn't a question of being precious; rather, it was a question of being correct. That came over to me as being very incorrect.
and before you ask - yes, my paintings have been copied and sold on the internet, it isn't fair, but life's like that... my consolation is they are never as good as an original!
Were I to be you, I should be very annoyed to have my paintings copied like that. That really isn't fair either. I can only commiserate with you.
By the way, a free plug for you. Please tell us the name of the website where your paintings are sold.
Hi Mark,
I'm actually in my late 40's so perhaps we have similar experience in matters of life.
I chose the 'nom-de-plume' Old nail because of the subject matter of many of my paintings, I am a classic Automotive and Aviation artist and do sell internationally.
With regard to my website, well due to the nature of the posts that I make, and the very real and active Islamic threat here, I think revealing my site would perhaps defeat the object of having a nom de plume in the first instant.
Unfortunately I have to protect my family in this way, but thanks for the offe.
I will not be silenced or intimidated by the multiculturalists, and will continue to raise the alarm until the west awakens from it's coma.
Do you realise that our government is now imprisoning people on charges that claim "The truth is no defence"? can you imagine that? this is not cambodia or some tin-pot land but England 2006!
At the end of the day we all face a common enemy that threatens to bring our civilisation to a close and I don't have the luxury of living 2, 3, or 4000 miles from it, I live right here 'at the sharp end'of what will become 'Eurabia', and the nearer you get to me, I promise you the more you will value the safety of anonimity.
regards,
Old-Nail.
The Old Nail:
Do you realise that our government is now imprisoning people on charges that claim "The truth is no defence"? can you imagine that? this is not cambodia or some tin-pot land but England 2006!
No, I didn't realize that "the truth is no defence'! Where did you learn this? This is frightening stuff!
Maybe civil war will come sooner than we first thought!
Old Nail:
I am deeply troubled by what you have just told me. If the truth is no defence, then we, as a civilization, are done for! There is nowhere to go! Is this what Tony Blair and his entourage have done for us?
Where can we escape to?
The statement of "The truth shall be no defence" is part of the Statute made law under Blairs government regarding 'Incitement to racial hatred'.
It is a type of gagging order to protect the multicultural experiment that has been forced upon us and has gone so terribly wrong, it works in this way:
If a person reads the Koran, and then identifies within it's teachings are passages harmful to our western customs, then they are to keep that knowledge to themselves as repeating it becomes a 'hate crime'.
If an discovery is made that the recent rise in attacks on British jews is not as the media tells us perpetrated by 'The far right' but actually by young Muslims,
Or that the tenfold increase in AIDS and HIV not due to promiscuity of the young, but actually due to the massive influx of African immigrants then we must say nothing.
Our media do not mention the nationalities of the muggers and murderers they report daily as the true facts cannot be diseminated.
The law states that should you reveal your findings in written form or word of mouth, even though the findings are fact, you are guilty of race crime and in court for you "The truth shall be no defence".
Similarly, the 'Thought crime' laws operate thus;(Taken from the Police website)
Hate Crime
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
Hate Incident
Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
Racist Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.
Homophobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person.
Transphobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be transphobic by the victim or any other person.
Faith Related Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the faith of the victim or so perceived by the victim or any other person.
As you can see by the above, the offence is committed as soon as a person 'percieves' it to be committed, whether it actually took place or not is not even a consideration.
Furthermore, a bank worker was recently arrested after trying to understand a non English speaking immigrant at the counter, she was overheard to say to one of her colleagues "These foreigners are hard to deal with" or somesuch statement. The person that overheard this, another employee, reported her and she was arrested...remember the law 'by the victim or any other person'.
Welcome to Blairs Britain my friend, Soviets reborn!
Old Nail:
I knew that Blair's Britain was bad. That was very, very clear to me. But what you have just written is worse than anyone's worst nightmare!
These are very troubling developments indeed!
The statement of "The truth shall be no defence" is part of the Statute made law under Blairs government regarding 'Incitement to racial hatred'.
It is a type of gagging order to protect the multicultural experiment that has been forced upon us and has gone so terribly wrong, it works in this way:
If a person reads the Koran, and then identifies within it's teachings are passages harmful to our western customs, then they are to keep that knowledge to themselves as repeating it becomes a 'hate crime'.
So when we bloggers write essays on Islam, and we cite unsavoury passages from the Qur'an in our essays, then we, too, must be guilty of "hate crimes". Heaven forbid!
If an discovery is made that the recent rise in attacks on British jews is not as the media tells us perpetrated by 'The far right' but actually by young Muslims,
Or that the tenfold increase in AIDS and HIV not due to promiscuity of the young, but actually due to the massive influx of African immigrants then we must say nothing.
So we must all become like the BBC now then, must we?
Our media do not mention the nationalities of the muggers and murderers they report daily as the true facts cannot be diseminated.
The BBC is particularly 'good' at masking incidents by ethnic groups, especially ones caused by Muslims.
The law states that should you reveal your findings in written form or word of mouth, even though the findings are fact, you are guilty of race crime and in court for you "The truth shall be no defence".
Charming, to be sure!
Similarly, the 'Thought crime' laws operate thus;(Taken from the Police website)
Hate Crime
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
Hate Incident
Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.
Racist Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.
Homophobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person.
Transphobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be transphobic by the victim or any other person.
Faith Related Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the faith of the victim or so perceived by the victim or any other person.
It's amazing how the word 'perceives' keeps cropping up in those lines, isn't it? So now, if a Muslim has a particular vendetta against a white Christian in his neighbourhood, then he can misconstrue an incident to mean that he 'perceives' a "hate crime" against him, can he?
As you can see by the above, the offence is committed as soon as a person 'percieves' it to be committed, whether it actually took place or not is not even a consideration.
Disgusting!
Furthermore, a bank worker was recently arrested after trying to understand a non English speaking immigrant at the counter, she was overheard to say to one of her colleagues "These foreigners are hard to deal with" or somesuch statement. The person that overheard this, another employee, reported her and she was arrested...remember the law 'by the victim or any other person'.
We had better watch our humour now then. Mind you, Muslims are so humourless that I have been predicting this kind of development for a long time now.
I learnt all about the Muslim's lack of sense of humour many years ago, back in the Middle East.
Welcome to Blairs Britain my friend, Soviets reborn!
I have never liked Blair. I thought he was overrated from the start. A puffed up little pup, if ever there was one!
Re comment from "The Old Nail" on the horrifying fact that the truth is no longer a defence. I guess we have a regine in Tony Blair and his government which is akin to Hitler and the Nazi empire. The British police have become Britain's SS. If they want to arrest and imprision me, let them go ahead. I PERCEIVE them to be traitors to the Crown and to the British people and therefore they must be!
US Iconoclastic Patriot:
When the truth is no longer a defence, then we are in deep, deep trouble. I have to keep pinching myself to realize that Britain has sunk so low!
I guess we have a regime in Tony Blair and his government which is akin to Hitler and the Nazi empire. The British police have become Britain's SS.
It seems so. And all we have called the Nazis! Now, we are little better than they were, at least in terms of respecting the truth and people's human rights. Whatever happened to free speech?
If they want to arrest and imprision me, let them go ahead. I PERCEIVE them to be traitors to the Crown and to the British people and therefore they must be!
Traitors to the Crown and to the British people they most certainly are. But then Blair never did have any respect for the Crown.
Post a Comment