There is an article in our newspaper today that is apparently not accessible online. However, it is from the NY Times, so perhaps it can be found by going to their site. It is by David D. Kirkpatrick.

AnnaS., I thought this would be of special interest to you: author Stephen Ambrose has been accused of plagiarism in his new book, "The Wild Blue", by "The Weekly Standard" columnist Fred Barnes, and by historian Thomas Childers, whose work it is that is alleged to have been plagiarized.

Mr. Childers is said to believe that Mr. Ambrose did not do this deliberately, because he did it "Mit dem linken Hand", which means with his left hand. Mr. Childers said this saying is the equivalent of not focusing on what he was doing; that he was focusing on something else.

I have heard the expression of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, or vice versa, but have always interpreted that to mean that there has been a lack of communication. Has anyone heard or used the "did it with his left hand" thing to indicate that someone was distracted, as the article says? Are the two sayings related somehow?

Jackie,

Thanks!

I usually only buy the NYT on Sunday, and seldom visit the web site so I would've probably missed this if you hadn't pointed it out.

I'll read it and come back later with a comment.

For those who *don't mind registering with the NYT on line, here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/national/05AMBR.html

Jackie, this phrase sounds familiar, and particularly in this context, but I can't recall why. I'll rummage around my library if I get a chance and see if I can find the reference.

the ultimate, clinching, proof positive of devolution Max, I have very long arms, as is proven by hugging a certain Tasmanian who can be impish, and if you keep on making remarks like that, I may just slap you upside your head till you get some sense knocked into you...

BBC last night had story Ambrose admitted two instances of plagiarism, and one of the victims seems to have accepted his explanation.

one of the victims seems to have accepted his explanation.
I do not find that relevant. IMHO, any plagarism victimizes all of us, the misled public.

The author plagarized is not the sole victim or even the principal victim, and it is beyond his power to grant or withhold absolution.

any plagarism victimizes all of us, the misled public

Oooh, ooh, ooooh! Class action suit! I smell money! How much can we expect to get out of this, counselor?

>...or even the principal victim.

really?! the author, at the least, had his intellectual property stolen. I, as reader, am more enamored of ideas I read than I am of their ultimate (or proximate) source.

tsuwm, you might as well say that an prospective employee who pads his resume with phony credentials does not victimize the employer.

The plagiarist, dressing himself in stolen finery, seduces you to an undue respect for his own shabby words and ideas. He deceives you to attain your respect, for if you think him wise (not realizing that his wise words are stolen words) you will be misled in your assessment of the remainder of his writing.

The Common Lawyer, dressing himself in stolen finery, seduces you with an undue respect for his own shabby words and ideas. He deceives you to attain your respect, for if you think him wise (not realizing that his words are stolen words) you will be misled in your assessment of the remainder of his writing. And your fate.

Milum.

Max says, "I challenge you to support your assertion." Max, have I not already indicated my logic in each of two preceding posts?

I would gladly explicate further. But I would want to do so in a way responive to your point and logic, and I don't see that you have specified them (except for the adjectival conclusion "bizarre").

Thank you, milum. But your post's clever parallelism is not logically cohesive -- unless you are taking the view that a lawyer's words are the same thing as stolen [plagiarized] words.

And I would suggest that such a view is factually incorrect. In my admittedly limited litigation experience, a court will quickly note if the lawyer's brief neglects to cite specific, verifiable authority for his position.

here's an example of what I have in mind:
some years ago (many years ago?) there was a short-lived furor over a book written by William Manchester (on the Kennedy assassination?), which was supposedly plagiarized material. I have no idea how it was finally resolved, if it was resolved at all. my only concerns were: was the book worth reading; and if it sold at all, did the right person get the proceeds. who actually wrote it seems of no real gravamen as it pertains to my interests as a potential reader.

(this would not hold in the case of a prof. grading papers; the interests of the parties are quite different.)

Noting that tsuwm's final paragraph makes the point that circumstances alter cases:

Max, can you and I temper our disagreement by agreeing that in some specific cases the plagiarized author will be, and in other specific cases will not be, the primary victim of the plagiarism? That not every case will be as I suggest, and not every case will be as you suggest? In short, that each of us has overgeneralized?

(and that a particular case might of course be arguable and might depend on the definition of "primary")

Please temper your disputation. All I want to know is how much money I'm getting in the class action suit and when I can expect to get it. I've got a plumber to pay and property taxes coming due.

