| Queen Archivist 03.07.2010 17:28 |
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)!!!! |
| rhyeking 03.07.2010 18:31 |
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. |
| kosimodo 04.07.2010 03:13 |
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. |
| Rick 04.07.2010 03:57 |
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). |
| geldy 04.07.2010 05:57 |
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? |
| emrabt 04.07.2010 06:00 |
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. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.07.2010 06:14 |
@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. |
| Josh Henson 04.07.2010 07:38 |
Greg, get over it. Go blog somewhere else where you actually contribute to conversations. |
| brENsKi 04.07.2010 09:48 |
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 |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2010 10:55 |
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. |
| Donna13 04.07.2010 11:47 |
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. |
| e-man 04.07.2010 12:45 |
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 |
| Crazy LittleThing 04.07.2010 13:58 |
Oh look. Greg Brooks is back. |
| andreas_mercury 04.07.2010 14:24 |
i will almost smell his sweaty cardigon from where i am sitting ..... fat fucking shit |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2010 15:56 |
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. |
| Donna13 04.07.2010 17:09 |
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)? |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2010 17:58 |
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. |
| GratefulFan 05.07.2010 00:43 |
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. |
| Pingfah 05.07.2010 06:42 |
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. |
| John S Stuart 05.07.2010 07:16 |
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. |
| Donna13 05.07.2010 09:26 |
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. |
| The Real Wizard 05.07.2010 10:16 |
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? |
| Wiley 05.07.2010 10:57 |
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. |
| emrabt 05.07.2010 11:21 |
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. |
| John S Stuart 05.07.2010 11:37 |
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. |
| The Real Wizard 05.07.2010 11:48 |
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. |
| Sebastian 05.07.2010 18:29 |
I don't see why you guys waste your time replying to this oaf. |
| The Fonz 05.07.2010 20:09 |
can't someone ban him? He adds nothing, just snide replies. |
| emrabt 06.07.2010 00:26 |
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? |
| andreas_mercury 06.07.2010 07:26 |
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 |
| Darren1977 06.07.2010 18:18 |
Donna, don't worry about not having read THE book, you will find it in your local charity shop before long. There is already a very good website out there, QueenConcerts. Great site. Congrats to whoever owns it. |
| Wiley 06.07.2010 19:19 |
I agree with the previous poster. QueenConcerts.com makes Greg's book obsolete. Maybe Mr. Scully should "compile" his info into the Ultimate Queen Concerts reference in printed form? :P Nah, I know he's too busy to do that. I just meant to acknowledge the site's quality. |
| Rick 07.07.2010 02:58 |
The thing which is really a shock horror is the fact that Greg doesn't respond anymore. I'm afraid he has scored an own goal with this topic. |
| tcc 07.07.2010 04:28 |
The thing which is really a shock horror is the fact that Greg doesn't respond anymore. I'm afraid he has scored an own goal with this topic. He is scheduled to come back in 3 months' time. |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2010 08:30 |
emrabt wrote: 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? ===== I believe he was refering to Greg Brooks rather than you. |
| Vali 07.07.2010 09:53 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: emrabt wrote: 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? ===== I believe he was refering to Greg Brooks rather than you. ////////////////////////////////// Thomas, I guess he got it. He's just saying he couldn't use his knowledge of law in case the archivist was banned. So, yes, GB adds something. |
| Holly2003 07.07.2010 10:20 |
I think the Queen archivist believes his three monthly tirades are some clever type of viral marketing. |
| 99jaystang 07.07.2010 19:05 |
|
| Donna13 07.07.2010 19:53 |
[insert soothing harp music here] |
| Gregsynth 08.07.2010 00:31 |
This thread is absolutely ridiculous. |
| Sebastian 08.07.2010 10:14 |
Well, the poster who started it is absolutely ridiculous, so there you have it. |
| Gregsynth 08.07.2010 15:18 |
It's shame that John Stuart has to put up with his behavior. |
| Crazy LittleThing 11.07.2010 18:44 |
Gregsynth wrote: It's shame that John Stuart has to put up with his behavior. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. |