The Rockhouse takes an extremely dim view of plagiarizing anything and the press has been having a field day with all the examples of it in a book by Monica Crowley, a member of Donald Trump's Cabinet. Much of the text she copied came from WIKI but that wasn't the only source.
You can see the contrast on Ithaka in which everything is credited or attributed whenever possible. The only times it's not possible are for photographs which come down from a Google search since it's often almost impossible to discover who shot them.
The general premise is the observation of plagiarism is sufficient to get her thrown off Trump's Cabinet but, if that's the best reason you've got, it's not much.
For her defense, she can cop a plea that she thought what she was doing was 'fair use' and that concept makes it legal to steal just about anything in music. Sample it and the music is yours. We don't even faintly agree with that but it's the law.
Here at the Rockhouse, we believe 'fair use' still requires attribution but that may not be legally true. However, in that context, we're not interested in what's legally right but rather what's ethically right.
Note: the object isn't to get righteous. It's just that these are important rules if you will ever write more than slogans for T-shirts.
We see the plagiarism in this book as more obfuscation of real issues to create a smoke cloud of confusion instead. The same thing happens regarding Russian influence of the election. Neera Tanden, apparently some kind of Hillary Clinton comfort girl, got into a tangle with WikiLeaks on Twitter and she was exceptionally brazen about it.
Tanden never addressed the many ethics violations in the emails and instead dodged to trying to talk about the significance of the timing in releasing them. That kind of conniving is a specific part of why Clinton is so loathed.
Some DNC Stud for Clinton posed a question on Twitter to ask whether people trust the CIA or WikiLeaks. The Stud took a bruising since 83% said they trust WikiLeaks. (RT: WikiLeaks & Clinton aide Tanden clash in Twitter spat)
- RT
Whoops (larfs)
There's no so-called 'Russian bias' in that one since RT didn't post the query, they only observe the result of it ... with some amusement, we imagine.
You can see the contrast on Ithaka in which everything is credited or attributed whenever possible. The only times it's not possible are for photographs which come down from a Google search since it's often almost impossible to discover who shot them.
The general premise is the observation of plagiarism is sufficient to get her thrown off Trump's Cabinet but, if that's the best reason you've got, it's not much.
For her defense, she can cop a plea that she thought what she was doing was 'fair use' and that concept makes it legal to steal just about anything in music. Sample it and the music is yours. We don't even faintly agree with that but it's the law.
Here at the Rockhouse, we believe 'fair use' still requires attribution but that may not be legally true. However, in that context, we're not interested in what's legally right but rather what's ethically right.
Note: the object isn't to get righteous. It's just that these are important rules if you will ever write more than slogans for T-shirts.
We see the plagiarism in this book as more obfuscation of real issues to create a smoke cloud of confusion instead. The same thing happens regarding Russian influence of the election. Neera Tanden, apparently some kind of Hillary Clinton comfort girl, got into a tangle with WikiLeaks on Twitter and she was exceptionally brazen about it.
Tanden never addressed the many ethics violations in the emails and instead dodged to trying to talk about the significance of the timing in releasing them. That kind of conniving is a specific part of why Clinton is so loathed.
Some DNC Stud for Clinton posed a question on Twitter to ask whether people trust the CIA or WikiLeaks. The Stud took a bruising since 83% said they trust WikiLeaks. (RT: WikiLeaks & Clinton aide Tanden clash in Twitter spat)
Whoops (larfs)
There's no so-called 'Russian bias' in that one since RT didn't post the query, they only observe the result of it ... with some amusement, we imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment