I find it hard to believe someone would email you that!
so sorry, Catherine.

I love the Dixie Chicks.

Don't you worry a bit. You have a right to your opinions and your views.

Besides I just wrote what may be the most disgusting, offensive thing ever, so it should distract from whatever heat you take here.

Oh and for anyone listening, I love the Dixie Chicks....even when they joined the Taliban or whatever....

Amanda, thanks... if it was one person, I would think it was simply a 'troll'. Now that kind of mail has hit double figures. Blagh!

Bah, don't worry, I'm getting ready to post something that'll take the heat away from you and Andy....

No, not really. :)

Rated.

Thanks, Andy and Tink! It just surprised me... perhaps 'shocked' is a better word.

I guess it would be bad manners to suggest you post those messages, including the people who generated them.

They should be tarred, the lot of them. You have nothing to apologize for and I would go so far as to suggest you and anyone who has access to Reddit and Digg simply shout it to the universe.

Plagiarism is totally unacceptable and never defensible. Never.

I just read your previous post and responses, Catherine. The first few comments do not surprize me, they don't sound in earnest. What surprises me is that everyone assumes the plagiarizer is a "he".
I support what you did, as well as both of your posts.
Rated.

Keep up your great work. I'm sorry that you are distracted from it by people who assume that the PM app here should be used for an assault.
Your initial post makes it clear that M. Sorton cut and pasted.
Thanks for your keen eye.

I'm rating b/c I agree, not b/c I like the publicly pilloried Dixie Chicks. (and I do - a lot!)

this makes me crazy. I'm really tired of all the theft and plagiarism going on here. I'm also very tired of people thinking that just by attributing the source by saying such things as "courtesy of..." absolves them of copyright violations. I understand Fair Use, I understand © law having gone through an extensive process to get my photo book published last year. There are images on the cover that have been taken from sites that specifically say images may not be used or uploaded in any form to any media site...I wish the editors did a better job by checking...it takes a matter of seconds usually to correctly source something. You can bet that Regular Salon has a process by which images used are vetted. Certainly no reputable online journalistic extension of newspapers and magazines wouldn't allow their own employees to get away with it.

People think that just because it's only a blog that they have carte blanche...it's a matter of ethics, honesty, propriety and the law. It's in the friggin' Constitution for crying out loud.

Tell the emailers to take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

Not that covert is better but this, this is so blatant and in broad daylight...

Bravo, for calling it what it is and your method for doing so, Catherine.

You're a straight shooter. You have nothing to apologize for.


{[R]}

Post the emails, that would be far more entertaining.

heee I like Harry's idea. I'd like to know who sent you those emails.

Catherine, not only do I agree with what you've said, but I find plagiarism absolutely not-understandable.

Writing, however poorly, is one's own. What pleasure in lifting passages whole cloth from another--all I can say is that plagiarists are not writers. Period. Rated.

First thing, I LOVE this song and I LOVE the Dixie chick.
It totally amazes me, on how many times that ,"Double Standards," happen so much here on OS. You stand tall and don't give in..
HUGS

Love the Dixie Chicks. Don't make nice but I would not stress overmuch about such a comment either. There is a delete key.

I'm genuinely shocked that people would take issue with your calling out a blatant case of intellectual theft. I agree that you should publish the letters. I don't believe people should be able to hide their nastiness behind a PM.

Interesting, do the Dixie Chicks get any revenues for people playing their video on your blog. As others have said, I love the Dixie Chicks.
not rated, there is nothing original.

ha! I saw this headline, over on the left, someone else had commented re: same, and assumed it was a post from someone who had plagiarized... and was not apologizing for it... etc. I thought, Ho, this looks interesting.

Needless to say...

I'm with you. I didn't coment on the last fray but I've no sympathy for plagiarism. Those who commit it deserve to be called on it and I'm glad you went the PM route first. I might have waited another half day or so since not everyone checks OS every day. But that's just a quibble.

And I really don't get the attitude that calls for overlooking it or pretending it's just not there. Good on you.

That was appalling. There wasn't even a rewording. And it's the only thing this person posted. And YOU'RE supposed to apologize? WTF?

