When a newspaper “rips off” your blog, then taunts you about it…
iandennismiller.com
iandennismiller.com
However, if you just run a website, you are not a journalist and the unwritten rules do not apply. (This is one of the cultural reasons why newspapers cannot conceive of getting out of the dead tree distribution business, even if it is killing them -- that is the source of their power and privilege, after all.)
I'm sure folks do get fired for plagiarism, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, where mostly no one cares until the complaints start getting loud enough.
The main issue here is they had the opportunity to cite the source before and afterword with a simple and free link. Instead they thought they would be Gob and just rewrite history, too bad for them they are not exactly bright with journalism or technology. Negative publicity is a given, but they deserve worse for all covering up this dipsh*t did after the fact.
Plagiarism isn't [generally] a crime. There is no general legal protection for artistic ideas (patents usually have a clause requiring industrial application; copyright protects works and not ideas per se). In addition - and this makes me think you're trolling - using another persons idea isn't stealing unless you do something like electroshock therapy to remove that idea from their memory. Stealing requires that something is taken and then can't be used any longer by whomever it was taken from; you can't steal an idea.
>Re-using the exact same image is just insult to injury.
The original and subsequent use appear to be [copyright] infringing use of an image which from what I can tell is the original work of the owners of petitelapgiraffe.com. Certainly if iandennismiller.com has any default right to use it then too does longislandpress.com.
I can't access the original cache but from the rest of what is presented this just looks like Mr Miller wrote a blog post that a journo read, journo wrote a story on the same thing referencing the same source; TBH I can't see the fault in that. Whilst it would have been nice to credit the reference that gave one the source I don't really see it as unethical not to.
He said it is plagiarism, then affirms again that t is stealing. This is the generally accepted definition of plagarism. He doesn't accuse anyone of a crime, if he had maybe he would have used words like fraud or copyright infringement, or something along those lines, instead he said plagiarize; and as other have commented, plagiarism doesn't necessarily constitute copyright infringement and vice versa.
And then you proceeded to take the insult to injury comment out of context, in context he meant that obviously this author who plagiarized didn't even care enough to find out if someone owned the image either, or further that it had apparently been edited by the blogger in question. No claims were made about copyright infringement whatsoever, but it showed a significant lack of due diligence even further so then simply plagiarizing the article.
So now that I am done refering to myself in 3rd person. I would absolutely love to take a lesson out of your book and assume you are something based on what you write (or don't write) out of context and make myself feel 5 times better, but your not worth it.
And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea.
And if negative karma is the consequence of well worded opinion, then I haven't a clue why anyone would want positive karma.
No, they get thrown out for doing something against the rules of the school. The fact that they get thrown out does not prove that an idea was meaningfully stolen (as opposed to the simpler explanation, in which the student experienced a lapse of integrity in following citation requirements).
A thought experiment: If I believe that we have a duty to repay society for all that it has done for us, then in order not to be a thief, am I required to raise Immanuel Kant from the dead and ask him for permission every time I want to bring it up in conversation? Obviously, no. I'm allowed to believe the same thing as Immanuel Kant and it is not theft. If I got my ideas from Kant but tried to deny it, that would be dishonest, and he would still be the originator, but ideas aren't really property.
This isn't defending what the Long Island Press did, but you're going too far in the other direction.
I am a college professor, and even though I observe at the end of each term that some of my students have failed to learn anything, I don't really want anyone to fail.
However, ...
Australian actresses are plagiarizing my quantum mechanics lecture to sell printers: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=277
tl;dr of the article: Someone created an Australian commercial for a printer. Two models are talking physics/CS to each other, and the tagline is "A more intelligent model". The models' script is copied from one of Scott Aaronson's lectures.
I think he ended up contacting them, and getting them to donate $5,000 to a CS foundation (instead of sewing them for copyright violations).
That disease struck CNN extremely hard. It is not a news organization anymore - it just aggregates second and third hand hearsay from twitter. (Al Jazeera or Sky news tends to be better...)
Too proud? Where do you get that from.
As I see it someone looked at the blog post, clicked through to the petitelapgiraffe.com site and wrote about that site.
If they should write:
Source: petitelapgiraffe.com Referred from: iandennismiller.com
Should they also write who they were referred to iandennismiller.com from, who referred them there, etc., etc..
If they saw the story elsewhere first and then scouted around to see what people were writing about it, looking for an angle, then do they still need to write a "referred by" line? If they looked over someones shoulder on the metro and saw the original site do they have to cite that?
Just seems a bit silly.
(I'm actually not being sarcastic. "Kind of" as a concept is one we use so frequently it might as well have its own word)
But there are still plenty of serious journalists out there. Thankfully, in the Internet age, we can be choosy where we get our news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._A...
This is the origin of the "hot news" idea of short-term copyright, balancing the effort of the original writer with the public's need to know the news.
The linked scenario, however, is quite different.
Tout comme vous je reçois chaque jour une bonne centaine d’E-mails publicitaires. Cela ne me dérange pas trop outre mesure, et je ne fais pas partie de ceux qui hurlent immédiatement au spam loin de la. Les éliminer me prend tout au plus une minute car sur G-mail il y a un petit " carré " qui marche très bien, mais parmi eux, il y en a certains qui m’intéressent quand même , car ils proposent des produits ou des trucs et des bidules et autres machins qui pourraient parfaitement figurer dans mon catalogue web ( c'est à dire ma corbeille )..... http://webboutiquevelane19.blogspot.com/
"Plagarism isn't just taking things word for word, if you take anyone's ideas without permission, YOU ARE STEALING."
Using someone's ideas/text/research without attribution is plagiarism.
They are two different considerations, commonly confused. You can violate copyright without plagiarising, and you can plagiarise without breaking copyright.
It's an ethical consideration, certainly, unfortunately it is so persuasive nowadays that no one does anything much but shrug and say "yep, aren't they rude"
It's 5pm so not really concentrating ;)
velane19