Well, I'd heard about The Agonist cribbing materials for his web site from Stratfor. Now Wired takes the story much further, openly accusing Sean-Paul Kelley of being a liar and a plagiarist. And I'm afraid I have a bit of detail that others may not know.
I think the real problem is probably that he doesn't believe that there's anything wrong, morally, ethically, or otherwise, with copying the work of others without pay or attribution.
I was one of the first to blogroll Sean-Paul, back when he first got started and no one knew who he was. I found his anti-Bush tirades excessive and at times obsessive. He also once embarassed himself tremendously when he posted a terribly mean-spirited and unfair rant about "warbloggers" that left a lot of us deeply offended, then had the nerve to be huffy when people got mad at him. I found it amusing when MSNBC said he "leans left." This is like saying that Hunter S. Thompson "likes drugs." The guy is very left-wing, period.
That doesn't make him evil, of course. I found him a decent guy, and enjoyed him and his weblog. I even helped promote his efforts when he started soliciting funds to help him finish his book project.
Yet I'm afraid I have another bit of info that Wired doesn't mention. In the earlier versions of his site was a statement that all items on the site were uncopyrighted, because:
"Intellectual property is theft."
In other words, copyright is itself immoral. Creative works should automatically be everyone's property. This was up on his site for some time, in place of where you normally see a copyright or Creative Commons notification.
I'm sorry to say that it looks like this generally decent young man has not only embarassed himself and everyone who would like weblogs to be taken seriously. He is also, probably, still being evasive. I suspect that the real issue is that he believes there's nothing wrong with copying the work of others without pay, attribution, or permission.
I like this young man. But I'm terribly disappointed, and don't know what to think. Especially because it makes all webloggers look inherently untrustworthy. Most especially if he thinks it's okay to build yourself a career and worldwide fame this way. :-(
(Thanks to Casey for forwarding the Wired article.)
* Update * - Meryl Yourish, Colby Cosh, Glenn Reynolds, Ken Layne, and others have weighed in on this, as it turns out, and a bunch of other people besides (see trackbacks for more examples). Meryl's message seems to be the definitive overview of what's happened to date. But ultimately, Strategic Armchair Command is where it all started.For all its flaws, one thing should be said: weblogging encourages a process of peer review and fact-checking that's hard to match in any other medium. Then again, the Wired reporters, not to mention the Stratfor people--yes, those pesky "old media" folks--had a wee bit of a role too, didn't they? Colby's right: blogs are what they are, and not a replacement for anything else.
There is some murk around the concept of intellectual property; there always has been. But even if the matter were resolved entirely in the direction of a liberty to copy others' work freely, without penalty -- a position I don't endorse nor approve (I'm a writer, after all) -- to do so without attribution of any kind, and not a word of thanks to the creator, is incredibly rude and crass.
It's my experience that crass behaviors are good indicators of other character faults, such as mendaciousness. They don't appear in isolation.
Bill Quick (www.dailypundit.com) just posted a link to this post, together with a link to a WaPo article. (Sorry, don't know how to do links.) The WaPo article asks for feedback. The following is what I sent in.
"This really bothers me. What Sean-Paul Kelly did was terribly unethical. Granted, bloggers are not journalists, but one of the strengths of the blogosphere (tm Bill Quick) is the linking back to the original source material so the reader can decide for him/herself. To pass on another's work as your own is despicable. As has been mentioned elsewhere, SPK is a grad student. He KNOWS what the rules are for source attribution.
The other problem I have is that he stole from Stratfor. We can argue all day as to whether or not information should be free. As an avid internet surfer, I would love it to be free. As a business owner, the reality is that the only thing I have to sell is my time, knowledge and expertise. When someone steals that, they are impacting my ability to feed my family. It takes a lot of chutzpah for SPK to steal from Stratfor on the one hand, and then, because he is getting so much attention based on the "quality" of his site, ask for suggestions as to how he can turn his site into a money making proposition on the other."
Keep up the great work.
It seems to me that bloggers need to get comfy -- and fast -- with a standard of ethics similar to the doctrine of "Fair Use" in copyright works. (My own comments on this issue are on To the point.)