You've earned the respect you have here, Catherine. You would never be unwelcoming or malicious. I doubt the person who posted the article even knows you've written about him. It will be interesting to see if you get a response.

Ignore them, that's what I would do... I still think it was a test. But who needs it?

Oh, I meant the comments, not the plagiarists.

I'm in agreement with you and all those who support you. However, has it occurred to you to contact the NYT directly and let them take matters into their own hands with the powers that be at Salon...? Just a thought.

Shooting the messenger, the moral and the law-abiding has become something of a pastime at OS by those who mistakenly believe that a good offense is the best defense. Anyone who thinks plagiarism is OK and has the unmitigated gall to call themselves a writer is lower than a snake's belly and just about as smart.

Oh, and I have a very good idea who is selling the "everyone does it" lie. And it is a lie, pure and simple, but then again, it doesn't surprise me that liars and cheaters and plagiarists assume that everyone else is as unethical and criminal as they are. Goes with the territory.

You have nothing at all to apologize for.
And everything emma just said.

Have you considered emailing the original author? They might initiate a legal process. That would enlighten the plagiarist in no uncertain terms.

Kudos for the Dixie Chicks. R

What's there to say? Some people apparently just don't get it. Good for you in standing up for what you believe in, Catherine.

Rated for integrity and Dixie Chicks.

With you all the way on this one. If enough people remain vigilant and call out others, then maybe, just maybe, we can effect some responible behavior standards. Or maybe I'm dreaming. And if someone ever sends me an email or pm such as you described, Iwill publish it in a heartbeat.

Catherine, you've absolutely nothing to apologize for. And great choice of theme song.

Wow, I can't believe someone would email you with those type of excuses. Be more welcoming? To what, rip off pieces produced by someone else?

Thank you for your contribution on the matter and I hope you flagged the post. Some people believe in conspiracies rather than the facts at hand. I'm sorry to see OS going down that track.

You had me in your corner until you re-posted an infringing video from YT. While the gray area surrounding what is fair use and what isn't fair use may cover your use of the excerpt from the lyrics, the poster on YT who copied and posted the Chicks video did so without permission of the artist or the owner of the video. Your use is equally as infringing, even if everyone else does it, it is neither fair use nor right.

I'm on your side --- when darkness comes.

"How dare you call me out when I'm stealing?"

No, that one doesn't really work. :-D

While I support your position (and cannot fathom why there are people who think lifting other people's prose is okay), I am wondering about the you-tube and graphics question that has been brought up. With written material, I am always careful to try to do "fair use" and exerpt pieces, not the whole thing, do some paraphrasing, make the quoted exerpts obvious thru different typeface or quotation marks, do the links and attributions, etc., but I do use photos or graphics I find on the internet to illustrate (sometimes the photo that came with the article, in which case I try to attribute where info available). The only you-tubes I've posted have been my originals, and once that of a friend who is happy for any kind of exposure, but that's because I haven't much investigated you-tube due to my slow up-loading here in the boonies. Thing is, nobody's going to mistake the Dixie Chicks (or any of my, say, Palin photos) for our original work - we're not trying to pass it off as such, the way the plagiarizers of the written word do, but there is the question that Box Number brought up - just because it's available may not mean it's right to use. This apparently is particularly a concern with music, as audio or video.

The internet is the wild west, with no sheriffs...

Obviously the tiny staff of OS (somebody joked that it was run by a couple out of their kitchen) cannot police the site (they can't keep up with the spammers), but it would be helpful to conscientious members if they posted a clarification of the rules re videos and graphics and non-original photos.

P.S. - I wanted to copy a cute photo from the NYT, not to pulish - just to forward to a friend - and it was (for my capacity) uncopyable. Perhaps it's only a matter of time before people can do that with visuals...???

I can't imagine not supporting you on this, Catherine, and I agree with Harry's suggestion that you post some of the emails - if they came from OSers.

As to the YouTube video, the commenter who suggested you shouldn't have used it without permission may have a point. I don't know as much as I should about YouTube issues, but it would seem to me if there's any infringement involved it's by YouTube, and any issues would be between YouTube and the injured party - should there be an injured party.

