Second, far too much is made of plagiarism. The exact crime of plagiarism is stealing someone else’s work, taking someone else’s original ideas . And so for it to be plagiarism she must be passing off as her ideas, ideas that were actually original with the person accusing her of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is stealing someone else’s intellectual property. Not just big ideas. Exact phrases that clearly are lifted from someone else’s writing. She’s smart. There was no reason for her to do this.
Like you said, you can quote and footnote others’ words and ideas all day, as long as you forthrightly give them their credit.
She impresses me greatly. That doesn’t change that she plagiarized and it’s a crime of low ethics. She should be above it. She should be honest. But she wasn’t.
In a circumstance, that you are given an advance on a book ....and at some point, you have deadlines to meet ....you cut corners.
I have no insight into how this whole business works, ges sayin’ is all. :)
There is no such thing, actually, as "stealing someone else's intellectual property." The legal standard is violation of the copyright laws and to prove a violation of copyright, the accuser must first prove that he owned the copyright. second, it must be proven that there was no fair use exemption.
Now, as VRWC has shown, in the Reuters case, the copyright claim belonged to Reuters, and Klein is copying, with amendment Reuters. Klein has no claim. Now does Reuters have a claim. First, is it Reuters original idea of information. Apparently not, because it can be further traced to Kalle Lasn of Adbusters. Is it Kalle's? I don't know, because it might just be a fact commonly known to anyone looking at the issue.
But second, to what use did Crowely use the information. She did not pass it off as her information. She said it was Reuters. And she used it for the purpose of criticism which means that there is a fair use exemption to the copyright which only Kalle Lasn in any case could assert.
we can go on - the recitation of pork in the stimulus bill. Well, the stimulus bill is a public document. A google search will turn up many such lists, that contain the same items state verbatim. Moreover Crowley includes not just items on the allegedly copied list but other items as well. And again fair use applies. But more to the point, the IP belongs to no one because it is all in a congressional bill that anyone can go and read.