Bloggers cut and paste all the time. That's the point of blogging, in a sense -- to propagate information from elsewhere along with original commentary or "compilation" (similar to compliation rights in an anthology of non-copyrighted work.) But there needs to be an understood set of rules about what is, and isn't acceptable. Not every unacceptable violation, for example, would count as plagiarism.
If I was his MA adviser, I'd look long and hard at his thesis. Plagarists seldomly do it "just this once".
After violating the First Commandment of the Blogopshere (Cite Thy Sources), his only regret is getting caught, his excuse is that he didn't have enough time.
DISGUSTING!
Then, the copyright "intellectual property is theft" comment pretty much put in squarely in the "If he isn't in the dustbin of the blogosphere by now, then shove in him the sink disposal and flip the switch."
And the major media outlets were using HIM as an example of Blogging? Jesus, he just set the whole concept back decades with his theft. Thank goodness we're all on Internet Time, so we'll only take a day to make it up...
WITHOUT him.
Looks like Strategic Armchair Commands comments on the post you reference have been flooded with the same message over and over too.
The "I was too busy to cite everything" excuse rings hollow, as SPK had enough time to link to sources for items not pulled from pay-only sites.
That combined with the implication that SPK has access to "sources he can't list by name" just looks bad.
Jerry Pournelle I trust to have well placed little birds whispering in his ear when he says "this is the real deal, and I can't tell you who told me".
The gravamen is Sean-Paul cut-and-pasted from a paid subscription service. He was giving their work away for free. That obviously would be damaging to their business model.
The best analogy: He paid for one copy, photocopied it, and gave a copy away to everyone he knew ... and implied that it was his own work.
What motivates Dean to observe repeatedly how much he admires and likes this young man? Loathe to attack another on the same flank...even if he occupies the fringe? Gee...so surprised that the 'author' is a fervent Clintonista; what a role model: the serial liar and parser par excellence. No wonder Agonist lacks contrition; but please, don't undermine your own integrity by rationalizing, minimizing or qualifying this behavior; what K has done is reprehensible and immoral. The pretense that this student was striking a blow for copyright or intellectual property 'freedom' is absolute hokum...he's passing off the thoughts, ideas and words of his betters as his own. I agree with posters who note that plagiarism doesn't happen once--it's a congenital weakness of character. I trust his university has been informed of his disgraceful activity and is now carefully scrutinizing his 'original' application and subsequent papers for the inevitable incriminating evidence.
"Generally decent"?!?!?! Dean, you're bending over backwards to be nice to a frikkin' thief. A thief who profited from the work of others. I just busted an SOB who was using my web work to promote an event of his own that had nothing to do with me or mine, and in fact, promoted a competitor. Blogosphere or not, business is business and money is money and the internet is here as an avenue to facilitate that (among many thousands of other things, web elves). But the rules of life don't change, at least not for me.
This cat is some kind of financial advisor poobah in real life...do you want your money in his or their hands now, knowing what you know?
He was just thinking along the lines of ST:TOS's Harcourt Fenton Mudd: "Knowledge, sir, should be free for all."
I'm going to post a longer response to this as a main article.
'Intellectual Property is Theft', a term whose subtlety has apparently soared over your head, used to be part of the header graphic on my site; there's a more timely slogan there now.
As near as I can tell it never once appeared on Agonist:
cf. Google
Good work, Esmay!
Hi Dean ... I didn't know you frequented these parts.
I recalled your slogan, and thought it was a joke. Er ... it was a joke, right?
Enjoy France. (C'est pas une "slur" contre le Francais.)
Simple rule, learned in school:
If you didn't write it yourself, you need to cite the source.
'Nuff said.
Mr. Allen's reasoning appears to be as follows:
1) If he originated a phrase, no one else has ever used it,
2) If Google doesn't find something on a page, that means it was never on that page,
3) That I have confused Sean-Paul Kelley, whose site I have been frequenting for more than six months, with his own site, which I have never visited until just this week, and which does not (that I can see) even have this phrase on its main page,
4) That he originated a phrase which I have heard variations of in many times and places, having worked in Open Source software development,
5) That I am joining in on a "dogpile" against Sean-Paul even though I have, in fact, tried to defend him.
