They aren't the same people, Danny. Some of us know who they are. There are quite a few of us who have been here at the cafe so long that we have left permanent butt prints on some of the booths.
Feel free to steal the gum from under any of the booths except the big one in the corner. That's my super secret stash for food fights gone bad.
Belle - Ok and that has nothing to do with the subject at hand which is Stiles, which is why these posts go on and on because rather than offer argument to the matter at hand it is easier to confuse the issue which again for the record is J.E Stiles and his book The Gift of Holy Spirit not B.G. Leonard
Lets see Oldies post from work in the day time on days that
a company would be open.
WD post on weekends and nights.
Both have a God named VP.
If it walks like a duck---------
how hard would it be to have a different email addy
get a different handle.
Smells the same to me.
And with that kind of sloppy deductive reasoning Danny I'll trust your input say about 0
Love the VP is your God quip so typical when you have no real input. You might wanna check if I ever said anything remotely like that. Here is a tip the answer is no!
Yep. And we disagree that it was wrong and immoral for vee pee to have not given proper credit for Stiles' work regardless of whether or not it was stolen with permission. Which, for me, is yet one more reason (among many) vee pee is despicable and no man of God or person to be respected. :)
WD, you keep misrepresenting something and it needs to be cleared up: plagiarism as a moral issue is independent of copyright and public domain law. One has nothing to do with the other. You keep making it sound like because a work is in the public domain, an author can quote it extensively and pretend he wrote it, as Wierwille did, and not be guilty of plagiarism. That is simply wrong.
If it's not what you're trying to say, fine. But it's the impression you're leaving.
Copyright law, public domain law, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.
He may have had permission in which case you can't really steal what is given to you. But your reasons are yours to own. Fine by me. Just remember our reasons are not necessarily truth.
Oh, come on! Look at the contortions you have to twist yourself into to defend this liar who insults your intelligence! He was wrong to do it to this guy, and it may have been illegal, and he may have been withing the law when he did it to THAT guy, but he clearly did not have that guy's permission, but he may have had this other guy's permission.
Are you kidding?
Your reasoning is not reasoning at all: it's twisted apologetics worthy of a dime store defense lawyer (and not a very good one at that).
(edited to reflect an edit WD made to preceding post)
Precisely what I said. Well, more succinct, but the same point.
I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that his intentions with Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles and others I may have overlooked were identical. That is, to cut and paste their works, with some alterations mainly to account for theological and/or style differences, not give them credit, slap his name on the cover as the author, and sell his product, which was not just a book, but himself as a godly authority on this earth.
All of the actions described with regard to the works of the other men are plagiarism, period. They may not be violations of the law on a case by case basis, but one need not violate the law to commit plagiarism. This equating of plagiarism with a violation of the law is a distraction from the issue of whether plagiarism took place. The plagiarism took place whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As for legal violations, so what and who cares? Why is THAT the point? No one's trying to prosecute a man who's been dead 22 years (and if we were, we'd have better indictments than plagiarism!).
Maybe Stiles didn't mind having his work stolen and profiting someone else, but Leonard did.
Belle - Ok and that has nothing to do with the subject at hand which is Stiles, which is why these posts go on and on because rather than offer argument to the matter at hand it is easier to confuse the issue which again for the record is J.E Stiles and his book The Gift of Holy Spirit not B.G. Leonard
WD, I started this thread because of the (new to me) realization that vpw was little more than a thief when it came to his body of ideas and writings.
vpw's plagiarism in general is applicable, so it's perfectly fine with me for Belle to bring up Leonard, or anyone else whose work was victimized by vpw.
a narrow view into a handful of instance and one victim might make it easier for you to defend your position that the jury has to remain out on whether vpw was a thief, WD, but it feels like an attempt at a cover-up.
we've already established what copyright is, what plagiarism is, and what public domain is. and also that stealing public domain works by passing them off as yours is fraud, with an attached fine.
WD, I started this thread because of the (new to me) realization that vpw was little more than a thief when it came to his body of ideas and writings.
vpw's plagiarism in general is applicable, so it's perfectly fine with me for Belle to bring up Leonard, or anyone else whose work was victimized by vpw.
Not really, facts are applicable each case stands on it's own just as in a court of law cases are not allowed to influence each other. prior behavior and convictions are not necessarily admissible as a defense.
a narrow view into a handful of instance and one victim might make it easier for you to defend your position that the jury has to remain out on whether vpw was a thief, WD, but it feels like an attempt at a cover-up.
we've already established what copyright is, what plagiarism is, and what public domain is. and also that stealing public domain works by passing them off as yours is fraud, with an attached fine.
Not exactly there has been some disagreement by definition what public domain is. I see nothing established. only opinions to what source is correct.
WD, if Stiles was the only person he stole from you might have a leg to stand on. His pattern of behavior does not support your reasoning.
So? People do not always follow patterns, Sorry it's not proof. We are fallible by nature and that may usually run true but every once in a while we surprise ourselves and break the pattern . I can't disregard that is/may be a possibility in this case. It's inconclusive ,unless of course you wish to disregard the facts due to predisposed decisions based on emotional dislike.
All of the actions described with regard to the works of the other men are plagiarism, period. They may not be violations of the law on a case by case basis, but one need not violate the law to commit plagiarism. This equating of plagiarism with a violation of the law is a distraction from the issue of whether plagiarism took place. The plagiarism took place whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As for legal violations, so what and who cares? Why is THAT the point? No one's trying to prosecute a man who's been dead 22 years (and if we were, we'd have better indictments than plagiarism!).
I do! If you don't want to tread that territory then don't use words like theft which is a crime by the way and as such then brings into play legal discussions.
Fine. Wierwille was dishonest, disingenuous, insulting your intelligence and holding men of God to a lower standard to men of the world, but he didn't commit a crime when he lied about his authorship of his books.
How that makes you feel better, I don't know. Again, it distracts from the point, which is that "by Victor Paul Wierwille" was a lie.
So? People do not always follow patterns, Sorry it's not proof.
He quoted from a bunch of copyrighted works without giving credit. He quoted from non-copyrighted works without giving credit. You're not even arguing anymore, you're excuse-making.
Not really, facts are applicable each case stands on it's own just as in a court of law cases are not allowed to influence each other. prior behavior and convictions are not necessarily admissible as a defense.
Spend a little time in a courtroom:
If you were looking to convict him on this charge, then the pattern of behavior is most certainly admissible in any court. We have evidence that he plagiarized regularly. On the contrary, we have no evidence whatsoever except for your pure speculation that Stiles may have actually WANTED his works plagiarized without him getting any credit for it.
WD, seriously, you're on stronger ground not caring that he plagiarized than you are pretending beyond reason (and your argument IS beyond reason) that no plagiarism has taken place in the Stiles matter.
The best evidence we have, most favorable to the defence, is that Wierwille was an indifferent plagiarist: he knew what plagiarism was and knew he was engaged in it, but didn't care because he felt the content was more important. If that's your view, or anyone else's, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
But this game of pretending that what he did was not plagiarism because it wasn't a crime is just flat-out ignorant and a waste of pixels. What he did was plagiarism because it was taking credit for something someone else wrote. Period. I don't know why this is so complicated for you. Dance around it all you want. He took credit, repeatedly, for words, paragraphs, chapters, specific concepts, chapter structures, etc. that were developed by other people, usually not giving credit where it was required and due (by required, I mean: the credit should be in the publication, not at a meeting in the BRC years before or after the item is published).
If you want to say "so what?" then be my guest! If you want to argue that it wasn't a crime, be my guest.
If you want to argue that it wasn't dishonest, then you're being woefully naive and ignoring the abundantly clear, established pattern. The guy plagiarized rampantly, from PFAL all the way to Order My Steps in Thy Word. It didn't stop until his breathing did.
there has been some disagreement by definition what public domain is. I see nothing established. only opinions to what source is correct.
the definition of public domain is pretty simple. it's owned by the public rather than by specifically-named individuals. it's passed out of copyright protection protecting the rights of an individual and become the property of the public at large. I already provided a link that explained it in part, but here's another from Stanford with some good info:
oh by the way, if an author revised a work under the old copyright laws, the revisions were not protected under the same copyright and could become public domain although the original copyright was still in effect... and vice versa. material added to a public domain work is all that can be copyrighted, not the public domain material within the work. for vpw to put a copyright on his books that contained material lifted from Stiles' work (if it was indeed public domain) was, quite simply, defrauding the public of their right to ownership by explicitly stating he owned the materials in the books.
Additionally, the Copyright office has specific requirements for registering derivative works (this refers to filling out their form) and I think this has bearing on this discussion... basically, authors who create derivative works from public domain sources are supposed to disclose what they used. anything else is an attempt to defraud the public...
Space 6. Derivative work or compilation · Complete this space if the work being registered contains a substantial amount of material that:
* was previously published
* was previously registered in the U.S. Copyright Office
* is in the public domain, or
* is not included in the claim Preexisting material (space 6a) · Briefly, in general terms, describe the preexisting material that has been recast, transformed, or adapted. See examples below. Do not complete this space for compilations.
New material added (space 6b) · Briefly, in general terms, describe all new copyrightable authorship covered by the copyright claim for which you seek this registration. See examples below. All elements of authorship described in space 2 should be accounted for in space 6b. The statement used in 6b may be used in space 2 to describe the author’s contribution. Authors of preexisting material identified in space 6a should not be named in space 2.
If the claim is in the compilation only, state “compilation” at space 6b. lf the claim is in the compilation and any other material, state both “compilation” and the material that has been compiled, for example, “Compilation and foreword,” “Compilation of photographs, additional photography, and foreword,” “Compilation of recordings and liner notes,” “Compilation of gospel songs, additional music, and foreword,” “Compilation of 19th Century Political Cartoons, new foreword, and index.”
here's the link to that... I couldn't edit my post for some reason and I forgot to paste this in:
Raf I am willing to consider your ideas on plagiarism ,being in closer proximity to your line of work I am willing to defer at least for now to you on that subject I am and will consider the difference between the definitions that we arrived at mine being from what I considered a valid dictionary source. I have a couple of lawyers as clients I may just run this by them and see what they think as to this issue if they have time. perhaps they can provide some case work to see if in fact anything other than an ethical crime was committed.
I have not disputed the other claims for a case on plagiarism, only this one for reasons stated. I qualified it with a may. I'm willing to look at possibilities, others dislike VPW so it does not matter ,say whatever you like is the standard. right or wrong who cares? He did so and so else, so that makes him guilty of this also . In one sense you are correct there are enough issues that are without doubt provable to discredit his work if that is the intention. I find it telling that nothing with even a possibility of good can be left to stand. Every dog has his day,
I'd be interested in hearing what copyright lawyers would have to say, so please post what you find out. I've read plenty of articles by copyright lawyers over the years, particularly ones associated with universities, because copyright law has a direct bearing on much of my work.
the definition of public domain is pretty simple. it's owned by the public rather than by specifically-named individuals. it's passed out of copyright protection protecting the rights of an individual and become the property of the public at large.
Then again we still have this definition on the table also.
public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.
The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.
I am sure there is plenty of non-plagiarized content in VPW's work.
And I still hold to many of the things that were taught. Some of the things that were taught I no longer hold to, but I hold to something close (example: I no longer accept tithing as a principle, but I do accept generous giving from the heart; I don't accept a "law of believing," but I do see value in positive thinking).
But that he plagiarized? Not even arguable, in my book (which is extensively footnoted).
I guess copyright law fascinates you guys.
Look: copyright and plagiarism are distinct issues.
Something in the public domain has no copyright protection. THAT DOES NOT LIBERATE THE HONEST AUTHOR FROM THE NEED TO DOCUMENT HIS SOURCE WHEN QUOTING FROM SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. A dishonest author can do that at will.
WD, if you're willing to consider our professional credentials, consider this. I've been an editor and/or writer for 24 continuous years, and that's not counting my first job as a reporter/copy editor in 1967 and some earlier freelance work. Four of those 24 years were spent in Way Publications. One of my tasks in Way Pub was researching copyright ownership on the songs in Sing Along the Way, after the legal dept. or somebody finally figured out some royalties might be due someone. I'm not a copyright lawyer either, but I know a little bit about copyrights and publishing ethics.
This is the bottom line, plain and simple, which has been stated in a multitude of ways already, but what the heck:
Regardless of the legality/illegality of lifting someone else's writing verbatim without citing the source of that specific writing, it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest.
If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish.
Yes, but they can't claim to have written it: not morally or ethically, or even legally these days, but that evidently wasn't an issue in Wierwille's time.
I can copy Hamlet's soliloquy and put it on my door, on my web page, in the introduction of my book... I can do whatever I want with it, except say "Hamlet's soliloquy, by Raf." Once I do that, I am a liar.
I would probably not get away with it when it comes to Shakespeare, but when it comes to lesser-known authors, I could easily get away with it. I'd still be a liar and, morally but not legally speaking, a thief.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
Belle
Okay, WD, I found this and I know it's talked about more in depth with many witnesses on a much earlier thread.
Maybe Stiles didn't mind having his work stolen and profiting someone else, but Leonard did.
Leonard's Disappointment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Lets see Oldies post from work in the day time on days that
a company would be open.
WD post on weekends and nights.
Both have a God named VP.
If it walks like a duck---------
how hard would it be to have a different email addy
get a different handle.
Smells the same to me.
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
They aren't the same people, Danny. Some of us know who they are.
There are quite a few of us who have been here at the cafe so long that we have left permanent butt prints on some of the booths.
Feel free to steal the gum from under any of the booths except the big one in the corner. That's my super secret stash for food fights gone bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Cool but seems they are possessesessessed by the same god vp.
I used to know phil long ago.
But I dumped my evil spirits.
Edited by DannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Belle - Ok and that has nothing to do with the subject at hand which is Stiles, which is why these posts go on and on because rather than offer argument to the matter at hand it is easier to confuse the issue which again for the record is J.E Stiles and his book The Gift of Holy Spirit not B.G. Leonard
And with that kind of sloppy deductive reasoning Danny I'll trust your input say about 0
Love the VP is your God quip so typical when you have no real input. You might wanna check if I ever said anything remotely like that. Here is a tip the answer is no!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yep. And we disagree that it was wrong and immoral for vee pee to have not given proper credit for Stiles' work regardless of whether or not it was stolen with permission. Which, for me, is yet one more reason (among many) vee pee is despicable and no man of God or person to be respected. :)
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WD, you keep misrepresenting something and it needs to be cleared up: plagiarism as a moral issue is independent of copyright and public domain law. One has nothing to do with the other. You keep making it sound like because a work is in the public domain, an author can quote it extensively and pretend he wrote it, as Wierwille did, and not be guilty of plagiarism. That is simply wrong.
If it's not what you're trying to say, fine. But it's the impression you're leaving.
Copyright law, public domain law, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not exactly! Belle
He may have had permission in which case you can't really steal what is given to you. But your reasons are yours to own. Fine by me. Just remember our reasons are not necessarily truth.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, come on! Look at the contortions you have to twist yourself into to defend this liar who insults your intelligence! He was wrong to do it to this guy, and it may have been illegal, and he may have been withing the law when he did it to THAT guy, but he clearly did not have that guy's permission, but he may have had this other guy's permission.
Are you kidding?
Your reasoning is not reasoning at all: it's twisted apologetics worthy of a dime store defense lawyer (and not a very good one at that).
(edited to reflect an edit WD made to preceding post)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WD, if Stiles was the only person he stole from you might have a leg to stand on. His pattern of behavior does not support your reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Precisely what I said. Well, more succinct, but the same point.
I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that his intentions with Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles and others I may have overlooked were identical. That is, to cut and paste their works, with some alterations mainly to account for theological and/or style differences, not give them credit, slap his name on the cover as the author, and sell his product, which was not just a book, but himself as a godly authority on this earth.
All of the actions described with regard to the works of the other men are plagiarism, period. They may not be violations of the law on a case by case basis, but one need not violate the law to commit plagiarism. This equating of plagiarism with a violation of the law is a distraction from the issue of whether plagiarism took place. The plagiarism took place whether people want to acknowledge it or not. As for legal violations, so what and who cares? Why is THAT the point? No one's trying to prosecute a man who's been dead 22 years (and if we were, we'd have better indictments than plagiarism!).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
WD, I started this thread because of the (new to me) realization that vpw was little more than a thief when it came to his body of ideas and writings.
vpw's plagiarism in general is applicable, so it's perfectly fine with me for Belle to bring up Leonard, or anyone else whose work was victimized by vpw.
a narrow view into a handful of instance and one victim might make it easier for you to defend your position that the jury has to remain out on whether vpw was a thief, WD, but it feels like an attempt at a cover-up.
we've already established what copyright is, what plagiarism is, and what public domain is. and also that stealing public domain works by passing them off as yours is fraud, with an attached fine.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
So? People do not always follow patterns, Sorry it's not proof. We are fallible by nature and that may usually run true but every once in a while we surprise ourselves and break the pattern . I can't disregard that is/may be a possibility in this case. It's inconclusive ,unless of course you wish to disregard the facts due to predisposed decisions based on emotional dislike.
Reasonable doubt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I do! If you don't want to tread that territory then don't use words like theft which is a crime by the way and as such then brings into play legal discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fine. Wierwille was dishonest, disingenuous, insulting your intelligence and holding men of God to a lower standard to men of the world, but he didn't commit a crime when he lied about his authorship of his books.
How that makes you feel better, I don't know. Again, it distracts from the point, which is that "by Victor Paul Wierwille" was a lie.
He quoted from a bunch of copyrighted works without giving credit. He quoted from non-copyrighted works without giving credit. You're not even arguing anymore, you're excuse-making.Spend a little time in a courtroom:
If you were looking to convict him on this charge, then the pattern of behavior is most certainly admissible in any court. We have evidence that he plagiarized regularly. On the contrary, we have no evidence whatsoever except for your pure speculation that Stiles may have actually WANTED his works plagiarized without him getting any credit for it.
WD, seriously, you're on stronger ground not caring that he plagiarized than you are pretending beyond reason (and your argument IS beyond reason) that no plagiarism has taken place in the Stiles matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The best evidence we have, most favorable to the defence, is that Wierwille was an indifferent plagiarist: he knew what plagiarism was and knew he was engaged in it, but didn't care because he felt the content was more important. If that's your view, or anyone else's, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
But this game of pretending that what he did was not plagiarism because it wasn't a crime is just flat-out ignorant and a waste of pixels. What he did was plagiarism because it was taking credit for something someone else wrote. Period. I don't know why this is so complicated for you. Dance around it all you want. He took credit, repeatedly, for words, paragraphs, chapters, specific concepts, chapter structures, etc. that were developed by other people, usually not giving credit where it was required and due (by required, I mean: the credit should be in the publication, not at a meeting in the BRC years before or after the item is published).
If you want to say "so what?" then be my guest! If you want to argue that it wasn't a crime, be my guest.
If you want to argue that it wasn't dishonest, then you're being woefully naive and ignoring the abundantly clear, established pattern. The guy plagiarized rampantly, from PFAL all the way to Order My Steps in Thy Word. It didn't stop until his breathing did.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
the definition of public domain is pretty simple. it's owned by the public rather than by specifically-named individuals. it's passed out of copyright protection protecting the rights of an individual and become the property of the public at large. I already provided a link that explained it in part, but here's another from Stanford with some good info:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_...apter8/8-a.html
oh by the way, if an author revised a work under the old copyright laws, the revisions were not protected under the same copyright and could become public domain although the original copyright was still in effect... and vice versa. material added to a public domain work is all that can be copyrighted, not the public domain material within the work. for vpw to put a copyright on his books that contained material lifted from Stiles' work (if it was indeed public domain) was, quite simply, defrauding the public of their right to ownership by explicitly stating he owned the materials in the books.
Additionally, the Copyright office has specific requirements for registering derivative works (this refers to filling out their form) and I think this has bearing on this discussion... basically, authors who create derivative works from public domain sources are supposed to disclose what they used. anything else is an attempt to defraud the public...
Space 6. Derivative work or compilation · Complete this space if the work being registered contains a substantial amount of material that:
* was previously published
* was previously registered in the U.S. Copyright Office
* is in the public domain, or
* is not included in the claim Preexisting material (space 6a) · Briefly, in general terms, describe the preexisting material that has been recast, transformed, or adapted. See examples below. Do not complete this space for compilations.
New material added (space 6b) · Briefly, in general terms, describe all new copyrightable authorship covered by the copyright claim for which you seek this registration. See examples below. All elements of authorship described in space 2 should be accounted for in space 6b. The statement used in 6b may be used in space 2 to describe the author’s contribution. Authors of preexisting material identified in space 6a should not be named in space 2.
If the claim is in the compilation only, state “compilation” at space 6b. lf the claim is in the compilation and any other material, state both “compilation” and the material that has been compiled, for example, “Compilation and foreword,” “Compilation of photographs, additional photography, and foreword,” “Compilation of recordings and liner notes,” “Compilation of gospel songs, additional music, and foreword,” “Compilation of 19th Century Political Cartoons, new foreword, and index.”
here's the link to that... I couldn't edit my post for some reason and I forgot to paste this in:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Raf I am willing to consider your ideas on plagiarism ,being in closer proximity to your line of work I am willing to defer at least for now to you on that subject I am and will consider the difference between the definitions that we arrived at mine being from what I considered a valid dictionary source. I have a couple of lawyers as clients I may just run this by them and see what they think as to this issue if they have time. perhaps they can provide some case work to see if in fact anything other than an ethical crime was committed.
I have not disputed the other claims for a case on plagiarism, only this one for reasons stated. I qualified it with a may. I'm willing to look at possibilities, others dislike VPW so it does not matter ,say whatever you like is the standard. right or wrong who cares? He did so and so else, so that makes him guilty of this also . In one sense you are correct there are enough issues that are without doubt provable to discredit his work if that is the intention. I find it telling that nothing with even a possibility of good can be left to stand. Every dog has his day,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I'd be interested in hearing what copyright lawyers would have to say, so please post what you find out. I've read plenty of articles by copyright lawyers over the years, particularly ones associated with universities, because copyright law has a direct bearing on much of my work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am sure there is plenty of non-plagiarized content in VPW's work.
And I still hold to many of the things that were taught. Some of the things that were taught I no longer hold to, but I hold to something close (example: I no longer accept tithing as a principle, but I do accept generous giving from the heart; I don't accept a "law of believing," but I do see value in positive thinking).
But that he plagiarized? Not even arguable, in my book (which is extensively footnoted).
I guess copyright law fascinates you guys.
Look: copyright and plagiarism are distinct issues.
Something in the public domain has no copyright protection. THAT DOES NOT LIBERATE THE HONEST AUTHOR FROM THE NEED TO DOCUMENT HIS SOURCE WHEN QUOTING FROM SOMETHING IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. A dishonest author can do that at will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
WD, if you're willing to consider our professional credentials, consider this. I've been an editor and/or writer for 24 continuous years, and that's not counting my first job as a reporter/copy editor in 1967 and some earlier freelance work. Four of those 24 years were spent in Way Publications. One of my tasks in Way Pub was researching copyright ownership on the songs in Sing Along the Way, after the legal dept. or somebody finally figured out some royalties might be due someone. I'm not a copyright lawyer either, but I know a little bit about copyrights and publishing ethics.
This is the bottom line, plain and simple, which has been stated in a multitude of ways already, but what the heck:
Regardless of the legality/illegality of lifting someone else's writing verbatim without citing the source of that specific writing, it is WRONG. It's unethical. Period. It is, at the very least, sloppy workmanship and, at the worst, dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, but they can't claim to have written it: not morally or ethically, or even legally these days, but that evidently wasn't an issue in Wierwille's time.
I can copy Hamlet's soliloquy and put it on my door, on my web page, in the introduction of my book... I can do whatever I want with it, except say "Hamlet's soliloquy, by Raf." Once I do that, I am a liar.
I would probably not get away with it when it comes to Shakespeare, but when it comes to lesser-known authors, I could easily get away with it. I'd still be a liar and, morally but not legally speaking, a thief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.