Good points, all. If people are going to learn something from this, your point about copyright law is particularly important.

An interesting point you make about quoting; though the doctrine of Fair Use lets a small (usually 10%) amount go by for review and other such purposes. An article I had to study for my Journalism class (for which I am an editor of a small newspaper) has a whole chapter on gaining permissions; though that was for magazines...

The article you mentioned (where I interviewed an Iraqi) was actually (in one case) republished with only my retroactive permission; the culprit was another editor of the same damned newspaper I work on! It would appear that someone quite literally didn’t do their homework...

I believe that a recent legal ruling held that linking was actually a violation of someone’s copyright, though I may well be misremembering the case...

Dean, I don't where you got that information from, but my law professors would have laughed you out of the room. Every example you've given was fair use. Kelley went far beyond fair use to virtually adverse possession of someone else's material. If you continue in this vein, you are going to look as foolish as he does.

Since when has republishing photos from newspapers, or entire newspaper columns or articles, without permission, been "fair use?" And, have you ever actually tried publishing something, legitimately, using reprinted song lyrics? Permissions on those are a pain in the butt!

The issue of people forwarding copyrighted material around in email remains a gray area so far as I know. It's technically a violation, but one the law can't do much about. Still and all, if the piece is copyrighted, rights do not evaporate simply because you can transcribe to electronic form and forward it to 500 of your closest friends.

Recent copyright laws may have changed this, but if so I haven't heard about it.

Or are you suggesting that if something is a non-profit venture, all's fair use, period? If so, then copyright law really has changed a lot in the last few years.

Since I'm the one that accused you of bending over backwards, let me clarify my position viz you: I don't understand why you appear to be defending a) his reputation, and b) his use of the material in the way that he did it. Maybe you're not, but it appears to me to be so. I'm puzzled. I'm not sure why we need to suspend judgement, when the man's (tiny) confession is out there.

Dean, this is the very same problem that occured when Free Republic came into prominence. The postings and linkage and use of images was rampant. Jim Robinson came under heavy legal fire for that, which some took as an attempt to shut down a prolific and wildly successful site.

Free Republic's problems generated Lucianne Goldbergs site, which is considerably more restrictive, but for excellent reasons. I was a regular poster at FR when she announced her 'move'...and it is from the experience of FR that she gets her tag "a salon, not a saloon." Jim Robinson had no compunction to reign in some of the more insane elements that showed up to troll the site.

Posters on Lcom are routinely admonished not to post something without giving DUE CREDIT for its source...and the only postings that can be made are from actual news sources like Reuters, AP, and online newspapers/magazines. I don't know how Andrew Sullivan is exempted from that, but he is a regular source, and apparently an unimpeachable one....which is good.

I have only a nominal understanding of what the debate is about. Suffice it to say, I have to point out the old Hollywood adage : there is no such thing as 'bad' publicity.

As long as bloggers CITE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, then I don't understand what all the scree is about.

OH, and Dean...comments on my site work now!

Thanks for the kind words, Dean.

My personal take: I'd like to believe that the Stratfor material is the reason Sean-Paul beat us out for that audience. But I can't. The Agonist's rise owes more to his ideology than his sources. He was the only full-time warblogger with leftie credentials, which means a large portion of the blogosphere trusted him more than they ever would have trusted Blogs of War - or Winds of Change.NET. Helps with the media, too, who will know of leftie bloggers if they know anyone; that's who their referral network is. And in fairness to The Agonist, a lot of good stuff on his blog comes from beyond Stratfor - you can see that if you look now, he's still one of the best sources in the Blogosphere.

There's a chaos theory concept called "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," which says that small differences add the beginning of important state-changes add up to very big differences later. Sean-Paul was positioned to ride that from minute one. He did. Stratfor's stuff played a role, but the depressing truth is that it was a second or even third-tier reason at best.

What he did was wrong. No question of that. No question that coming clean immediately would have saved him all this heartache. He took a big hit, deservedly, and will continue to pay the price. Indeed, that he retains any credibility at all is due to 2 things: [1] The fact that he himself linked the expose from Strategic Armchair Command on his own blog several days before the WIRED article; And [2] that the affair with Stratfor was settled amicably - if it hadn't been, his legal ass was grass and so was his blog.

I'm still using him as a cited source for material, as ALL his sources are cited meticulously now. I accept his apology, and hold no bitterness. I'll leave it up to others to decide how they want to handle it on their own blogs.

My point is that Sean-Paul was guilty of nothing that countless other bloggers haven't done, and wouldn't have raised such ire if he hadn't simultaneously catapulted into fame and adulation as he did.

