Posted by Jill Roseberg on April 19, 2002 at 17:52:15:
In Reply to: Re: P.S. To my previous message posted by Natasha Kern on April 19, 2002 at 16:51:44:
: If you are referring to the mention in May RT of virtual accusations of plagiarism directed against Christine Dodd by an on-line site (by people who apparently don't know what plagiarism even actually is!)RT concluded that any similarity to another book was purely coincidental. This hardly seems like something to be proud of in terms of great investigative journalism. Another round of false accusations. I am hoping this isn't the mention of copyright infringement you are referring to.
There were no false accusations only a discussion of the similarities between the 2 books and whether such similarities could be copyright infringement. Yes the topic originated with the concept of Plagarism but continued to discuss copyright infringement. Based on the discussions, from those who read the books, plagarism did not appear to exist. But that does not answer the question of copyright infringement. That question still exists as copyright law protects a creation in such a way so that someone can not take an existing copyrighted story, change the date, name and locations and call it a new work. I had thought it would be an interesting essay to write about but unfortunately it would be a very time consuming project as it would require that I read both books and research case law in which to apply the scenario to. And for your information, I am an attorney and have a working understanding of copyright law.
As for the discussions on RLH, it is not for the reader of an interview intended for public consumption in a mainstream paper to question the validity of the interview. It's amazing that the only time such validity is questioned is when someone reads what they don't want to hear, otherwise that same person would point to an article in a paper as gospel.
Further, based on most of the comments made in defense of RLH, all I can say is with friends like that she does not need any enemies. RLH responded professionally and addressed the issues in the article. Though I may not agree with all her views, she comes off as eloquent and professional and I am therefore willing to read what she has to say. Most who came in defense of her, were rude, accusatory and played the "blame game", all which was completely inappropriate. It may have worked for Hitler but it will not work here.
If one does not want their words questioned, then stay away from interviews. If anyone is going to give interviews, he/she will need to carefully speak to avoid misinterpretations. It is not the reader's job to question the words attributable to the interviewee. The interviewee will need to take responsibility for his/her own words and actions and how they may be interpreted.