derivative work

Accusing someone of plagiarism is the latest version of pointless distraction from the real issues. Much like the brouhaha about the infamous Lewinsky/Clinton blowjob, it relies on an overwrought anxiety approaching paranoia about an issue that is of interest to politicians only insofar as it serves to distract people from substantive issues. Like Ann Coulter before them, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s much-publicized skirmishes with plagiarism are disappointing because they divert from real issues, and because they contribute to the general paranoia around “ownership” of information. Without, as it happens, doing much to educate or inform anybody about plagiarism, authorship, or creativity.

Nevertheless, a few commentators muster up something worth reading:

• Houston Chronicle, 2/24: “Rule No. 1: If it’s transformative, it’s not plagiarism.” (link from 43(B)log)
• MSNBC Meet the Press (link from copyfight)
• Jerome Doolittle, John F. Kennedy, plagiarist?, salon.com 2008/2/20 (“[Lincoln's version] is equally free of meaning, but goes a considerable way toward explaining why Seward was the incoming secretary of state and Lincoln was the incoming president. It ain’t what you say but how you say it. And that is why the Clinton camp has found itself reduced to rolling out the pop gun of plagiarism at this difficult point in the campaign. They have no other artillery.”)
• Rohn Robins, Vail Daily, 2/26

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am and is tagged plagiarism blinkographies, election 2004, plagiarism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. 1,031 views.