Excellent catch and absurd beyond description that someone wants the 5 minutes of hollow glory of being mistaken for a thinker and a writer.

I would rather read the broken, awkward, and sincere prose of an original than the polished words by-other-means of a thief. Always.

You are spot on: you have every right to call intellectual property theft when you see it. If an author can't honestly write on Open Salon, then they shouldn't a) be called an 'author' or b) be here. Those who send you hate e-mail are simply showing their own stripes. Why not start a list of them here? Name 'em and shame 'em, I say!

I am flabbergasted not only about the plagiarized post but also the WTF attitudes of other so-called writers. From the TIMES, for God's sake. I agree that you might contact the actual author for possible legal action. And I'd love to see who thinks "everyone does it."

Along these same lines, Michiko Kakutani wrote a fascinating article called "Texts Without Context" in the Times on March 21, 2010. Discusses in interesting detail the problems the internet poses in the area of fair use and plagiarism. And he cites his sources! :-)

I've had many an idea ripped off and wind up on the home page, with EP, while my article languished, but outright plagiarism needs to be called out.

It is a fact of life that the nasties will come out when we publish on line in an unmoderated forum. Either thicker skins or better defensive capabilities need to be developed. I prefer the defensive capability, myself.

Somebody mentioned YouTube. Those videos have a built in capacity to credit the originator and I'm tired of hearing about it.

Ditto open stock photography. None of the "real" news organs would have a picture in them if it weren't for open stock pictures.

It's good that you could catch outright plagiarism and you should be encouraged to do so, but another ongoing battle will kill us all.

As for Pm's, they can always be deleted. It would be nice if we could block the jerks from sending more pms, as we have at other sites.

Forget the jerks and go about your business; you did nothing wrong so it is all on your critic's head. Have fun and the Dixie Chicks who Clear Channel took care of have always been a favorite.

I have seen plagerism here on Open Salon as well. I write my article. Then others take what I have written and change it here and there making them have an article, they didn't have to work hard on writing.

I am behind you 100%. You go!

I am death on plagerism. It is stealing. Would these same people be upset if it happened to them? You bet they would!

Love the Dixie Chicks. Agree with your posts! I think we all need to brush up on photo rights rules. BBD is right - like many of us, I stick photos in sometimes that I find on the net; if it doesn't say "copyright" I figure it's OK. But that is probably not true....Now to figure out what IS OK, since I can't take photos to save my life, and I can't afford to pay someone to do it. Maybe no pics for me...

As a professional writer, I would certainly agree that calling someone out on plagiarism demands nothing resembling an apology. As a mother with teenagers I would have to add: Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. For anyone who really writers, as opposed to blogs, plagiarism should be considered intellectual thievery. Ignore anyone who says it isn't.

Greg Correll's comment is right on. There can be no integrity here online unless we are responsible to see that it is maintained.
As for the youtube issue, that is a stumper for me. Has anybody checked into this before? I must admit to having used youtube's resources a few times. If they did not make it so easy to imbed, I might not have. The one modern artist whose works I did publish via OS I also did notify regarding this use, requesting contact if such were deemed necessary, but no word. I have a sneaking hunch it isn't really copasetic, but that there are artists who might see it as a further promotion of their work. This might be borne out by a new interest I have in the music of Lady Antebellum since visiting a post here. But, as we are stumped a little by a few of the details, perhaps a little group research would help? Let's help our new members know before they begin that we are as vigilant as can be. I can see where our group integrity on this issue is paramount. Otherwise, people may suspect we are ALL rip off artists, not actually writing as our genuine selves. -R

Catherine Plagiariam sullies us all. Bless you for what you've done.
R.

I salute you. No apology necessary. Is there some official OS reporting channel that could have spared you this abuse?

I don't think you have anything to apologize for, Catherine. Plagiarism needs to be pointed out when it is encountered.

However, sometimes I do wonder what other people think constitutes plagiarism. I wrote a piece awhile back about one-star book reviews on Amazon. They published it on Salon. Someone accused me of plagiarizing from a website that I've never been to. Apparently, someone else out there collects bad reviews and copies them on their blog. However, my piece also included my own original commentary.

So, is the fact that I arrived at the same idea as someone else plagiarism?

Believe me, I was pretty upset by the accusation. It ruined the entire experience for me.

One difference here would be that while the phantom who posted the article in question claimed the words as his own not Mr. Abrams'; Catherine did not pose as a Dixie Chick. If I were a Dixie Chick, or any other act, I would be delighted to see my music presented to a new audience; I assume that's why they put their songs on the site. As an example, someone posted, with Youtube video, an article about Melody Gardot. I hadn't heard of her, but after the article I purchased two of her CDs. Merci very much; I can hear her say.
Thanks for fingering the thief!

Catherine,
Thanks for posting this. It's too important!Much love to you

Contact NYT and post some of the PMs. I agree!

I still love the Dixie Chicks......and I'm a big fan of you as well.
R

Nor should you feel the need to apologize, so far as I can see, Catherine. This whole thing seems a bit funny to me, though. Funny in the sense of "Something doesn't feel right, here." I do have to wonder about the legitimacy of that particular post and poster. It no longer exists by the way, and the message given on that particular length is that the user # something or other no longer exists either.

I looked at that post the day you first posted about it, and it was as you say a simply case of plagiary. And in fact a blatant case of plagiary. So blatant that it seems to me rather suspicious. Like, did that poster actually exist in name as given? Or was it just one mor cyper persona created for the purpose of perpetuating a crusade and topic that some folks just simply do not want to die down, here, for whatever reason.

Plagiarism is wrong. It is not, however, the epitome of evil. I've a suspicion that the impetus of many here on the topic (both sides, if indeed you did receive emails such as you say) goes beyond the topic itself into something else entirely. Just what, I don't know. The need not just to be right, but to be seen right?

In mankind's history, many original ideas have been borrowed and further refined. I believe most of Shakespeare's works were actually someone else's inspirations, but Shakespeare gave them his own spin and is now remembered as one of the greatest writers of all time.

The plagiarist is not a borrower. He is, as you say, a thief who repeats, word for word, what someone else has written and tries to pass it off as his own.

I write three blogs. Sometimes I use direct quotations from books or articles, but I always indicate my sources. And I use such quotations to supplement my own thoughts.

Writing is about self-expression, not taking credit for someone else's expression.

I don't plagiarize, and I think that when you find a true case of it and can't get an answer, you have a right to write about it.

DO NOT APOLOGIZE. You were right to do what you did. R.

No, you should not appologize! If someone is going to use someone else's words, credit should be given where credit is due!!
~Rated~
Peace ~n~ Luv,
Raven

This is a community of WRITERS - I would think that ALL of us would care about plagiarism. Some are able to put a patent on a widget and claim ownership - and royalties. We put our creations out into the universe and just hope to get credit. It seems we deserve that. Whether our writing is sublime or terrible, it's ours.

cut and paste is ok, with attribution. if the writer re-phrases, does a little re-writing, you might still spot the origin, but can do nothing about it. i think copyright may be on the way out, simply because technology makes it impossible to enforce. evolution in action...

I'm with you - and emma, and stellaa. out 'em so we can tell them how vile their notion that 'everyone does it'.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much and you can quote me!

Seriously,
Stand your ground
and
Don't back down!

I rated you.

You were right, no need to apologize.

A friend of mine says: 'F' 'em and feed 'em fishheads'. Not sure what that means, but I've never forgot it.

That's astonishing. Being new to the blog machine myself, I was wondering whether there was any sort of plagiarism task force out there to monitor the world we live in. I guess its up to good samaritans such as yourself to keep people honest. I respect your tenacious stance and support it all the way. Rock on!

I love the irony that the first comment on this post is from a plagiarist. At least 3 people, including myself, have caught Amanda red-handed. I would have commented sooner, but I did not see this post until now.

I love the irony that the first comment on this post is from a plagiarist. At least 3 people, including myself, have caught Amanda red-handed. I would have commented sooner, but I did not see this post until now.