Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Plagiarized Queen material on the www SHOCK HORROR!!!

forum rss feed
Author

Queen Archivist user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 850 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Jul 10, 17:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I notice on Gary's thread re my book QUEEN LIVE, which in its new form will be rightly credited to us both, equally, that a certain GH (does that stand for Gormless Halfwit?) has written the following as an apparently serious comment:-

"Can't wait to count the errors like last time.  I'll also include a tally for things plagiarized off the internet." 

My question on this is very simple... Are there really people alive today that are not aware that the www, the internet, is an amalgamation of EVERYBODY's collective work, rather than a forum for exclusively brand new data with nothing borrowed from previous learning??????????

I mean, to use the word 'plagiarized' in the context of the www is just a ludicrous nonsense.  Does GH think that the people at Wikipedia, for example, are offering solely brand new data on such topics as Merlot wine, Freddie Mercury, diamonds, Paris, Anthony Hopkins, Parkinsons Disease, the Afghan Hound, analogue tapes, the history of Motown, Star Trek, Dr Who, Coronation St, and frozen peas?????

What a staggeringly moronic thing to say. No change there then!

Nearly everything on the web is borrowed or influenced by, or a blatant copy or rip off of, someone else's work. Is this news? Doesn't EVERYONE above the age of 4 know that? So by definition I would estimate that 99.99999999999999999999999999% of everything we read on Queen, and ANY other subject matter GH could mention, is of course 'plagiarized' to a very large extent.

Is GH expecting a 400 page book on Queen to contain exclusively NEW info, and NOTHING at all already known, already written and documented some place else???

What a knobbly Ended chap you are GH.... remove some of the letters there.

I'm going away again now. I just nipped in here tonight to see GT's thread for the book. It's best I'm not involved here - we can agree on that. This GH comment being a typical one, and just the sort of thing that ensures I'm only here once every 3 months or so. It's a bit too irritating.

"I'll also include a tally for things plagiarized off the internet."    What a ridiculously stupid comment.  What a Gormless Halfwit (GH)!!!!


GB
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Jul 10, 18:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Not taking sides here, but everyone should know and understand that *information* and *facts* can not be copyrighted, only their unique presentation can be. That's how different authors can all write books on the same non-fictional subject, be they movies, artists, castles or the history of widgets.

Fun fact: the inventor of the original Trivial Pursuit board game took almost all the facts for the questions from a published book. The book's author tried to sue and the case was thrown out because the facts were public knowledge and the presentation was NOT in book form.

My point is, as long as the Queen Live authors do not copy the unique presentation of the facts as they appear on websites, the facts themselves belong to everyone. Queen Concerts.com, for example, cannot copyright any list of Queen's tour itinerary, but are protected legally from anyone choosing to copy HOW QC.com presents that information (but would still have a mountain to climb in building that defense). Any written editorial examination of the facts presented is the intellectual property of the writer, but still NOT the facts themselves. Even on a public forum, like this one, our personal statements and comments are protected unless we agree to the release of these statements. This also protects the website from liability if anything illegal is posted.

I'm looking forward to the new book.

kosimodo user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 554 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 03:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Move on Greg..

We try. I suggest you do the same...

Looking forward to the mentioned book. I am even looking at some old pics to scan.

We can considered this thread as closed.

Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 03:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg, why do you only show your face on Queenzone when someone criticises your work? You are never there when we 'need' you (regarding questions concerning unreleased Queen material for example).


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."

geldy user not visiting Queenzone.com
geldy
Bohemian: 156 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 05:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I give a shit on... what stupid employees say...

Freddie would never say yes to those stupid releases in the last years... Especially Brian May... is a fucking moneyholic ;-) Just take a look on Queen Rocks or GH 3... what a FUCK!!!

Queen is ruined... thanks!!!

By the way... what would John Richard Deacon say?


- A LIFE WITHOUT MUSIC IS A POOR LIFE -
emrabt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1118 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 06:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The book's
author tried to sue and the case was thrown out because the facts were public
knowledge and the presentation was NOT in book form.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Interesting extra Tibit about trivial pursuit, they made up a bunch of their fact just so they could catch plagiarists out. Lieutenant Columbo's first name being the one that start that court case.

It was ruled that because the answers in trivial pursuit were presented as fact,
as long as nothing was copied word for word, any information taken from it was classed as “research”.

Never hurts to show respect and give your source, because it's courteous.

thomasquinn 32989 user is on Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 06:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

@Archivist:

Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that your shamefully inadequate understanding of the term "plagiarism" renders you fully incompetent to perform the duties of archivist. Having read your rant, I can assure you that you would be removed from any university I am familiar with upon handing in your first paper if you live by what you write.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Josh Henson user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 07:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Greg, get over it.  Go blog somewhere else where you actually contribute to conversations.


I'm just getting used to my new exposure

Come into my enclosure

And meet my melancholy blues
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 09:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen Archivist wrote:

I'm going away again now. I just nipped in here tonight to see GT's thread for the book. It's best I'm not involved here - we can agree on that. This GH comment being a typical one, and just the sort of thing that ensures I'm only here once every 3 months or so. It's a bit too irritating.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the reason you only appear every three months is because that's how long your "therapy" sessions last. then every 13 weeks they test you out for "care in the community".

run run Greggy, here comes Nurse with your pullover that only does up at the back


go deo na hÉireann
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 10:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen Archivist wrote:

"Does GH think that the people at Wikipedia, for example, are offering solely brand new data on such topics as Merlot wine, Freddie Mercury, diamonds, Paris, Anthony Hopkins, Parkinsons Disease, the Afghan Hound, analogue tapes, the history of Motown, Star Trek, Dr Who, Coronation St, and frozen peas?????"

Obviously not.  But the difference between you and people on Wikipedia is they're not creating a book from which they will make money.

ThomasQuinn said it all.  I have nothing to add.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Donna13 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1683 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 11:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ThomasQuinn wrote: @Archivist:

Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that your shamefully inadequate understanding of the term "plagiarism" renders you fully incompetent to perform the duties of archivist. Having read your rant, I can assure you that you would be removed from any university I am familiar with upon handing in your first paper if you live by what you write.

--------------------

I don't understand this comment.

e-man user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 12:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

you cannot steal information like this. by that token - many of the queen web sites would have to be considered plagiarism of greg's first book!!
new info has surfaced since the first edition of this book - but it's not whoever's property.

a nod to various people would be appropriate in the apendix of the book - but plagiarism? get real

Crazy LittleThing user not visiting Queenzone.com
Crazy LittleThing
Royalty: 1593 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 13:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Oh look.  Greg Brooks is back.


I saved Spike's life in 'Nam.
andreas_mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
andreas_mercury
Royalty: 1068 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 14:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i will almost smell his sweaty cardigon from where i am sitting ..... fat fucking shit

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 15:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

e-man wrote:

"a nod to various people would be appropriate in the apendix of the book - but plagiarism? get real"

It's plagiarism when something is quoted word for word without proper footnotes.

What is "staggeringly moronic" in this thread is how the person who has most vocally demonstrated his ignorance of the term 'plagiarism' is the one writing a book.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Donna13 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1683 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 17:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I still don't understand your argument, Sir GH.  Would you please let us know what you are talking about.

Are you implying that a book that was written prior to the existence of Queen-type information on the internet has somehow copied word for word something that you wrote on the internet?  Or are you implying that their current revisions and additions, which have not yet been published, and you have not yet seen, will have something in them that was copied word for word from what you wrote on the internet (without giving you credit via footnotes)?

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Jul 10, 17:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's actually neither.  There was a second edition in 2005.

Plagiarism isn't reserved for published works.  If a high school student copies and pastes part of an essay from a blog and doesn't footnote it, their teacher only needs to copy and paste the selection into google with quotes to see where the student got it from.  That is still plagiarism.  It remains a mystery why any author should think they are exempt.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
GratefulFan user not visiting Queenzone.com
GratefulFan
Deity: 3776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jul 10, 00:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Definintions aside, in my mind there are two ways one might feel about the likelihood of having one's own painstaking research show up in somebody else's book about a subject close to the heart: 1) flattered, or 2) ripped off.  Which one it turns out to be is mostly dependent I think on the attitude and the actions of the person writing the book.  The person writing the book in this case is usually thoroughly ridiculous and thoroughly an ass.

Pingfah user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 506 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jul 10, 06:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow, this is classy and professional.

If I had a guy doing work for me that went and had blazing rows with my customers, calling them names and generally making me look bad, he would be fired in 10 seconds flat.

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Jul 10, 07:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I have never written a Queen book, but I am still one of the most plagiarised "authors" in the Queen world. This is because I have freely shared all my information over the internet, in various Queen forums. I do not mind people using my information (in fact I see it as the highest form of flattery), but what really annoys is when someone in print (or on the net) steals that work without any changes whatsoever, and tries to pass that work off as their own.

Also, when someone gathers a multitude of different sources, and condenses all this information into a "greatest Hits" type essay, without acknowledging any of the previous writers, for me is the lowest form of plagiaristic theft.

The problem is that in Queenzone, we have some highly qualified and academic people. I have never felt the need or the desire to play poker with my own qualifications, but as an educationalist, I easily  recognise and appreciate those who write in an academic or scholarly manner. Unfortunately, it is all too obvious that Mr. Brooks did not attend university, and does not have the intellectual capacity to engage in such discussion.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."