Most amusingly, I duplicated Mr. Allen's Google search, exactly as he linked it, only substituting "Dean Allen" for "Agonist." Google shows that it has, in Mr. Allen's words, "never" appeared on Dean Allen's site. It does show that one or two other sites accuse Mr. Allen of having the phrase, however. I take this to mean that Dean Allen now confesses to being a plagiarist, since Google knows all? [chuckle]
I see on Mr. Allen's site that he is now demanding an apology. Very well, Mr. Allen: I'm sorry you're such a silly little Baby Marxist.
oh, well played, young man! touché
Dean Esmay uses Dean Allen's own tendentious rhetorical style against M. Allen. Nicely done.
Hooo, boy. It's amazing how sarcasm fails on the 'net. Perhaps try a nice, deep breath and relax a bit. Now go read the post on Textism with the revolutionary thought that maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit more than just a literal interpretation.
Perhaps it's just me.
Dean Allen is of course being sarcastic about wanting the apology.
But he's serious in his criticisms when he uses phrases like "babyconservative dogpile" and deserves the response in kind.
Heh, I hit a nerve - you're hysterical, Esmay!
Not much in this life funnier than a disposable neocon sheep unaware his quaint fury has been mocked.
Don't worry, happens all the time.
Bye!
Ouch! My poor nerve! Oh the agony! My nerve, my nerve! Struck by the devastating blows of the titanic genius! How shall my poor nerve ever recover?
Oh, the agony, the agony, the agonist.
I confess that Mr. Allen's thinking is far too advanced for my poor feeble brain to fully comprehend. If I'm lucky, perhaps one day I'll make it to his level. We can only pray.
(Sarcasm fails on the net? Ya think?)
Speaking of citing sources. I'd like to see the screenshot of "Intellectual property is theft."
It is entirely a matter of my memory. So, you may trust that or not. But I can assure you I did not get it off the strange and quirky Mr. Allen's site, which I don't read.
Sean-Paul could also deny it, if he so chose. Maybe it's a horrible hallucination on my part, or maybe he had it up then rethought it and removed it. [shrug]
He appears to have chosen total silence on the entire issue. Too bad. :-(
More than all the pettifoggery above, how unfortunate to see "adults" reduced to schoolyard tactics.
There is no shame in admitting that someone gave you a good line, all the greatest authors have done so.
You say you never heard of Mr. Allen but somehow feel he is a "titanic genius." Why is this? Please be factual.
Dear Shakespeare didn't realize how prescient he was when speaking of the tangled web we weave.
I am sorry for the bad english.
Manon
Oh, get a sense of humor, Manon. You're taking this far too seriously.
Yes, sarcasm is indeed lost on some people. :-)
Just wanted to point out that Dean Allen had used the phrase in question on his site for quite some time. Try the Web Archive or just use the link provided by Mr. Allen. It was located in the image that served as the nameplate for Textism. As it was included in the image and not actually spelled out in ASCII text, Google could not index this phrase. This is why your search returned no results.
As for Mr. Allen's search employing the same tactic, it is what it is, ymmv. I care little for the circle jerk that warblogging, pro or con, appears to be. I do care about lazy searching and casual attribution, thus the point of this post.
Dean,
Ditto. Indeed. :)
:-D
I turn a clever phrase with the best (though endless winter's got me down, so not lately, not much). Two or three ideas accidentally get next to a fistful of words in my head and shit tumbles out that folks think of as original.
And it is original, as far as I know. I can't certify that nobody's ever said or written such things, but I know they're not lifted. I feel the spark and flood, and they take vectors unplanned.
"Intellectual Property is Theft" suffers from being so tight that, even if it's original from the author's stance there's a good chance somebody else has said it. Dean Allen, like Dean Esmay, is a good writer. Good writers know these distinctions. Allen and Esmay have no dispute, not really.
Sean-Paul Kelley, otoh, knowingly did the crime. He is not one of us. He is the other. To call his public personna (I'll spare the man himself) "decent" undervalues conscience as the only true aribiter of what is and isn't plagiarism. Wilful public lying -- especially for self-promotion -- can't live in the same house with decent.