ROTFL, Faldage! BTW, I'm a real estate attorney; have you considered a property tax protest? disclaimer: just kidding! disclaimer inserted to be sure I will not be accused of practicing law in a jurisdiction in which not licensed!

if one has something stolen, I find it hard to see how anybody else can suffer more from that theft
Max, I fully agree that the original author is the overwhelmingly-primary victim of the theft aspect. But plagiarism as I understand it is simultaneous a theft from the source, and a fraud on the reader*. When both parts are considered, the balance would vary from case to case (as tsuwm noted; see his final paragraph).

I sense that the issue is "not of general interest", so Max, let's continue by e-mail.

------------
*simplified definition of "fraud" for legal purposes: intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, with intent to deceive

As far as I know, the phrase "mit der linken Hand" is not in use exactly in the sense described here. It rather means that somebody achieved a result without devoting a special effort to it. Of course this concurs with "not focusing on what he was doing" but does not mean did not do this deliberately. You may say, e.g. somebody solved the Times Crossword Puzzle "mit der linken Hand".

Quite apart from that, I contend that far too much fuss is being made actually about "intellectual property" and its "theft". I wonder if any author (say, of fiction) has had the sales of his books demonstrably compromised because another one copied some of the stuff! The opposite effect is probably at least as common.
(The content of the above message may be copied even without the written consent of the author).

this concurs with "not focusing on what he was doing" but does not mean did not do this deliberately.

Sometimes not concentrating on what you're doing has to be very deliberate. It's so easy to get your mind distracted by what you're doing.

Interesting. I didn't get to this thread until now and I've just read the exchange of views between Keiva and MaxQ (with suitable interjections from the Ithacan ideologue) with interest. To me, it seems that the argument (using the legal definition) was actually about legal definitions.

While I agree that the principal victim must be the actual author of the plagiarised text in every case, it is hard to come to the conclusion that the reader is a victim if the plagiarised text actually contributes to the well-being of the reader. In that case, the only fraud being perpetrated is that of uncited authorship; the high quality of the overall information presented to the reader may well override the small cost to the reader of not knowing that some (or all) of the text was plagiarised.

I can cite at least one kind of example. I was reading a magazine the other day in which a number of tips on stain removal were presented. Because of the wording of one of them, I knew that it had come from another source, although I'm not altogether certain that that souce was original, either. However, the tips are good ones. I benefit from being able to use them while the cost to me of not knowing whether the columnist was, in fact, the author of the text I was reading is precisely zilch.

On the other hand, the example mentioned above relating to student plagiarism is also interesting. The victim there is really the plagiarist, no matter what the grade awarded, isn't it? Although there may be some slight disbenefit to the original author, I feel that the student doing the plagiarising is missing out most of all. Beside, most academics can spot outright plagiarism at 50 paces, can't they, even if they can't positively prove it.

Not arguing the legal definition (or supporting plagiarism, either), just commenting on outcomes ...

I also have to congratulate Maxy on organising his life and work flow well enough to assign Job numbers to his posts on the Board!

I agree that ... must be ... in every case
On the contrary, CK, we agreed after some disharmony that circumstances alter cases.
You've been known to stir the pot. Perhaps you're now stotting to startle us a bit, and purring with pleasure. This is referred to as purring the stot.

most academics can spot outright plagiarism at 50 paces
Don't be so sure, CK. See post #41255, noting that no one had noticed a deliberate but unattributed quotation.

Beside, most academics can spot outright plagiarism at 50 paces, can't they, even if they can't positively prove it.

At one university in British Columbia, 47 students in one class were caught cheating on a paper. Because of the scale of the cheating, they aren't quite sure how to punish them. Amazing! Check out the news story at http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2002/01/07/sfu_plagiarism020107.

Thanks Bean. I guess the last paragraph of that article, which reads But Blackman says he's not convinced money needs to be spent on an Internet policing program. The plagiarism, he says, was discovered by faculty simply paying attention. confirms what I was saying about faculty being able to spot outright plagiarism.

I seemed to have no difficulty spotting it (and I certainly had no qualms about penalising it) when I was teaching. Obviously, you miss one or two smaller things, but usually the writing style is the dead giveaway ...

faculty being able to spot outright plagiarism...usually the writing style is the dead giveaway

I can certainly imagine that the style of a 20-year-old student would differ markedly from that of a mature academic. But I wonder whether there would be obvious style-differences when the plagiarist is a mature adult? If not, plagiarism by an adult would be nowhere near as easy to spot.

I have no basis on which to answer that query; any thoughts?

Keiva, most of my students were mature adults. Most people can't write for peanuts at the best of times. When they are faced with writing a formal dissertation on some subject, their English becomes very stilted. Adult students are also usually ill-educated when they start. If, in the midst of some fairly turgid and convoluted rubbish a stream of well-written prose hits your eye, it's hard not to wonder how come ...

One of the worst offenders I struck was actually a former policeman! He'd be struggling along in his best writing-a-formal-report-on-a-burlary style, then suddenly he'd produce a couple of paras of well thought-out and well-written guff. Then it would be back to the formal police report style. I called him on it and he swore black was white that it was his own work. I found (coincidentally) the passage he'd cribbed a week or so later. When I faced him with it, he nearly broke down in tears.

the root of this is that students are usually just being lazy and trying to meet a deadline with the least possible effort. someone who is willfully plagiarizing may actually put some effort into rewording and rewriting in his own style, stealing ideas more than words. this may only get caught by the original author, or someone who is steeped in these ideas.

The best response to a charge of plagiarism I've heard of in academia occurred at Otago University when I was studying there. The student, caught, said something along the lines of "Oh, I didn't think you would have read that article. You already know everything." As I understand it, the student meant it as a kind of compliment.

[muttering about standards at his alma mater -e]

Just heard on the news that two other books by Stephen Ambrose contain many passsages almost identical to those contained in other books, none written by Clement Clarke Moore.

Here's a link I dug up with the AP story:

http://www.salon.com/books/wire/2002/01/10/ambrose_plagiarism/index.html

Rule 7 states "Plagiarism saves time"

I'm all for plagiarism in non-academic and non-literature circles. Frinstance, if I receive a good sales proposal (in terms of structure and/or content) I will often pinch part of the content and/or layout.

Same as when doing a proposal - hop into the supplier's website, cut and paste some product descriptions into your own doc and away we go!!

stales

Stales, I wouldn't call that plagiarism. You are simply describing to the customer what he will get (through you) from the supplier. You are disseminating your supplier's advertising for him and, if successful, increasing his business. You customer is not misled: he knows that you obtain, from your third-party suppliers, some of the goods you supply to him.

I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics: Plagiarize!
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize...
[Only be sure always to call it please, "research".]

For Tom Lehrer's full text see http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/lobachev.htm

Since I put up a plagiarism site for other reasons, I just want to put my two or three cents in here to make my feelings clear. I think the only prime victim of the act of plagiarism is the creator of the work. In instances of songwriting, for example, the writer can go back and sue for copyright infringement and reclaim a portion of the profits...but in the eyes of the public that song will always be associated with the thief who released it. There's no going back. Opportunities to establish careers can and have been lost that way. And I find a site like the one that advocates the theft of work by students especially repugnant. Because sites like Napster, for instance, who make money by dealing in artists work they don't pay for, at least retain the name of the true artist on the work (and this doesn't excuse their thievery). And people who patronize these sites rationalize and pacifiy their own crime (and that's what it is) by saying they're only hurting the rich music corps...that's a lie, and they know it. But a site like plagiarist.com makes money by advocating the complete thievery of a literary work as one's own, thus obliterating even the name credit for the authentic artist. This is especially vile. And especially, I might add, for poets who make nothing, if a pittance, for their work anyway. All they have is their good name to market into speaking engagements, workshops, etc. Steal that and you steal everything. No shades of gray here, folks. Stealing is stealing. Pure and simple. If you want to qualify it, as in the point tsuwm I believe was trying to make, you could compare it to the stealing of a patented invention and marketing it as your own. If someone stole Edison's lightbulb...well, we'd still have the lightbulb, we'd still all be the better for it. But if the thieves had lawyers savvy enough to discredit Edison's patent, then Edison would have zilch...not even the credit for it. Do not patronize people who make money by stealing other peoples' work! Someone said, here, the students are just being lazy...aw, well let me get out my damned violin! When they're too lazy to make money I guess it's all right to go out and rob a back then, too...or to float a bad check, huh? Intentional plagiarism, is stealing, period. It's not only unethical, it's downright uncivil. And what's more, it's now teaching a whole web generation to have no respect for the law, for ethics, or for the rights of others. So what's the argument here, gentlemen?

To steal from one is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.

Here's my take on the left-handed thing. I skimmed thru the other replies to be sure I wasn't being redundant, but if this was already said and I missed it, I apoligize!

I think the expression could come from the Bible, in Matthew 6:3. Jesus is telling how people giving alms should not do it for the purpose of being noticed by others: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets... But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret:" Whaddaya think?

Again, sorry if this was already posted!

It took me a while to come to grips with this post, only because I didn't want to let anyone think that I’m defending theft. Just a few comments with regard to intellectual property.

This is a new idea, historically. How do “traditional” songs/stories become traditional anyway? One person must have come up with the idea – s/he never got credit for it. That is “copyright infringement” as is defined nowadays. Shoot, there is precedent in the law for someone to have a copyright on stuff they posted off-the-cuff on the Net. But we think nothing of recording, re-recording, copying, reprinting “traditional” works. So what changed?

Someone(s) saw that they could 1) encourage more art by 2) protecting the work so artists could make money and hence 3) collect taxes on it. Money – the “root of all evil” – is the basis of copyrights. I’m not saying it is wrong, but let us not sugar-coat it either. In the days before recording media (and mass-production of works), there was no point to copyright. You couldn’t record a performance and then sell it somewhere else. You couldn’t mass-produce a book. In fact, to be copied even once (before the printing press) was a great honor. To be copied many times elevated you to celebrity status. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It remains so today.

Copyright is the product of technology. It provided the *capability* to make serious money off of someone’s work, and to steal it. And now technology is turning art full circle – effectively (if not legally/morally) rendering copyright obsolete. So how does an artist survive such a situation? For performance artists (musicians, actors, etc) it is simple – provide live performances, and make your money off of that. For writers and graphic artists, it is more difficult. Several ideas have been put forward. Direct selling (after all, you never know if a copy has been altered) is one, reading aloud live is another (having someone do it for you). Technology may help protect some work, but remember that whatever technology can do, it can undo. Some forms of art (painting, sculpture) aren’t easily copied.

I’m not sure how we as a society should react to art theft. I am sure that hiding behind idealism and legal maneuvering isn’t productive. I’m sure that we need to think outside the box to fix it. I think if artists were smart, they’d cut out the middleman and sell direct. The middlemen get 90% of the price of a book. Why shouldn’t the author simply sell his e-book for $0.90 and get it over with?

Cheers,
Bryan

> The middlemen get 90% of the price of a book. Why
shouldn’t the author simply sell his e-book for $0.90 and get it over with?

and yet the math doesn't justify it. selling (conservatively) 100,000 copies (with big-time marketing) at $25 - $30 (to say nothing of paperback rights and other followons), even at only 10%, is far better than selling (optimistically) 10,000 copies online at a buck.

Sorry Bryan, but there's so much in your post that sounds incredibly naive about all this. First of all it was not until the invention of printing in the 15th Century that a form of copyright protection was devised...(that old pesky culprit, technology). Then the law was formalized by The Statute of Queen Anne in England in 1709: http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/history/

Works are, or become "traditional" because either they were created and passed down anonymously (as with much old folk music and stories of folklore), or because the copyright has expired and the work has passed into public domain. According to present U.S. Copyright Law this period of protection is from the date of creation to 70 years past the death of the author: Copyright Law of the U. S. Of A.http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ Click on Duration of copyright

So how does an artist survive such a situation? For performance artists (musicians,
actors, etc) it is simple – provide live performances, and make your money off of that.

I'm sorry, Bryan, but you don't have a clue here. Statistically only 2% of all performing artists (actors, dancers, musicians, singer/songwriters, magicians, etc.) make a living income by performing.
And of that 2%, only a handful are the super-rich celebrities. Otherwise it's a constant struggle...holding down a "day" or "real" job and performing on the side. C'mon! If every performing artist could just snap their fingers and establish a career in performance that pays enough to make a living don't you'd think they'd just do it instead of struggling along?

And if writers and recording artists had the capital to package, promote and distribute their works to the level of high-visibility, don't you think every one of them would eliminate the hated publishers/producers, (the "middleman"), and do just that?

And why do you believe that the owners of trademarks and patents have a right to the protection of their works but artists, or the creators of "intellectual property," don't?

And, by the way, plagiarism and copyright infringement is the same thing...where's this 'shade of gray' you seem to see?

I find it alarming that someone of your intellect and good-intentions, Bryan, is unaware of many of the implications here. But I think that's a symptom of the current problem. And this rebuttal is addressed to the issue, not personally to you, I assure you.

Statistically only 2% all all performing artists (actors, dancers, musicians, singer/songwriters, magicians, etc.) make a living income by performing.

Watch it WO'N, or you'll have Musick and me crying over all those lost opportunities and the horrendous hours we put in trying to be musos and to be able to eat at the same time ...

Found while browsing through the latest edition of the Annals of Improbable Research email today ...

2002-01-06 Name Question

Investigator Alistair McCulloch, who is Head of Research at
Edge Hill College of Higher Education, poses a simple question:

Idly wandering through the Science Citation Index this
lunchtime, I came across the following citation which I
would propose as a leading contender for the longest ever
author list in the history of academe. My question, as a
social scientist:
Is this the longest ever?

The paper to which investigator McCullogh refers is:

"Effects of Ramipril on Cardiovascular and Microvascular
Outcomes in People with Diabetes Mellitus: Results of
the HOPE Study and MICRO-HOPE Substudy," Lancet,
vol. 355, no. 9200, January 22, 2000, pp. 253-259.

The authors are:

Gerstein HC, Yusuf S, Mann JFE, Hoogwerf B, Zinman B, Held C,
Fisher M, Wolffenbuttel B, Bosch J, Richardson L, Pogue J, Halle
JP, Yusuf S, Sleight P, Dagenais G, Montague T, Bosch J, Pogue J,
Taylor W, Sardo L, Arnold M, Baigrie R, Davies R, Gerstein H, Jha
P, Johnstone D, Joyner C, Kuritzky R, Lonn E, Mitchell B, Morris
A, Sussex B, Teo K, Tsuyuki R, Zinman B, Probstfield J, Young J,
Diaz R, Paolasso E, Avezum A, Piegas L, Mann J, Wolffenbuttel B,
Ostergren J, Meaney E, Aprile M, Bedard D, Cossett J, Ewart G,
Harris L, Kellen J, LaForge D, Magi A, Skanes J, Squires P,
Stevens K, Bosch J, Cherian F, Holadyk-Gris I, Kalkbrenner P, Lonn
E, Mazur F, McQueen M, Micks M, Monti S, Pogue J, Sardo L,
Thompson K, Westfall L, Yusuf S, Richardson L, Raw N, Genisans M,
Diaz R, Paolasso E, Avezum A, Piegas L, Gerstein H, Zinman B,
Dagenais G, Arnold M, Auger P, Avezum A, Bata I, Bernstein V,
Bourassa M, Diaz R, Fisher B, Gerstein H, Grover J, Gun C, Gupta
M, Held C, Hoeschen R, Kouz S, Lonn E, Mann J, Mathew J, Meaney E,
Meldrum D, Pilon C, Ramos R, Roccaforte R, Starra R, Trivi M,
Davies R, Johnstone D, Lonn E, Probstfield J, McQueen M, Sackett
D, Collins R, Davis E, Furberg C, Hennekens C, Pitt B, Turner R,
Braver J, Cuneo C, Diaz M, Dizeo C, Guzman L, Lipshitz S, Llanos
S, Lopez J, Lorenzatti A, Machado R, Mackey C, Mancini M, Marino
M, Martinez F, Matrone A, Nordaby R, Orlandini A, Romero G, Ruiz
M, Rusculleda M, Saavedra S, San Damaso J, Serra J, Tuero E,
Zapata G, Zavala A, Grisold M, Klein W, Brosch E, Baumans P,
Brusselmans H, Bodson A, Boland J, Cano J, Chaudron JM, Degaute
JP, Duprez D, Heyndrickx G, Krzentowski G, Mockel J, Wautrecht J,
Alexandre E, Amodeo C, Armaganijan D, Ayub J, Bertolami M,
Bodanese L, Borges J, Caramelli B, Carvalho A, Coelho O, Dioguardi
G, Faludi A, Brage JF, Fichino M, Franken R, Ghorayeb N, de Souza
MG, Greque G, Guedes A, Kadri T, Kawamura T, Labrunie A, Malheiros
F, Marafon L, Nakamura M, Nonohay N, Ogawa C, Pavanello R, Puech-
Leao P, Ramires F, Ramires L, Sampaio M, Saraiva L, Tanajura L,
Ueti O, Vitola D, Armstrong F, Armstrong W, Baptie B, Basinger M,
Bell N, Beresford P, Black W, Brass N, Browne M, Browne K,
Brownoff R, Chaytors G, Cottier W, Donnelly R, Dzavik V, Edwards
A, Felker P, Giannoccaro P, Goeres M, Greenwood P, Grose M,
Grossman L, Gulamhusein S, Hui W, Hutchison F, Irving A, Kasian L,
Kasza L, Korner L, Kvill L, Lakhani Z, Lam S, Lesoway R, Ma P,
Martinez V, Meldrum D, Mitchell B, Mitchell D, Montague T, Musseau
A, Muzyka T, Neffgen C, Neffgen J, Nichol R, O'Beirne M, Paradis
J, Paterson D, Plesko A, Prosser A, Radomsky N, Roth D, Ryan E,
Senaratne M, Simon M, Stenerson P, Stone J, Talibi T, Wedel R,
Wyse D, Altwasser F, Ashton T, Askew J, Bernstein V, Bishop W,
Bloomberg G, Boone J, Breakwell L, Buller L, Calvert K, Carere G,
Dahl M, Dawson K, Dodek A, Dufton J, Geddis R, Ghosh S, Heath J,
Hilton D, Imrie J, Jay D, Kiess M, Klinke P, Kornder J, Lee P,
Leong W, Lewis J, Lounsbury N, MacDonald L, MacDonald K, MacNeil
A, MacRitchie D, McGee L, Mitchell L, Mulcahy K, O'Donoghue S,