I think, however, that Joe Katzman may have the right of it. %-)

Joe, I really appreciate your comment here, because I was shocked to see a link to his site in your briefing today. Now I understand why. I agree with your reasoning as to why his rise was so meteoric, but I am still disappointed that you are continuing to use him. I believe it goes deeper than not citing his sources. There is the whole issue of the "little birdie (Stratfor) told me." That is not "not citing sources." That is lying and stealing. Then there is his attempt to make money off of his success.

http://www.agonist.org/archives/000877.html#000877

"I'm serioulsy considering doing this full time. The response to my question last night was overwhelming. Of the 120 or so emails I received only two were negative. What strikes me the most, is that just about everyone has said that there is a very serious need for what we are doing here. But I have a dilemma: a family that has to eat. My wife is supportive. But still a bit worried. I am not really interested in a subscription service. Donations, although they have been helpful, can't really support a family. That leaves advertising; and with advertising come all sorts of tricky problems. I am open to your suggestions."

Why should he get a free pass now that he has sort of admitted wrong doing?

Ok, Joe, let's see if he keeps getting that many hits now that a)everyone knows he's a dishonest thief, and b)the war is nearly over. Heh.

Andrew Sullivan is the great exception. Anyone else who believes they can make a living from their blog needs medical attention. Even if this scandal had never happened, the worst thing that could have happened to Sean-Paul would have been for him to go ahead with that attempt. He had as much chance of making a living from his blog as those Saddam Fedayeen in the pickups have against the 7th Cav.

So no, I never took that seriously. But yes, he did lie. He did take something that wasn't his, and it goes well beyond Dean's examples. He's paying for that, and will continue to do so. The WIRED article and background emails from others also revealed more details that have affected my perception of him, beyond that SACOM expose.

So, I'm a bit careful now. Thing is, I now KNOW his sources are legitimate, because he's 100% up front in every post. So credibility isn't an issue - and that's why I still read him. He still gets stuff others do not, and it's all on his own efforts (like, Iraqwar.RU isn't the GRU, and it's shutting down). I'm also cutting him some slack because he did step forward days before that WIRED article and linked to his own expose.

Having read him, I cannot pass information on to MY readers without saying where I got it. Isn't that what he got in trouble for?

My biggest problem, and I think that it echoes most of the above, is that he tried to pass the words and info off as his own. If he had cited sources, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm a published author (one whole book and portions of a couple others), so I understand the need for copyright protections. I'm also an advocate of a very liberal fair use policy. I think that it furthers intelligent debate at very least.

But, as the author, if I'm not going to be paid for my words (and, admittedly, I've never been paid well for my writing) I at least would like to be credited. I really don' t mind him using those sources. I just wish he had been honest about it.

Casey, the answer to your question is obviously: no, of course he won't. The end of the war alone will take 1/2 his audience or more (good chunk of mine too, much as I hope they'll stay).

The Stratfor affair will cost him still more, now and later. Which is as it should be.

Dean, you raise an interesting point. I suppose you also believe there is no real difference between making a single copy of a CD, and setting up shop in a warehouse, pumping out 1,000 copies a month?

The counter-point is that Sean-Paul didn't occasionally copy just one thing and send it to a friend; he grabbed a very large number of items, and he claimed them as his own work.

I am not, by the way, one of the "angry posters", but I am surprised by your question "So, what's the big deal?" The "big deal" is that he lied and stole someone else's work. As someone else pointed out, this speaks volumes about his moral character. Considering that new stories have been coming out each month about journalists, authors, and researchers issuing fiction as fact, and plagarizing other works, I think it is a very big deal.

Let's take Stephen Ambrose. He forgets to attribute a few quotes in one book. Ok, fine, he says "mea culpa" and promises to fix that the next edition. Then more claims come out about other books, then... Then the next thing you know, his reputation is shot.

I was going to ask if you, as someone who has done professional editing, would hire a person with a record of plagarism, but you probably would, you softie you. :) Just to give 'em another chance. Heh. But seriously, can a paper or publishing house trust someone who has comitted plagarism? Can a bank trust someone trust someone as a bank teller after they've been convicted of robbery or fraud? I don't think so.

I was not at all alert when I posted my previous comment. My bed kept beckoning and I kept denying it. What I meant to clarify is the difference between fair use and what Sean-Paul Kelley did. Dean, if you find the comment so misleading you want to remove it, that is fine with me.

Oh, we've all written or said things when we're tired that don't make sense the next morning. Don't worry about it. ;-)

My point is, I just don't think that, up to the point where he became evasive, he'd done anything that countless other bloggers weren't guilty of. Where he really went wrong was when he launched into national prominence and got snippy and defensive when called on it, rather than instantly telling the truth.

Half-credit for linking to his critics. More would come if he'd just come out and be even more forthright in his apologies.

Ah well.

Joe, interesting points, as always. Which is why I will continue to read your blog (as well as Dean's) long after the war is over. I just wish I was rich enough so I could afford to have all of my favorite bloggers make a great living doing this.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on SPK's credibility.

And, Dean, if I have come across as an "angry poster" my deepest apologies. Yes, I am angry with what he did, but absolutely not with either you. I appreciate the thoughful commentary.

