Good find. If true.
Posted on 07/11/2006 10:13:59 PM PDT by StAnDeliver
Anchor: "And with us now is the president and CEO of the firm called iThenticate. Thank you for being with us tonight..."**Later (long interview)**
Q: "When the Post asks you to go after Ann Coulter, did you know what were you getting into there?"
Barrie: "Well, this is what happened. The Post came to us originally and they were doing a story about how Oprah Winfrey was using our technology to screen things for her show. And the Post wanted to see an example of how our technology worked. So they took a 2005 speech from Hillary Clinton and ran it through our service. And right off the bat, we caught the speechwriter for Hillary Clinton plagiarizing. And the journalist from the Post said what else can we run through your service? And a couple weeks later as the brouhaha about Ann Coulter and what she said about the 9-11 widows was reaching its peak, the New York Post called me back and said Ann Coulter's book "Godless" is what we want to run through your system. They digitized the book and took one year of her syndicated columns and sent it over to us to analyze."
Q: "What did you find?"
Barrie: "And we found as I mentioned, found some textbook cases of plagiarism in both her syndicated columns and in the book. And after finding about three or four instances in the book and three or four instances in the column, I said look, I just had enough of reading Ann Coulter and the Post said 'That's enough for us. There's our story.' And case proven I guess."
As you might expect, the interviewer did not pursue Barrie's "we caught the speechwriter for Hillary Clinton plagiarizing" and simply acted as though Barrie had never said it. And there's nothing on the web from the New York Post about this allegation.
So, which "speechwriter"? Which speech? When was it given? What parts were plagiarized? Why didn't the Post reveal this information?
Hmmmmmm, isn't making an unauthorized digital copy of a book a copyright infringement?
Good find. If true.
Absolutely it is. And I wonder how many more copyrighted books and articles this iThenticate guy has illegal copies of.
"Hmmmmmm, isn't making an unauthorized digital copy of a book a copyright infringement?"
D'OH!
I think you got them there! It's Scooter II, Coulter Boogaloo! Send `em up, Ann!
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php
I finally found the list of "plagerized" works. iThenticate is going to need iLawyer before all this is over.
Not if you bought it. They aren't using the digitized version for commercial purposes.
It's the same as if they were reading the book out loud and recording themselves so they could analyze it.
"They digitized the book and took one year of her syndicated columns and sent it over to us to analyze."
oh my good lord.. are they admitting to copyright infringment?
The left is blinded by their hate.
and why does the smartest woman in the world need a speech writer???????????????
Really?
Could one argue they are using it to destroy Coulter's reputation and thus hurt sales? Is not restriction of sales also a commercial purpose?
Certainly if Ford was caught trying to defame Chevy, in an effort to prevent sales, that would be illegal.
===================================================================
Ann has to sue to re-establish prove her personal integrity and professional and intellectual credentials, as well as to pick off a few extra bonus dollars from some liberal organizations (and the firm in question). She can't avoid this, and she would NOT be on my list of "easy legal targets". She'll kill them, and she will not back down.
Defamation is legal issue that's tough to prove, and nearly impossible for a public figure to win on, in the American legal system. However, Ann will have a 100,000-hit legal trail to use; just follow the Google road ...
Slam dunk.
SFS
Doesn't matter how they cot a copy of the book. Making a digital copy for commercial purposes violates the copyright. Check out the iThenticate website and you will see it is definitely a commercial enterprise.
Certainly if Ford was caught trying to defame Chevy, in an effort to prevent sales, that would be illegal.
You could try to argue that but you would lose. People create book reviews all the time. WaPo does not profit from lowering her book sales through a negative review. They might be guilty of libel/slander but not copyright. Changing the form of the book you are reading/reviewing is not a copyright violation. They are provding a review. As long as they don't offer the copy for sale and profit from it (or use the copy to avoid paying for books for other people), they are pretty much okay. It appears they are only using it for analysis. That would not be a copyright violation.
Let's put it this way: If you buy a book and read it into a computer and then burn it to CD so you can play it in your car, that is not a copyright violation. Even if the book is available on CD, you have purchased the content of the book. You can even give your copies away as long as you don't retain a copy for yourself.
If they defame her falsely and with malicious intent, the paper might be subject to libel/slander laws but that will be difficult to prove.
Printed inside of "Godless":
Copyright c 2006 by Ann Colter
All rights reserved.
Published in the United States by Crown Forum,
an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group,
a division of Random House, Inc. New York
www.crown publishing.com
Crown Forum and Design are registered trademarks
of Random House, Inc.
Probably not.
iThenticate may have received a copy but they are not making any money off of the copy. They are charging for a service that is unrelated to the book. They are not selling the ideas or works of Ann Coulter. The are not using the copy to avoid paying for the book themselves. In fact, they may have purchased the book (or received the paid for book from WaPo).
Copyright is not what's being broken. If they made a false accusation with malice, then there is libel/slander. But not copyright.
You might want to familiarize with US copyright law before making such bold assertions, because you obviously are unfamiliar with its limitations and caveats. As a more practical matter, book publishers themselves run these types of checks semi-frequently to police plagiarism -- it is why companies like this exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.