How 'bout those Yanks?
LQ
I don't think Google searches old versions of web pages, so the search isn't definitive in any case.
The only citation (November 2002) on archive.org carries no copyright statement that I can see. So unless someone has an ancient copy of his site in their cache, nobody's going to be able to settle it.
On Lou's point, in patent law they call it "obviousness".
Plus, if there's one phrase you can't argue about being infringed, it would be the phrase, "Intellectual Property is Theft".
"Property is theft" is an old aphorism of many die-hard Marxists. Or Baby Marxists, anyway. I've seen it many times before.
"Intellectual property is theft" would therefore have to be taken as either an extension of that, or as a joke.
But, if you've spent much time in the Open Source software community, you've heard things so much like that, in so many variations, it probably wouldn't even register as a joke.
There is a diehard movement--a small one, but a real one--of computer programmers and artists who honestly believe that copyright itself is immoral. Note that I didn't say "distasteful," or "not something I'd do," or even "not a wise business strategy." I mean just flat-out immoral, as in, not something at any decent human being or company would ever do with anything.
Extreme? Radical? Well, yes. But not exactly the creation of any one particular person you can point to, and not quite so rare as some people might think.
But I've gotta hand it to Bill: if there's one phrase you can't argue about being infringed, it would certainly have to be "intellectual property is theft."
[chuckle] It would be like Abbey Hoffman getting angry because someone stole his book.
Dean Allen *had* used that phrase in his title graphic for quite some time, I hadn't even noticed he'd replaced it.
I suggest that Mr Esmay might care to study Mr Allen's model example of sarcasm, taking special note of the inherent subtlety of the form.
By the way, no, Google doesn't cache text that's encapsulated in images, and it doesn't cache text that has changed.
I remember what I saw, and I didn't see it on Allen's site since I don't read his site.
But hey: News flash! I'm human. You believe my memory or you don't. Obviously, I believe me.
I don't bear Sean-Paul any ill will. And I'd really like to end it there, if that's okay.
Although I will say that I find it deeply moving that some people taken time from their busy lives to explain to me about how sarcasm works. I shall surely take these caring and thoughtful missives to heart. A humble naif such as myself obviously has much to learn. I can only hope to study at the feet of the great masters, knowing so very little about it myself.
Well, Dean (Esmay), you know, us neanderthals do not have the capacity to understand the subtleties employed by the likes of Dean Allen. My only mission in life is to try to achieve as much as a single cell in his brain has achieved.
Need I say {/sarcasm}?
Oh by the way, Dean, are you more popular than this other Dean? I know you occasionally google yourself (like many other bloggers, no doubt). I wonder if Mr. Allen is ranked higher than you.
Oh, I'm sure he's much more popular than I. The public's tastes are impeccable in such matters.
But the general public is an unwashed mass of neanderthals and rednecks who don't know better and can't think for themselves (or so they tell me). Wouldn't they prefer your stuff to his, since they wouldn't be able to comprehend the complexities and subtleties of Mr. Allen.
I think so (not really, that's what they say I should think).
:)
Dean Allen, Dean Allen, Dean Allen... who the fuq is Dean Allen? was what I first thought. Then I highlighted his name and saw the URL and thought, "Oh! The software guy." Is he actually trying to say he coined the term "Intellectual property is theft"? Oh well, that's okay -- there are no such things as individual achievements to his sort; anyone can take credit for something someone else did, since all people are equal and the same and money is horrid, or something (I must admit I skimmed through Das Kapital).
Anyway, enough of this guy. Let me tell you all about this neat blogging software I wrote.
"Property is theft" is an old aphorism of many die-hard Marxists. [snip] "Intellectual property is theft" would therefore have to be taken as either an extension of that, or as a joke.
Exactly. "Pasters of the world, adhere!" might be another.
For the obsessively forensic among us, there is the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, which kindly stores my bad designs for posterity along with the header graphics and text of many sites.
Anti-copyright extremists started out looking clownish (and smelling bad, besides), but they don't seem as nutty to me as they once did. I think it's got to do with how copyright tends to protect distributors ahead of -- often at the expense of -- producers and the public. Corrupt application of copyright perverts the whole construct and makes IP nutcases seem sane.
Seems to me that one's ability to gain perpetually from a single work has been inflated to meet distributors' profit expectations, bloated promotional channels and graft-laden networks. These are the folks who charge full freight for filler. On some level there's something wrong here.
But hey, I'm a content producer, and I want to make a buck. The question is whether I need the distributors to do it. Subscriptions, live performance, book signings, lagniappes, viral marketing -- done at low overhead and with a commitment to producing a stream of content -- might put me further ahead plus bring sanity to IP law and the public fair-use it's supposed to be balanced against.
Dunno. But I think "IP is Theft" and suchlike are primarily a response to widespread and very real corruption, and can't be easily dismissed.
I wish people would label me as a 'baby Marxist.' But indeed, be sure to dish out some brutal noogies when you're on the SPK gangbang.
dean esmay -- wow. long time no see. and that i'd encounter you over this plagiarism bit; funny. luckily you spell it correctly! i've been thinking that people who can't spell "plagiarism" should just keep their fingers for ... nevermind.
yours is the first entry in this whole sad debacle that makes me actually wonder about sean-paul. this all has received a lot of comments at the agonist's site, which i've been reading since the beginning of the war because it did provide exactly the sort of news i want, just the news from lots of different places, without a strong bias in any direction. though lately i am actually doing better on my own; sean-paul has been distracted by his newfound fame.
i considered the wired article a hatchet job, and many of the hostile comments seem to come from people who hadn't visited the agonist's site before reading about this tempest in a teapot. now i am not so sure. somebody else who was, like myself, wondering about the stratfor contents and ranted about redistributing their for-pay stuff went and looked and found that what sean-paul had taken wasn't actually from their for-pay section. i didn't make time to check that myself, but i am getting more and more curious about it. i remember the "little birdie" remark, but i thought he was just talking about somebody else feeding him stratfor contents in email -- i fed him some stuff from foreign papers in email too; i was sure i wasn't the only one. yes, it bothered me that he wouldn't always list sources, and i asked for it a couple of times. he does now.
but the "copyright is theft" bit does throw a new light on the story. alas google doesn't have it cached. i guess i shall ask him.
as to whether this is gonna set blogging back, which is what some people apparently are all agitated about -- whoa, let me stop my eyes from rolling. blogging is even less monolithic than "the media", and one slipup is gonna mean nothing. sean-paul had his 15 minutes of fame, let's move on -- the equine's dessicated.
anyway. good to see you're doing well! (ghod, i am still as verbose as ever. some things never change.) usenet still rocks compared to these super-clumsy web forms. i am sorely tempted to write myself a gateway to a local newsgroup for MT's comment system.
after bouncing around the web from a harmless, "what's new today" source, I find myself perusing the words of THE deep thinkers of the day. all are good arguments (and apparently the thrill of the argument is what fuels most of this anyway).
all in all, I have to agree that:
(a) plagiarism sucks, in any form
(b) intellectual property IS theft
(c) owning that statement is in itself theft
(d) yet give Dean Allen a nod for what is his
back to the heart of this post. plagiarism still sucks. This post seems to say it all:
The best analogy: He paid for one copy, photocopied it, and gave a copy away to everyone he knew ... and implied that it was his own work. (copied from IB Bill, above)
my two cents won't change the gross national deficit, but at least I've dropped my pennies in the fountain.
Caught up as I am in this attribution frenzy, I can't help but point out that "Property is theft" is a phrase commonly attributed to the French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, not Karl Marx.
Did I attribute it to Marx? I thought I'd said it's a cliched old maxim. One that Baby Marxists used to throw around a lot. Mostly to sound deep so they could get bohemian chicks into the sack.
NTexas99: Hi there, and welcome.
The problem I have is that "property is theft" is an old, shopworn cliche.