Pearce A, Perreault L, Polasek P, Rabkin S, Reilly M, Richardson
P, Scoffield E, Sweeney R, Terwiel M, Thompson C, Wagner K, Webb
J, Wedding K, Woo K, Wright M, Zutz A, Briol L, Hoeschen R, Mehta
P, Mohammed I, Ong A, Ong G, Bessoudo R, O'Brien L, McLellan L,
Milton J, Elgar F, Joyce C, O'Keefe D, Parsons M, Ravalia M,
Sherman G, Smith R, Worrall G, Atkinson A, Barnhill S, Bata I,
Crossman L, Folkins D, Hatheway R, Johnson B, MacFarlane M, Machel
T, Morash J, Sheridan W, Shirley M, Anderson I, Arnold M, Baigrie
R, Baird M, Baitz T, Barnie A, Basta M, Blakely J, Bozek B,
Bradley W, Brown K, Burnham G, Cameron W, Cann M, Carroll S,
Carter R, Chan N, Chan Y, Charles J, Cheung M, Cina C, Cleghorn L,
Curnew G, Currado P, Davies R, DeGagne S, DeYoung P, Dhaliwal R,
Dowell H, Drobac M, Dubbin J, Duffield K, Edmonds M, Fallen E,
Feldman D, Fell D, Ferguson C, Finkelstein L, Fong G, Fowlis R,
Fraser M, Frenette L, Fulop J, Glanz A, Goode E, Gupta M, Hanna A,
Harris K, Hess A, Hierlihy P, Houlden R, Hramiak I, Hrycyshyn B,
Iwanochko R, Janzen I, Kannampuzha P, Keely E, Kennedy R, Kenshole
A, Kent E, Khan S, Kostuk W, Kowaleski M, Krupa M, Kumar G,
Kuruvilla G, Kwok K, Lai C, Langer A, Laor J, Lau D, LaVallee T,
Lent B, Liu P, Lochnan H, Lovell M, Lowe D, Mabb T, Maclean S,
Man K, Marois L, Massel D, Matthews E, McManus R, McPhee E,
McQueen M, McSherry J, Millar D, Miller F, Miners L, Misterski J,
Moe G, Mulaisho C, Munoz C, Nawaz S, Noseworthy C, O'Keefe H,
Oosterveld L, Panju A, Paquette H, Parkovnick M, Paterson R,
Pflugfelder P, Powers S, Rebane T, Redda A, Reeves E, Ricci J,
Sasson Z, Sayles M, Scott M, Sibbick M, Singh N, Southern R,
Spence D, Sternberg L, Stewart J, Styling S, Sulllivan B, Sullivan
H, Sullivan M, Swan J, Taichman J, Tan K, Tanser P, Tartaglia C,
Taylor K, Thomson D, Turek M, Vakani T, vanWalraven A, Varey M,
Vexler R, Walters J, Weeks A, Weingert M, Wetmore S, Whitsitt P,
Willing J, Wilson C, Wilson J, Wisenberg G, Wolfe M, Wolter B, Yao
L, Costain G, Hickey E, MacMillan E, Aris-Jilwan N, Auger P,
Banville P, Beaudoin J, Belanger A, Belanger N, Belleville L,
Bilodeau N, Bogaty P, Boulianne M, Bourassa M, Brophy J,
BrouilletteM, Buithieu J, Calve C, Campeau J, Carmichael P,
Carrier S, Chiasson J, Coutu B, Coutu D, Croteau S, D'Amours G,
Dagenais N, Delage F, Deschamps J, Dion D, Douville Y, Dumont F,
Dupuis R, Frechette L, Gauthier S, Gervais P, Giguere G, Giroux R,
Gossard D, Gosselin G, Goulet G, Grondin F, Halle J, Henri L,
Houde G, Joyal M, Kandalaft N, Karabatsos A, Kiwan G, Kouz S,
Labbe R, Langlais M, Lauzon C, LeBlanc M, Lenis J, Leroux S,
Loisel R, MacLellan K, Morissette A, Noel H, Ouimet F, Pedneault
L, Piche J, Pilon C, Plourde P, Poirier C, Poisson D, Roberge B,
Robert M, Rodrique M, Roy C, Roy L, Ruel M, Samson M, Saulnier D,
Savard D, Serpa A, Sestier F, Smilovitch M, Starra R, St-Hilaire
R, Theroux P, Toupin-Halle A, Tremblay J, Truchen H, Turcotte J,
Vachon S, Vienneau R, Wilson P, Habib M, Habib N, Ahmed S, Hart M,
Walker J, Walker M, Thomasse G, Meunier L, Sayeed Z, Juhl H,
Kolendorf K, Hamalainen T, Gin H, Rigellau V, Bohm M, Erdmann E,
Forst P, Gordalla A, Hampel R, Hartmann C, Hasslacher G, Henrichs
H, Hensen J, Hopf R, Kromer E, Martin T, Maus J, Mayer B, Miedlich
S, Moeller A, Nast H, Oehmen-Britsch R, Paschke R, Prehn B,
Riegger G, Riel R, Rosak C, Schroeder C, Schulze-Schleppinghoff B,
Schunkert H, Schweda R, Stablein A, Stein U, Truchon H, Unger H,
Wetzel H, Crean P, White U, Aina F, Balzan C, Barbaresi F,
Brancaleoni R, Brunazzi M, Brunelli C, Cambiano A, Caponnetto S,
Casaccia M, Centofante P, Cernigliaro C, Goi AC, Cicciarello C,
Cotogni A, DeJoannon U, Dellavesa P, di Gerogio L, Di Luzio S,
Fava A, Frigeni G, Gatto E, Giani P, Giorgi-Pierfranceschi D,
Imparato C, Landoni M, Magnani B, Manicardi E, Mantovani B, Marini
M, Martini U, Mazzantini S, Merni M, Miglierina E, Marini M,
Molinari G, Nanni D, Paciaroni E, Pareschi P, Pasqualini M,
Perazzoli F, Polese A, Poletti F, Portioli I, Provasoli S, Repetto
S, Rigatelli G, Roccaforte R, Romano E, Rossi E, Rugolotto M,
Rusticali F, Saccomanno G, Simoni C, Stucci N, Terranova P, Tortul
C, Velussi M, Vincenzi M, Vincenzi P, Zavaroni D, Cardona-Munoz E,
Elizondo L, Fausto M, Galindo R, Gloria-Breceda F, Hernandez-
Garcia H, Ibarra-Flores M, Illescas-Diaz J, Lopez-Alvarado A,
Meaney E, Olvera-Ruiz R, Rivera-Capello J, Romero-Soltero M,
Samaniego-Mendez V, Vidrio-Velazquez M, Kruseman A, Mulder H, Sels
J, van Doorn L, Vogel N, Hjerkinn E, Reikvam A, Albert X, Alvarez
A, Cardona M, Cosio FG, Gilabert R, Karoni A, Lopez-Bescos L,
Masia R, Saenz L, Sanz G, Ahnberg K, Andersson D, Andersson O,
Astrom L, Bergsten L, Bjorkman H, Borgman C, Cervin P, Dalhgren
C, Ekholm L, Ericsson UB, Eriksson C, Fagher B, Gertow O, Gillberg
P, Hagg A, Hallberg A, Hansson B, Hansson P, Held C, Heinonen M,
Henning R, Jacobsson L, Jagren C, Jonasson T, Kahan T, Katzman P,
Kristensson B, Krogager K, Leijd B, Lennerhagen P, Ljungdahl L,
Menyes H, Ohman P, Olsson PO, Rosenqvist U, Ryden L, Sartor G,
Sjostedt P, Smith L, Stahl L, Svensson A, Svensson K, Taghavi A,
Thulin T, Torebo E, Weber P, Wysocki M, Anesini A, Boman P, Cozzi
R, Gerber P, Honegger R, Kick A, Kiowski W, Lehmann R, Lull B,
Moccetti T, Pasotti E, Rojas J, Rossi A, Rossi M, Safwan E,
Schindler R, Sessa F, Spinas G, Allan B, Cumming L, Fisher B,
Heller S, Kennedy J, Kesson C, Lochiel R, Manns J, McGroarty E,
Raeburn K, Small M, Struthers S, Wilkinson I, Brown E, Holt J,
Perry G, Singh B, Szlachcic Y, Vlachou M, Yee F, Clegg L, Horwitz
L, St John M, Anderson J, Rashkow A, Schwartz K, Abercrombie L,
Cintron G, Garrett D, McHale J, Miller A, Sullebarger J, Tripp G,
Zoble R, Orander P, Sridharan M, Sridharan V, Berger S, Davidson
M, Geohas J, Islam N, Rajanahally R, Seikel K, Susmano A,
Wentworth M, Advani S, Rough R, Wickemeyer W, Young N, Goldstein
M, Dinneen S, Farkouh M, Helgemoe P, Miller T, Parkulo M, Pierpont
G, Weigenant J, Rich M, Schmidt P, Abrams J, Robbins D, Bonora M,
Cohen G, Constantinou M, Dimova A, Fitzpatrick P, Gage L, Graham
S, Kohn R, Lader E, Powers J, Reiter P, Witt N, Buchsbaum R,
Donese B, Gupta S, Hoogwerf B, Suhan P, Suryaprasad A, Williams D,
Danisa K, Lowery M, Lyon K, Rae C, Gandara B, Gramberg M, Grover
J, Amidi M, Bell M, DiTommaso M, Day J, Durand J, Farmer J, Torre
G, Vooletich M, Gorham J, Gowing B, Kingry C, Lehmann K, Letterer
R, Lorch G, Lwai S, Mack R, Nemanich J, Primm R, Utley R, Vaughn
L, Bergentoft A, Borgman C, Brosch E, Engbers A, Flores M, Forst
P, Frisenda L, Gerle S, Huber D, La Tour F, Lehtonen R, Luca C,
Keays JS, Masterson N, Moore R, Morales-Virgen J, Penson, Persson
C, Pina C, Plouffe D, Reglier JC, Riley J, Rolstad T, Ronsted P,
Spinewine P, Styner L, van den Boom N, and Yuki-Miyakoshi S.


