In article .com, "bb"
writes:

K4YZ wrote:

The statement said that Lennie has a history of taking other
people's work. He proved it in his warping of your "endearment". He
didn't even give you, his one and only NG "buddy", credit for the work.

That single act will cause a rift between Len and me that can never be
healed.

Poor Stebie da Avenging Angle sees only the WRONG in his
opponents. Tsk.


So....What does YOUR lack of publishing credits have to do with
Lennie's irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour.

Everything. Had I been published in a professional journal, can you be
sure that he would have stolen my work?

Brian, you have to realize that any printed article to Stebie is new
to him, therefore everything he reads is a "first principles" topic.
He imagines all those articles are stand-alone and cannot ever be
commented upon...therefore the slightest act of just mentioning
them are what he considers plagiarism. :-)

Coupled with his mindset of "all opponents do wrong in anything,"
he is constantly in outrage that opponents exist.

==========

In printed publications sold all over the USA and worldwide, many
are involved in viewing and checking any submitted work. Every
publisher is subject to copyright laws and prosecution thereof if
court action is taken. Publishers don't want that. Authors don't
want that.

Stebie wants to feed on his perceived "wrongness" of fair-use
mentions or references of other works. That's just ignorance on
his part (or his sense of right/wrong is so warped by hatred of
opponents that he cannot tell which is which)...since fair-use
mentions and references have long been a part of published papers
and articles. [at least over the last century] As to what constitutes
fair-use, that is covered in Copyright Law under Title 17, United
States Code. So is references and mentions of other published
works.

For periodicals, the common convention is for publishers to
request "first rights" as part of compensation of authors. That
means the publishers have "first dibs" on publishing that work and
can reprint that work as many times as they wish. Authors can
publish or get published that same work once the publisher-
puchaser has printed it the first time. There are many variations
on the author compensation and some may include sole
proprietorship of an author's work. [pecuniary compensation falls
under "work for hire" rules by the IRS and is therefore taxable
income...mentioned as a sidelight] Some authors can cut a deal
with publishers so that authors have free rein on republishing, but
that is rare.

What most readers overlook is that a published work can be changed
in many ways. Schematics can be redrawn, diagrams can be done
differently, different accompanying photographs used, and text rewritten.
That changes the nature of the "work." Determination of whether such
work is a "copy" of the original published (and copyrighted) is a very
long, studious, and arduous proceeding (not to mention expensive)
which is hardly ever done. It isn't worthwhile unless it involves millions
of dollars.

The ARRL gets away with a benign sort of plagiarism (but isn't such,
per se) by getting ALL rights to publishing (usually) for article in their
periodicals. They do reprint periodical articles in changed form in
the Handbook and other book-form publications...and the original
author gets NO money under that compensation form...and usually
is uncredited for the work in the ARRL's republishing. That's not a
"slam" at the League but is standard practice by them and has been
so for years. It's business...and worthwhile to them...but seldom so
to the authors.

Do you think Hartley, Pierce, or Colpitts (or their estates) get anything
for all the repeated articles on the whichness of the what in oscillators?
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yet the articles pop up now and then and are
found in all kinds of electronics texts. Anyone can mention those
names, draw schematics for them, make them, measure them and
it is NOT "plagiarism" to do so...unless such work is a direct copy
of a previously-published article on same.

In tutorial articles, basic circuits can be explained in a number of
ways. Tutorials are far from "first principles" kind of subject and are
done for the benefit of readers who wish to further their knowledge
of a particular subject. Tutorial articles aren't plagiarism of any sort
unless they are an obvious copy of something already published.
Each presentation in a tutorial, the explanations, are unique. The
uniqueness can be copyrighted.

That's the way part of publishing works and it's been that way for
some time. Some hatred-clouded "avengers" want to redefine all
rules on uniqueness or writing skill and say their hate-subject is
a plagiarist. No proof. Just a hollered pejorative by someone who
can't think straight in his rage.