Sunday, January 04, 2009

Either it's malice or ignorance...

...that causes people to turn into mouth-breathing plagiarists. This "MCKNBRD" guy doesn't seem very malicious, so that kinda narrows it down. (His spelling, grammar, and punctuation when not cut'n'pasting someone else's words would tend to support the latter option as well...)

Excerpting and attribution, people; it's not that hard.

15 comments:

Hunsdon said...

Maybe he just thought it was so good, so funny, and gonna raise so much ruckus that . . . yeah, malice or stupidity, gotta come down to that.

And you know what my main reaction was?

I was still amazed that there are folks out there who could read that as a damning indictment of their most favoritest hogleg.

Splutter splutter! But my ol' Betsy, she ain't never, nope, not like that, how dare you, suh, impugn my manhood by dissin' my gat!

Earl said...

I sent the person a message, but then every day I find evidence that someone stole the pages from one of the library books, and they will pretend it is their own work, car, motorcycle or girl friends picture. I will have to make sure that I link to original source better in the future, my mother always wants to know who wrote the original idea so I normally leave the name.

Anonymous said...

But, but...it's clearly an indication high esteem!!!

Feh. Every Clovis-type who has ever nicked from me has tried that argument. "You should be flattered!" Yeah? You should be kicked in your ass.

perlhaqr said...

*shrug*

Ignorance more than stupidity.

The 'net is more and more populated with the equivalent of AOL users, forwarding that same fucking joke you've seen a thousand times.

This is the same thing. "Hey guys! I saw something funny on the web!" They don't know any better. They're like children. Would you call a two year old stupid for shitting his pants?

Don said...

Perlhaqr, how's this for coincidence? As I sat here reading your comment, a nearly two-year-old actually shit his pants . . . on my lap.

I have to go now.

Home on the Range said...

Mockingbird -They are best known for the habit of some species mimicking the songs of insect and amphibian sounds as well as other bird songs.

I think his name is fitting.

Hope Marko gets is all sorted out.

the pawnbroker said...

hey! it sure ain't ignorance and i know there's no malice, but this sure reads like a twist on your machine guns/dead nazis post. well, it's just a twitter response to scalzi...and you did say ya'll like to riff on each others ideas.

http://twitter.com/mkloos71

jtc

Anonymous said...

Reprinting stuff is one thing. I can understand why people do that. Even when it breaks the law. (Though truthfully? Asking for permission to reprint is not only Not That Hard, it's also usually a very pleasant interaction and it's a great way to encourage someone to produce even more stuff you'll enjoy reading.) Still, the temptation to steal outright rather than to ask permission is an understandable one.

But I truly don't understand why people strip the attribution when they do it. If the work's any good, someone else has already seen it & knows you didn't write it. In the internet age, where everything can be discovered with the click of a mouse, you're pretty much guaranteed to get called on it and that's just embarrassing for all concerned.

Here's a hint, world: If it is in writing, someone wrote it. If that someone is not you, then you need to say so. Failing to say so is a breach of manners -- and often a breach of law as well.

Anonymous said...

Guys, guys. You're forgetting that this was posted on the Appleseed forums - you know, Appleseed? The Anointed Keepers of All Truth and Rifle Knowledge?

Plagiarizing Marko: not cool. Watching Appleseed kiddies get all butthurt because he talked smack about the M14? AWESOME.

NotClauswitz said...

Twitter? Why even bother, it's just bird-brain memenomical.

Anonymous said...

I'd be curious to know how many people who oppose plagiarism have no problem with music piracy. The cynical part of me suspects a large overlap, but it's also entirely possible that those who stand by one principle will stand by another as well.

closed said...

Wolfwood:

I would have no prob with paying for old music, provided copyright laws had not been pushed to insane limits by the publishers.

No copyright should last forever ... does 50 years sound more reasonable?

Anonymous said...

does 50 years sound more reasonable?

No. Copyright should be reverted to the original 7 years with the option for a 7 year renewal.

Anonymous said...

Tam,

As soon as we (I'm an Instructor with Appleseed) found out that the post was copied the entire thread was locked and then deleted. I talked with Mcknbrd and he tells me that he saw it posted on ANOTHER board. When he found out that it was copyrighted work, he tried to apologize on Marko's blog - and was pretty seriously abused by the commenters there.

Difficult to realize, I know, but NOT EVERYONE reads Marko's blog. If there was no attribution on the board where Mcknbrd found it, how was he to know where it originated? Sure, he could have said "seen on such&such board", which would have just given Marko one more link to track back.

It's taken down, he's apologized, the editor who copied HIS post has apologized... Enough already. Move on.

Tam said...

Ross,

I've moved on. The post to which you're replying is timestamped at 0730hrs Sunday morning, better than 48 hrs ago.