Interesting People mailing list archives

Re: UNfair use -- Google iPhone usage shocks search giant


From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:20:58 -0800


________________________________________
From: Mike Godwin [mnemonic () gmail com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:35 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] UNfair use --  Google iPhone usage shocks search giant

Hi, Dave.

Peter Wayner's comment regarding a purported plagiarism of a Financial
Times story challenged "fair use advocates to explain how this kind of
'fair use' is good for society."

This comment illustrates a common misconception about the relationship
between plagiarism and copyright infringement.  A work can an instance
of plagiarism without being copyright infringement (a rewrite of a
news service story might qualify if the new expression were
sufficiently different from the original expression, which is the only
thing protected by copyright law).  Conversely, a work can be an
instance of copyright infringement without being plagiarism (as when a
quotation exceeds fair use but is correctly attributed to the original
author).

No one who defends fair use is a defender of plagiarism, so far as I
know.  Copyright infringement is a legal matter; plagiarism is a
matter of  academic or authorial integrity.  While the two topics are
not wholly unrelated (hence Peter's conflation of "fair use" with
plagiarism here), they're analytically distinct.

In the particular case to which Peter refers, by the way, I'm inclined
to say that both copyright infringement *and* plagiarism occurred, and
of course I disapprove of both.


--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation



On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:18 AM, David Farber wrote:


________________________________________
From: Peter Wayner [pcw () flyzone com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:57 PM
To: David Farber; Dewayne Hendricks
Subject: Fwd: [IP] Google iPhone usage shocks search giant

Dave-

Let's give credit where credit is due. Maija Palmer and Paul Taylor
of the Financial Times are the real author of most of the work,
"Google iPhone usage shocks search giant", that you reprinted/
repurposed/fair-used/pinched:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/667f13de-da60-11dc-9bb9-0000779fd2ac.html

By my count at least 200 words of the 318 words in the AppleInsider
story are direct copies. The rest are cheap substitutes ("2008" for
"this year".) The few changes were cursory at best and dangerously
speculative at worst. (Will Android phones be "be announced in the
second half of this year" as the Financial Times reported or will
they "begin shipping during the second 
half<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/11/05/notes_of_interest_on_googles_android_announcement.html
of 2008" as AppleInsider reported?)

If this were my student, I would have strung him up on plagiarism
charges. I think you should publish a clarification.

So let me challenge the fair use advocates to explain how this kind
of "fair use" is good for society?



Begin forwarded message:

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com<mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com> (Dewayne
Hendricks)
Date: February 15, 2008 3:57:05 AM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com<mailto:xyzzy () warpspeed com

Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google iPhone usage shocks search giant

Google iPhone usage shocks search giant

By Slash Lane
Published: 03:00 PM EST
<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/14/google_iphone_usage_shocks_search_giant.html


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


Current thread: