|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Of course it's helpful! (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
The whole point is to give valid criticism or remarks about the review topic. I either did or didn't; folks can take their pick.
|
Aug 27 '05
9:44 pm PDT
|
|
Hmmmmmm (Reply to this comment)
by ruby950
I just read the comments, and now I am a bit confused. I will say, however, that I found this so entertaining, that it must be very helpful to someone!
Deborah~
|
Aug 26 '05
5:10 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Sounds fair to me - I'm good with that.
|
Aug 02 '05
8:29 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
"Questionable" is good; when someone says that what I have written is questionable, perhaps I have succeeded. Whether it should be shown is another issue.
Your NH is also good. I was not writing to change your opinion or your rating per se but mainly so that your earlier comment, along with any others regarding copyright infringement, did not go unchallenged in front of future readers.
As to how much of the book ought to be quoted, or how much of the review ought to be excerpts of the book - that is an issue that I won't concern myself with from here on out. I think there's enough original material in the article to display it. If the Eps P.T.B. (meaning Epinions management) say otherwise, I'll remove it. That's as fair as I think I can get.
|
Aug 01 '05
11:17 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Dwight -
that's all well and good, and you are absolutely 100% correct - at least, you would have been had I accused you of plagiarism. But I did not accuse you of plagiarism - I said that I believe this review infringes upon Dave Barry's copyright, which is a different thing than plagiarism.
You did credit the author - that fact is perfectly clear in your article. Whether or not you credited him properly is a moot point, and one I won't pursue - it really doesn't matter. And so, as far as any question of plagiarism goes, I completely agree with your assessment. I do not believe that you plagiarized Dave Barry's work.
The question is - does the inclusion of these portions of Barry's text constitute copyright infringement? Common interpretation of "fair use" (for the purposes of editorial, educational or critical analysis) allows for the quotation of sections of the copyrighted work; however, the tricky bit has always been - how much is too much?
As a large percentage of this article merely reproduces Barry's text, and provides relatively little commentary for the purposes of an actual review, I think that this piece is questionable as regards matters of copyright.
I have no problem backing off the absoluteness of my original statement, and so I will say that it seems to me that this piece is largely a reproduction of Dave Barry's copyrighted work rather than a commentary about it. I can leave it to the actual lawyers to hash the details out, but as far as making up my own mind regarding a rate for this piece...
I believe that it can be fairly argued that this picece infringes copyright, and therefore, it appears to be in violation of the TOS. Since, in my opinion, the piece's status is in question, I have rated it NH until the issue can be decided. I think it should not be shown publicly until the question of copyright infringement is settled.
Andrew
|
Aug 01 '05
9:00 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
Bob, since you've tried your hand at (rather patronizingly) advising me of the legalities of this thing, I would think that reminding you of what plagiarism is would be unnecessary. Perhaps you're a lawyer, too - you didn't say, though the word count of your reviews inclines me to guess in that direction. Then again, perhaps you work at mid- or high-level management in some company. Such folk tend not to listen to lawyers, which explains a lot.
It seems it's my unfortunate duty to remind you that plagiarism is to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own, or to use another's work or words without crediting the source.
I have done neither. It is plain from the beginning where I got my material, as I said as much at the outset. The statement that I "plagiarized" his book falls under the category of "facetiousness" which is a literary device one uses for humor or, for those with no sense of humor, to show that I indeed want readers to know where the words came from, and that I am crediting the source material, which the statement serves to do.
A true infringer would not say he is plagiarizing, Bob. This is a simple truth apparently overlooked by those who are distracted by a ratings agenda or directive. I have had my own works on this site plagiarized enough to be able to tell you this with some authority.
So I must dispute your rather weak claim that the review infringes copyright law. Proper credits were given and acknowledgements made - no one who reads that review will be misled about the source of the material. If it is open-and-shut to you, I suggest you consult an attorney.
|
Aug 01 '05
6:24 pm PDT
|
|
! (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
Dwight -
Given your education and occupation as stated on your profile, I would think that you of all people would realize the seriousness of copyright infringement. No - I don't believe that your piece will have any negative effect whatsoever upon Dave Barry's potential earnings for his book; in fact, this piece will probably help sell more copies.
The problem is that, despite the fact that I find this piece to be helpful for a consumer wanting to make a decision about this book, copyright infringement is illegal and a violation of epinions Terms of Service. To me, it's an open and shut case -
Andrew
|
Aug 01 '05
6:45 am PDT
|
|
Re: ? (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
Diz, let me rephrase. I do tend to react prematurely to questions beginning with "Are you saying," as I usually manage to say what I mean when I write, and get the feeling in such instances that words are being placed in my mouth. I reiterate that I said what I said, and you must decide whether that is acceptable or not.
That said, some parts of the book were indeed plagiarized as I stated in the review, just so there is no misunderstanding about where I found the material. Some parts were paraphrased with different subjects or characters as the focal point of the joke. And some parts were made up by me.
I simply don't care enough about changing someone's rating to go into further detail than that, except to add that I think that my feelings and responses to the material were clear enough regardless of whether the material was quoted, made up from whole cloth, or something in between.
Good day to you.
|
Jul 31 '05
10:20 pm PDT
|
|
Re: yup (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
I'm all for term limits on those guys.
|
Jul 31 '05
12:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: love it (Reply to this comment)
by counsel
Hey, doc - it's all in good crisis. Thanks for stopping by.
|
Jul 31 '05
12:24 am PDT
|
|
? (Reply to this comment)
by dizzybint
I have blatantly plagiarized
Are you saying this entire thing (except the first two and last paragraphs) is a book excerpt? If so, I have to NH it for a couple of reasons. In my opinion, that goes beyond "fair use" and an excerpt isn't a review, I want to read your thoughts and reactions to the book.
If I have misunderstood, I shall reconsider.
Caroline
|
Jul 30 '05
10:48 am PDT
|
|
yup (Reply to this comment)
by garym
"saving sex for certain special occasions, such as the installation of a new Pope."
I hope this Benedict fellow lasts awhile. Why¿ Because I´m IMPOTENT¡¡¡¡
Limpy g
|
Jul 29 '05
3:24 pm PDT
|
|
love it (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Dave Barry Rawks... and so do you.
Doc
|
Jul 29 '05
5:29 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.