My expertise is Intellectual Property. On policy grounds, to promote the creation of new works, I believe this type of use should be acceptable.

The cross-currents article was simply defamation.

I have no idea whether or not Naomi Ragen has integrity. I do see an issue that Ragen had an opportunity to amend or acknowledge between editions and didn’t.

Sincerely,

An even more different Michael ;-)

Then, since this is undeniable you slander Shapiro for the timing of it, implying this was just a political move. Unbelievable! Undermine the credibility of the accuser when you have no argument!

It may have been only 2 pages, but it was a powerful idea and scene – how would you all feel if someone stole that from your work? If Ragen had any integrity she would have apologized, admitted she plagiarized a short passage not thinking it would do any harm and asked Shapiro how she wanted to be compensated, whether it be to remove the passage, money or a public acknowledgment.

By the way this is a different Michael.

Why is it always easiest to do repentance for other people?

In Costa Rica, since around 2007, the situation became eerily similar to what you cite in your blog post. Additionally, I believe that both countries are somewhat similar in size.

In our case, the Trademark Office and its Superior began routinely refusing to register applications based on consent agreements. Of course, this new development came as a surprise to may of us. In the past, these agreements were only restricted for goods in Class 5 or if any other public interest reasons demanded a more proactive decision to protecting the public from confusion.

Glad to see we are not the only ones facing these kinds of issues.

Best regards,

Luis

I am sure that Shapiro is sincere. I am, nevertheless, equally sure that there is a miscarriage of justice here.

Suggest you read William Paltry’s book, Fixing Coyright. He discusses how creative work happens.

Every scientist knows that cribbing somebody else’s research findings and passing them off as one’s own (substantial plagiarism) is one of the Deadly Sins of the profession: anybody catch you at this and you’ll find yourself ‘excommunicated’.
However, the trade also knows the common phenomenon of ‘technical plagiarism’, where a few stock phrases, a block of a dreary “materials and methods” or a particularly pointed description of a method or effect are copied verbatim, without attribution, from a literature paper or indeed one’s own work. The fact that many scientists cannot write to save their lives — after all, many fields of science have a selection bias for numerical and visuospatial over verbal intelligence — only makes this more common. By the standards of the profession it is considered a ‘venial sin’ that will earn you at worst a strongly worded letter from a journal editor or sarcastic remarks from one’s more perceptive colleagues — or from the scientist whose pithy descriptions earned ‘the greatest accolade’ in this manner. Its commonality is the subject of well-worn jokes like “stealing from one paper is called plagiarism; stealing from five papers is called a literature review”.
In many cases the ‘technical plagiarizers’ didn’t even INTEND to plagiarize, but simply regurgitate stock phrases that have been engraved on their memory (from textbooks they studied in graduate courses or review papers they refer to all the time).

I’ve read pretty much all of Naomi Ragen’s books. Without being familiar with the books allegedly plagiarized, based on your description I would venture to say that AT WORST we are dealing with a literary equivalent of ‘technical plagiarism’. Placing this on the same level as substantial plagiarism is the equivalent of punishing perjury in the same manner as fibbing over having eaten one’s vegetables. By this draconian ‘appearance of impropriety’ (as in the eponymous book by Glenn Reynolds) standard, 90% of all scientists would be out of work, not to mention 99% of all popular songwriters. (The latter profession may however claim immunity on the grounds that one cannot plagiarize the repetition of cliches.)

And, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out in his book (and many times on his blog instapundit), such standards invite selective prosecution, and thus abuse as tools to silence inconvenient voices. One need not be paranoid to see that this is one motive between the suits against Ms. Ragen.

I wish Ms. Ragen many more productive years and her readers many more novels.

Shabbat shalom!