Plagiarized Queen material on the www SHOCK HORROR!!!

I still don't understand your argument, Sir GH.  Would you please let us know what you are talking about.

Are you implying that a book that was written prior to the existence of Queen-type information on the internet has somehow copied word for word something that you wrote on the internet?  Or are you implying that their current revisions and additions, which have not yet been published, and you have not yet seen, will have something in them that was copied word for word from what you wrote on the internet (without giving you credit via footnotes)?

It's actually neither.  There was a second edition in 2005.

Plagiarism isn't reserved for published works.  If a high school student copies and pastes part of an essay from a blog and doesn't footnote it, their teacher only needs to copy and paste the selection into google with quotes to see where the student got it from.  That is still plagiarism.  It remains a mystery why any author should think they are exempt.

Definintions aside, in my mind there are two ways one might feel about the likelihood of having one's own painstaking research show up in somebody else's book about a subject close to the heart: 1) flattered, or 2) ripped off.  Which one it turns out to be is mostly dependent I think on the attitude and the actions of the person writing the book.  The person writing the book in this case is usually thoroughly ridiculous and thoroughly an ass.

Wow, this is classy and professional.

If I had a guy doing work for me that went and had blazing rows with my customers, calling them names and generally making me look bad, he would be fired in 10 seconds flat.

I have never written a Queen book, but I am still one of the most plagiarised "authors" in the Queen world. This is because I have freely shared all my information over the internet, in various Queen forums. I do not mind people using my information (in fact I see it as the highest form of flattery), but what really annoys is when someone in print (or on the net) steals that work without any changes whatsoever, and tries to pass that work off as their own.

Also, when someone gathers a multitude of different sources, and condenses all this information into a "greatest Hits" type essay, without acknowledging any of the previous writers, for me is the lowest form of plagiaristic theft.

The problem is that in Queenzone, we have some highly qualified and academic people. I have never felt the need or the desire to play poker with my own qualifications, but as an educationalist, I easily  recognise and appreciate those who write in an academic or scholarly manner. Unfortunately, it is all too obvious that Mr. Brooks did not attend university, and does not have the intellectual capacity to engage in such discussion.

I haven't read Greg's book.  Not because I don't want to, but spending money on that sort of thing to me is not completely necessary, and besides I attended Queen concerts myself so I don't feel the need to read about them.  

Anyway, I do find Greg's writing here to be clever and distinctive and I get excited when I see that Greg has written a post because there is always some creative and humorous new material to entertain me.  I am a fan of his writing here.  So ... I don't know why he would want to use another person's wording, unless the information was what would be thought of as data, such as a set list or information on who the backup band was.  But if he used a sentence word for word that somebody else took the creative time to write, such as a description of Brian's guitar playing on a particular night, then that would be pretty bad to do.  And either the wording should be changed or removed or given credit for in the new edition that he is now working on.

But with no specifics mentioned in this thread, some here are writing as if they are in a special know-it-all wink-wink Queen club rather than a public forum.  They can imply just about anything, such as that they are responsible for all of Greg's 2nd edition changes.

Donna13 wrote:

"I haven't read Greg's book."

Yet you are defending him?

Even if specific examples are given, the question will remain, what was there first - book or websites?  At that point one can only judge for themselves and ask, are these people going out of their way to make up stories or are they legitimate?  Do they need to resort to a defamatory writing style or do they simply speak their mind?

Plagiarism and errors are one thing, but another issue is that not a single picture in the second edition has a proper credit given.  How he legally got away with this simply baffles the mind.

What about TQ's post don't you understand?  His point is clear as day and 100% factually correct.

"But if he used a sentence word for word that somebody else took the creative time to write, such as a description of Brian's guitar playing on a particular night, then that would be pretty bad to do."
Bingo.

"And either the wording should be changed or removed or given credit for in the new edition that he is now working on."
We can only hope.

"I attended Queen concerts myself"
Cool, which ones?

Greg published an excellent book in around 1995. It was quite an accomplishment in a pre-Internet days world and I am a proud owner. I don't think anybody has a problem with this book, eventhough it has errors and omissions, and in my opinion it's worth every penny.

Apparently, for the second edition Greg collected information from very knowledgeable fans in this very same forum, who went uncredited. Also, many of the errors on his first edition -which were reported HERE- were still in the second edition.

Greg has no regard for the fans in this forum and he only enjoys coming over here every now and then to do some good old-fashioned Internet trolling.

Sir GH wrote:

  How he legally got away with this simply baffles the mind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Simply put, like many other plagiarism cases nobody ever went to court with it.

hypothetically, if you can prove that your work is in Gregs book as it appeared on a website, and that the website had the information first then depending on the amount copied a court will do one of three things.

1) Make Greg re-word the text or change the photos in future editions.
2) Make Greg track down and give proper credit in future editions.
3) If a large amount has been copied word for word (30% or more) you have the
right to be credited as co-author, and probably be entitled to royalties.

If the wording of the book is different to the website, then there is no case for plagiarism as it will be classed as research. Unfortunate and unfair for those that did the hard work, normal authors will give credit anyway, but facts and figures are uncopyrightable, so it’s perfectly legal.

Donna13 wrote: I do find Greg's writing here to be clever and distinctive and I get excited when I see that Greg has written a post because there is always some creative and humorous new material to entertain me.  I am a fan of his writing here.  

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Donna; I do not expect us all to collectively agree on a definition of 'creative', nor do I believe in academic snobbery, but I can not accept that you genuinely believe Greg's rants are either "distinctive" or "clever".

You really need to read more George Orwell, Anthony Burgess, Charles Dickens, H.G. Wells, and of course: Oscar Wilde. That way you can be a fan of some truely "creative and humerous" genii.

I appreciate the feedback, Emrabt.  But I have absolutely no interest in pursuing this any further.  I'm just pointing out the situation for what it is, and people can decide for themselves.  This is a hobby for me, and it will never be about money or popularity.  I just sit back and let karma work its wondrous ways whenever necessary.

I don't see why you guys waste your time replying to this oaf.

can't someone ban him?  He adds nothing, just snide replies.

Sebastian wrote: I don't see why you guys waste your time replying to this oaf.

THE FONZ Wrote:
can't someone ban him?  He adds nothing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
What are you talking about, adds nothing? 
Where else on Queenzone can I use my useless knowledge of law and trivial pursuit court cases?

he is of some greedy son of a bitch to hold onto someone elses treasure and brag to it ....... greg brooks is a official message to you right here fatty, read this :  take off your smelly sweat cardigon and get out side, go for a real job you pork choper