----------------------------------------------------------
2002-01-07 Answer to the Name Question

The answer to investigator McCulloch's question is: No, it is not
the longest.

So far as we know, the academic paper with the greatest number of
co-authors is a medical report by Topol, Califf, Van de Werf,
Armstrong, and their 972 co-authors, published in The New England
Journal of Medicine, vol. 329, no. 10, September 2, 1993, pp. 673-
82. Their report has one hundred times as many authors as pages.
These co-authors shared the 1993 Ig Nobel Prize in literature.

Well, it may not be the longest, but it sure is a hell of a long list of Keiva's likely primary victims, inn't?

See http://chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0201160110jan16.story?coll=chi-leisure-hed for a different take on this. The article stresses that plagiarism harms the reading public -- which is my position you misunderstand me here, CK -- but the article's reasoning is different from mine and IMHO is somewhat fatuous.

Nobody got hurt, right? Well, actually, that's not right.

There were a whole lot of victims -- and not just the historians whose words Ambrose plagiarized. As trite as it may sound, everyone's the loser when a writer, particularly a historian, such as Ambrose, takes the lazy way out and copies someone else's words, perspectives and ideas and presents them as his own. What's lost, at that moment, is an opportunity for a new insight into -- a fresh way of understanding -- the human condition.

As to Ambrose's particular case, the article struck me as a reasonably thorough and balanced discussion.

I am aware that the printing press was the impetus for copyrights. And I wasn't really trying to draw a distinction between plagiarism and copyright, just show that in some cases (performing art and writing) that there are differences in execution. You only detailed how stuff becomes traditional - I don't think anything I said regarding that contradicts you. And I don't exclude trademarks and patents, either. In the real world, a patent is something that gets the inventor prestige, but inventions get stolen all the time anyway. Inventors are pressured to sell their patents so the purchaser can bury it etc. The system isn't really all that good, so focusing on a teenager downloading Slipknot from Napster reminds me of draining a pool with a thimble.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the whole business of how tough it is to be a noted and financially stable artist. I realize that. That number certainly doesn't *increase* with the intrusion of the middlemen, though. And my whole point is that art should not be "packaged, promoted, and distributed" - the necessity for that is a fallacy. The reason music and such can be stolen is because it is so cheap to copy. It costs something to *produce*, but that is a simple matter of the current middlemen becoming more like investment bankers. They bankroll production (and advertising, if they want) rather than "finding and cultivating talent." I don't think they do much of a service there. Some of the "talent" can't perform their way out of a wet paper bag (can anyone say "Milli Vanilli"?? I thought so).

History is full of artists who got popular *in spite* of the big money. If there weren't big middlemen in the way, I don't think we'd lack for good art. We'd only have to pay less for it, and word-of-mouth advertising would rule supreme. Instead of surfing the net for good artists, people would probably take recommendations from friends. I do that now anyway. I don't go into bookstores and music stores to shop. I have enough recommendations to keep reading for the next 500 years.

Cheers,
Bryan

This is all well and good for "established" authors. Chances of getting to be in that elite "promoted and distributed" club is very slim, and becoming popular as a result is even slimmer.

Cheers,
Bryan

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


"Imitation isn't the sincerest form of flattery--it's plagiarism."

   --- Red Skelton