the question of "stealing" information, i reckon, is a matter of intent.  i'd say it was 
sloppy not to add attribution for his source, but i wouldn't level the charge of plagiarism.  

this is from webster's, though technically, i do not believe that i have to cite this--at least 
academically speaking, definitions (ironically, even ones you look up/don't know) fall 
under "common knowledge":

transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's 
production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from 
an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun

whether tag's posting constitutes copyright infringement, it seems, is also not cut-and-

in terms of electronic media, it appears that no one is certain, at least until a few cases 
play out in the supreme court, what exactly constitutes cr infringement.  nearly every 
article i perused used the word "may constitute" which implies (to me at least) that some 
of the issues are still up in the air.

two main issues are "fair use" clauses in copyright law and commercial benefit.  it's safe 
to say that tag has nothing to gain commercially from posting the article.  

"fair use" is also iffy here.  it seems the "fair use" test is based on whether or not the 
re"printing" of material has an adverse effect on the "owner".  in other words, would we 
have gone out and bought the paper tag (doesn'treally)cite? the answer is probably not.

i found one interesting article here:

it comes from cnet, by the way, and since i've excerpted a small portion of it (and 
attributed it) i am not in violation of copyright law (i think):

"But what about fair use, which makes allowances for use of copyrighted content without 
authorization for noncommercial or educational purposes?

Attorneys interviewed by CNET said it's hard to make blanket conclusions 
about what is and isn't allowed in such situations. When determining whether fair use is a 
factor, though, one of the most important considerations is whether copying the work 
"has an adverse impact on the publisher or the author," said Ralph Oman, an intellectual 
property attorney with the Washington, D.C., firm Dechert and a former U.S. Register of 
Copyrights under Republican administrations.

Let's say your boss sends you and your colleagues a couple of articles each day, either 
for your amusement or your enlightenment. If you wouldn't have otherwise subscribed to 
that publication or gone to the trouble of visiting the publisher's Web site and downloading 
it yourself, then it would be hard for the publisher or author to make a legitimate claim of 
lost value, so that factor would weigh in your favor."

just a little repast for cognition.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit