The document -- goes from here to there. This "poster" is from one of my travel photos and it looks a bit like "the document company" (Xerox) art. But it also comes to stand for how China and the US knock laws on copyright.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, locally, we have a candidate for public office that is putting out good ideas that may be very similar statements from others in different times and places.
LOIS MURPHY GUILTY OF PLAGIARISM AGAIN - THIS TIME STEALING FROM SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON - 4/20/2006 ... "various college professors and a campaign ethics expert verified Murphy's ethics plan was 'sloppy,' would receive an 'F for originality,' and would find herself in 'hot water on a college campus.'Wow, these claims, charges and foundation to the thinking is interesting.
The Platform.For-Pgh.org is a wiki that is geared to these types of postings and issues. Attribution is often given, but it is not an 'academic' mission. Rather, ours is a struggle of idea crafting and talk of solutions and problems.
Most voters are not looking for candidates who get "As" in originality.
In the last special election I was involved -- March 14, 2006 -- it was said to me from another participant, "The two candidates who had the least to say got the most votes."
If a candidate is real original -- like Bill Peduto is -- then we get laws such as the "bubble bill" that protects people going into and out of health clinics. But, the law also gets taken to court and, IMHO, will be found illegal.
Mayor Tom Murphy was a champion of being creative. Corporate welfare flew from the poor to the rich like never before with his thinking and skills of changing everyone's (almost everyone's) understanding. TIFs (tax breaks to the super rich) are something Pittsburgh developed and they are being copied in other parts of the county and country. But, that original style does not work in the long-run. It costs money from the public treasury. It gets a handful of cronies rich.
So, the blade cuts both ways as to being 'creative.' And, I'd say there is a lot of value to being only as good as Jefferson and Franklin when it comes to one's thinking in modern econmic and liberty discussions.
And, I have no problem with other candidates for public office taking other comments from others and re-using them in their talks, press releases, web sites and beyond.
Have you heard of the Creative Commons? Those levels of 'protection' are nice. But, are we going to see a license that says others can use these words only if they are running a race for a certain brand?
You can't copyright ideas! You can't slap a trademark on things that are in the public domain.
Well, you can. But, this shouldn't be the way things work.
I'm all in favor of more open-source approaches.
The messenger is less important than the message.
And finally, screw the academics and the ivory tower they rode in on. Who are they to say this or that won't work on a college campus? You know, there was a debate on a college campus and the college prof was so weak and ignorant -- and he's an expert -- that the people in the audience could not run a video camera of the discussions. Screw that.
You know what wouldn't work on a college campus -- a professor saying we're going to have some outside guests and we're not going to allow it to be put on tape.
If the plans from the candidate make sense -- talk sense. If the plans are full of holes -- point them out. If you don't have anything better to suggest -- the one who needs to return to college seems evident to me.
One final story. On the campaign trails we went to one event and were hit with a one page quiz from one well meaning community group. The questions were short -- but there were more than five. But the right answer wasn't true-nor-false. I didn't fill out the form there, as asked. I said I'd take it home. They wanted them there and then. I told the others, I'm not doing their test. It didn't get done.
Most of life, including politics and government, is an OPEN BOOK TEST.
Louis Murphy -- public plagiarism could be something to be proud of. Sadly, there seems to be lies and distances made to the claim of plagiarism at the outset -- rather than an embrace of what it means to be a well researched student of public discourse and open source ways.