Plagiarized Queen material on the www SHOCK HORROR!!!

I notice on Gary's thread re my book QUEEN LIVE, which in its new form will be rightly credited to us both, equally, that a certain GH (does that stand for Gormless Halfwit?) has written the following as an apparently serious comment:-

"Can't wait to count the errors like last time.  I'll also include a tally for things plagiarized off the internet." 

My question on this is very simple... Are there really people alive today that are not aware that the www, the internet, is an amalgamation of EVERYBODY's collective work, rather than a forum for exclusively brand new data with nothing borrowed from previous learning??????????

I mean, to use the word 'plagiarized' in the context of the www is just a ludicrous nonsense.  Does GH think that the people at Wikipedia, for example, are offering solely brand new data on such topics as Merlot wine, Freddie Mercury, diamonds, Paris, Anthony Hopkins, Parkinsons Disease, the Afghan Hound, analogue tapes, the history of Motown, Star Trek, Dr Who, Coronation St, and frozen peas?????

What a staggeringly moronic thing to say. No change there then!

Nearly everything on the web is borrowed or influenced by, or a blatant copy or rip off of, someone else's work. Is this news? Doesn't EVERYONE above the age of 4 know that? So by definition I would estimate that 99.99999999999999999999999999% of everything we read on Queen, and ANY other subject matter GH could mention, is of course 'plagiarized' to a very large extent.

Is GH expecting a 400 page book on Queen to contain exclusively NEW info, and NOTHING at all already known, already written and documented some place else???

What a knobbly Ended chap you are GH.... remove some of the letters there.

I'm going away again now. I just nipped in here tonight to see GT's thread for the book. It's best I'm not involved here - we can agree on that. This GH comment being a typical one, and just the sort of thing that ensures I'm only here once every 3 months or so. It's a bit too irritating.

"I'll also include a tally for things plagiarized off the internet."    What a ridiculously stupid comment.  What a Gormless Halfwit (GH)!!!!

Not taking sides here, but everyone should know and understand that *information* and *facts* can not be copyrighted, only their unique presentation can be. That's how different authors can all write books on the same non-fictional subject, be they movies, artists, castles or the history of widgets.

Fun fact: the inventor of the original Trivial Pursuit board game took almost all the facts for the questions from a published book. The book's author tried to sue and the case was thrown out because the facts were public knowledge and the presentation was NOT in book form.

My point is, as long as the Queen Live authors do not copy the unique presentation of the facts as they appear on websites, the facts themselves belong to everyone. Queen Concerts.com, for example, cannot copyright any list of Queen's tour itinerary, but are protected legally from anyone choosing to copy HOW QC.com presents that information (but would still have a mountain to climb in building that defense). Any written editorial examination of the facts presented is the intellectual property of the writer, but still NOT the facts themselves. Even on a public forum, like this one, our personal statements and comments are protected unless we agree to the release of these statements. This also protects the website from liability if anything illegal is posted.

I'm looking forward to the new book.

Move on Greg..

We try. I suggest you do the same...

Looking forward to the mentioned book. I am even looking at some old pics to scan.

We can considered this thread as closed.

Greg, why do you only show your face on Queenzone when someone criticises your work? You are never there when we 'need' you (regarding questions concerning unreleased Queen material for example).

I give a shit on... what stupid employees say...

Freddie would never say yes to those stupid releases in the last years... Especially Brian May... is a fucking moneyholic ;-) Just take a look on Queen Rocks or GH 3... what a FUCK!!!

Queen is ruined... thanks!!!

By the way... what would John Richard Deacon say?

The book's
author tried to sue and the case was thrown out because the facts were public
knowledge and the presentation was NOT in book form.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Interesting extra Tibit about trivial pursuit, they made up a bunch of their fact just so they could catch plagiarists out. Lieutenant Columbo's first name being the one that start that court case.

It was ruled that because the answers in trivial pursuit were presented as fact,
as long as nothing was copied word for word, any information taken from it was classed as “research”.

Never hurts to show respect and give your source, because it's courteous.

@Archivist:

Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that your shamefully inadequate understanding of the term "plagiarism" renders you fully incompetent to perform the duties of archivist. Having read your rant, I can assure you that you would be removed from any university I am familiar with upon handing in your first paper if you live by what you write.

Greg, get over it.  Go blog somewhere else where you actually contribute to conversations.

Queen Archivist wrote:

I'm going away again now. I just nipped in here tonight to see GT's thread for the book. It's best I'm not involved here - we can agree on that. This GH comment being a typical one, and just the sort of thing that ensures I'm only here once every 3 months or so. It's a bit too irritating.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the reason you only appear every three months is because that's how long your "therapy" sessions last. then every 13 weeks they test you out for "care in the community".

run run Greggy, here comes Nurse with your pullover that only does up at the back

Queen Archivist wrote:

"Does GH think that the people at Wikipedia, for example, are offering solely brand new data on such topics as Merlot wine, Freddie Mercury, diamonds, Paris, Anthony Hopkins, Parkinsons Disease, the Afghan Hound, analogue tapes, the history of Motown, Star Trek, Dr Who, Coronation St, and frozen peas?????"

Obviously not.  But the difference between you and people on Wikipedia is they're not creating a book from which they will make money.

ThomasQuinn said it all.  I have nothing to add.

ThomasQuinn wrote: @Archivist:

Speaking as a professional historian, I can only say that your shamefully inadequate understanding of the term "plagiarism" renders you fully incompetent to perform the duties of archivist. Having read your rant, I can assure you that you would be removed from any university I am familiar with upon handing in your first paper if you live by what you write.

--------------------

I don't understand this comment.

you cannot steal information like this. by that token - many of the queen web sites would have to be considered plagiarism of greg's first book!!
new info has surfaced since the first edition of this book - but it's not whoever's property.

a nod to various people would be appropriate in the apendix of the book - but plagiarism? get real

Oh look.  Greg Brooks is back.

i will almost smell his sweaty cardigon from where i am sitting ..... fat fucking shit

e-man wrote:

"a nod to various people would be appropriate in the apendix of the book - but plagiarism? get real"

It's plagiarism when something is quoted word for word without proper footnotes.

What is "staggeringly moronic" in this thread is how the person who has most vocally demonstrated his ignorance of the term 'plagiarism' is the one writing a book.