On top of that, I've heard so many people in the modern era arguing for Open Source software, free music, free porn, free books, free whatever by saying things like "copyright is theft," "intellectual property is a null concept," and etc. that I can't believe anyone would try to take credit for a minor variation like "intellectual property is theft."
Let alone accuse someone of "copying" it, let alone comparing it to plagiarism. It wouldn't be even remotely comparable. Which is probably why the "sarcasm" flew past me. Especially when said sarcasm was buried deep in a bucketfull of unprovoked insults.
I dunno, people on the 'net are funny. [shrug]
Piranha: Hey, how ya doing? Gosh it's been years. Good to see you though.
We really do need better tools for blog discussions. Although I want nothing to do with the Usenet anymore. The technology for that is too anarchic. Not that anarchy can't be fun, but it makes having serious discussions really difficult. We need something in between. Blogs aren't quite there yet, but they're getting better all the time.
The oldest reference I can find citing this phrase is:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:oWqItl4U8VcC:www.eff.org/IP/against_ip.article+%22Intellectual+Property+is+Theft%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Enjoy.
btw: quotation without citation is plagarism.
Dont steal that now, y' hear?
Well that's interesting. But again, we know the phrase "property is theft" is quite a bit older.
Also, quoting without citation is plagiarism, except when a quote is highly familiar or very short. I don't necessarily quote the Bible if I say "Jesus wept." My rule of thumb has always been if it's more than 20 or so words, otherwise only if it's an unusually clever turn of phrase.
Favorite example: when William Novak said, "It's not the teat, it's the tumidity," to discuss the problem with a particular sexual scandal. A work of genius!
(I'm pretty sure that was Novak.)
Completely off topic: Your site doesn't work at a screen resolution of 800x600. Try it yourself and see. Fluid, resolution-independant sites are easy to make. Some day I may come back and see if you've made one.
Eh? I use 800 X 600 myself, and it works just fine. In more than one browser. Dunno what's wrong with yours, but it was designed to work at many resolutions.
Some people just want to say something snarky, I guess.
Dean's "Intellectual Proprty is Theft" slogan was in a logo, not text and never showed up in a google search for the phrase. I cannot get the wayback machine to show me any graphics.
This is really funny, too; Arguing over IP in blogs.
No one else would put a phrase into a graphic, I'm sure. And Google would have it forever if you didn't right?
Arguing about IP is strangely funny. (I'm very new here.)
You might look at kuro5hin.org for an alternate way of having discussions (I'm new there, too.)
Or Ornery American forum (or others).
But blogs are getting better -- and Google bought Blogger, so there's hope/ expectation that they'll get even more respectable.
*I* think that using force to enforce IP is immoral. Copying is not stealing -- I copy your idea (or you, mine), and we both have it. (Yes, other property & market relations would have to adjust, mightily, were the law changed thusly. But it would be a smaller adjustment than Iraq is going through.)
Similarly, most lying is not subject to a force based sanction, nor should it be. But claiming/ implying that one originated an idea that was copied, is lying, and the plagiarist should be treated like other liars.*
My free opinion, worth at least twice the price!
*(Well, maybe his wife shouldn't get elected to the Senate...)
Most intellectual property doesn't protect ideas at all. It protects the unique expression of them. Only patents protect ideas, and they've got to be very innovative and something you can describe mechanically. Then, you only get a decade or two to profit from it.
Without it, companies would have little incentive to make enormous investments in creating new technologies.
Copyright is meant to protect cartoonists, movie studios, photographers, book authors, etc., who would regularly see other people routinely making money on their work without the rights it confers.
Our patent laws seem to be more or less in good shape here in the U.S. Our copyright laws, on the other hand, have gotten quite out of control. We need reform in that area, but it's a tricky business figuring out the right strategy.
Bounced from chari's techfluids.org and so glad I did. However, I just look up at the clock. I've overstayed my welcome, eavesdropping on an argument re: plagiarism. Feh.
Stealing someone's work, to quote Tanya at Mme. Fabulous, is "unspeakably lame." And I agree that ripping off anything (free music off the internet, included) mirrors a lack of character for those of us looking in. Unfortunately, for those who are looking out, all they can see is wary eyeballs.
I love this site. Merci.