One, I think salient, point that hasn't been discussed much is that at least some of the stuff he was posting was from Stratfor's subscription service. Dean, you say that 'he'd (not) done anything that countless other bloggers weren't guilty of', but I don't think that's strictly true. Bloggers do, on a regular basis, insert articles, lyrics, photos, etc. into their blogs that they have found on free websites and, while that's wrong, it's of a whole different magnitude of 'theft' than re-posting something that you had to subscribe to obtain. This is obviously valuable information because people have to pay to get it, and here he was giving it away. No matter what the subsequent benefit Stratfor may obtain from all the publicity, the fact is that he was giving away something they were trying to sell. That's low, and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I myself hope Stratfor gets tons of new subscribers (although with the war winding down, Jean-Paul has pretty much rode the real crest of the wave of demand for such info and is only foregoing it on the waning end of the demand curve), but I really hope that Sean-Paul is exposed for what he is and that the clock has run out on his Warholian 15 minutes. </rant>

I'm with Wylie on this one, he hadn't "done anything that countless other bloggers weren't guilty of". Not too many have re-posted PAID ONLY content without attribution.

In my 17 years on the internet, I've seen much disregard, abuse and even outright flaunting of copyright law. Dissemination of someone's "for pay" content has usually been attributed, along with an "information wants to be free!" smirk and a hearty fuck you to "The Man".

Even the worst pirates I've generally seen deplore plagarism, how will they know who is worth stealing from then?

To say plagiarism is wrong because people happen to resent the success of the person doing it or because it might happen to be a copyright violation is to completely miss the point. Plagiarism is lying -- it's claiming credit for work that isn't yours. It betrays the trust your readers may have placed in you, and the trust of anyone who publishes their own work believing it won't be reappropriated by some other person as their own.

Journalists view plagiarism as harshly as they do because it can destroy their business -- without credibility and the trust of its readers, a publication is worthless; it may as well be a marketing brochure.

But maybe weblogs just aren't worth all that much to begin with. I mean, how else could one suggest that what Kelly did was in any way excusable?

Well guys, I must admit that, as time goes on, I am less and less disinclined to disagree with you.

But I am going to try to make this point one more time, just to be clear: there is a certain line that's easy to cross if you aren't careful. You're in the habit of re-posting stuff anyway, you're not a big believer in intellectual prooperty as a concept, you're tired and you re-post something and now you don't want to embarass yourself...

Enh. Whatever. I'm not excusing it, I'm really not. But I do think he could get past this if he really wanted to.

I'm not sure he cares to do anything, though, but hunker down and wait for it to blow over. That disappoints me. I guess I won't link him anymore. :-(

By the way, I should amend something I said earlier. I should have said that bloggers are guilty of technical violations of the law all the time. But no, very few of them just re-post things without attribution, and I shouldn't have implied that.

I will now weigh in here with my words of wisdom. (Like I could resist.)

I think the big confusion here lies in people not getting the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. They are two different aspects of the phenomenon of stealing another's work. Copyright violation lies in what you seem to be talking about, Dean, when you mention things like posting lyrics to songs and photos and such on a blog. Now, I am as guilty as anyone of doing such a thing -- I have posted David Bowie lyrics, for instance, without writing to Bowie for permission to do so. That could be said to be "copyright violation." (Though I believe it does come under what is called "fair use" -- I will have to look that up.) What it is not is plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a worse crime, if to only a small degree, than violating someone's copyright. To give an example, I did not claim to actually have written "Cracked Actor." But if I did -- if I approached some person with the lyrics and told them I wrote that song, and tried to sell it -- I would have been guilty of plagiarism. I would have been trying to pass off some other person's work as my own, in effect trying to erase that other person's identity from existence.

To my mind plagiarism is to copyright violation as murder is to armed robbery. Both are crimes. Which one is the worse crime? Guess which one I think is.

I'm not trying to argue, but I have to point this out:

Songwriters and publishers have carved out a very nize chunk of rights for themselves in the copyright law. It is a violation of their legal rights to post even a fairly small snippet of their lyrics, for almost any purpose, without explicit permission.

Somehow they've managed to get rights for themselves that no other literary form enjoys. "Fair use" very rarely applies to them. Seriously, if you write a book and want to say, "In the background, we heard an old Rolling Stones album, with Mick Jagger singing, 'hey, hey, you, you, get off of my cloud!'" you will potentially get a nasty letter from a lawyer and a possible demand for royalties if Keef and Mick didn't give you their "go rite ahead, mate" personally.

If you've ever wondered why so few books and articles contain quoted song lyrics, and the ones which do usually do it sparingly, now you know why.

Just FYI.

I know about permissions, Dean. I read Florence King, remember? She had an entire chapter on having to write her own lyrics of some old songs, because of a previous clash with Vladimir Nabokov's widow.

Well guys, I must admit that, as time goes on, I am less and less disinclined to disagree with you.

You find your readers unconvincing, then? ;-)

ACK!

Less inclined to disagree. Or more disinclined to disagree. Or...

Ah screw it. They right, me wrong.

%-)