And despite the fact that you DO concur that I “technically” did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein’s claims that I effected an intentional “theft” of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein’s hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to “steal” anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called “complete” text was rather short and at best a ‘quickie’ amateur review.

And when you state that what I did was “a definite violation of copyright law” you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a “legitimate claim”. Flash forward to the “When All Else Fails” section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein’s following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, “shame” and harass me in this “war” on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.

Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your “business” practices. Though, I’m certain that the “donations” you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.

This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

And despite the fact that you DO concur that I “technically” did not plagiarize. The manner in which you support Mr.Markstein’s claims that I effected an intentional “theft” of his copyrighted material, clearly plays into Mr.Markstein’s hands as he continues to harass and publicly slander me. The fact is, there was NEVER an intent to “steal” anything from Mr.Markstein. His so-called “complete” text was rather short and at best a ‘quickie’ amateur review.

And when you state that what I did was “a definite violation of copyright law” you are labeling me a person who has intentionally violated copyright law. You also do this by saying that Mr.Markstein has a “legitimate claim”. Flash forward to the “When All Else Fails” section of this blog and clearly it appears that this blog entry and Mr.Markstein’s following comments are targeted towards me in an effort to intimidate, “shame” and harass me in this “war” on copyright violation you both happen to pursue with zealous fervor.

Mr.Markstein if you continue to slander me I will not only take actions against you, I will begin carefully examining the copyright claims YOU make in turn, as well as your “business” practices. Though, I’m certain that the “donations” you receive in compensation for the amateur comic book reviews you publish (along with the thousands of copyrighted quotes and graphics you have full-permission to use) are fully declared as income to the IRS.

This may shock you Mr.Markstein but I have a RIGHT to reject the validity of the DMCA if I wish, and it is slanderous for you to imply that this has anything at all to do with my professional credibility or my character.

(Editor’s Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn’t and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn’t.)

(Editor’s Note: I never said that the reuse was plagiarism, I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn’t and provided screenshots proving as such. The point of the article was to clarify what the term plagiarism really means and prove that this wasn’t.)

I know very well there’s a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I’ve been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I’m familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble — accuse them of piracy, and they think you’ve made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what’s become a meaningless insult.

That’s why I use the word “plagiarism” with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you’re talking about.

Of course, I’m all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don’t think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief’s response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to “get out of hand”. She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn’t matter what words I used — she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.

By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was “definitely sizable”. I would say it was “absolutely complete”. She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.

I know very well there’s a difference between plagiarism and piracy, and that particular theft was the latter. But then, I’ve been in the publishing industry for more than 35 years, so I’m familiar with the jargon. To most people, the taxonomy of copyright violation is meaningless babble — accuse them of piracy, and they think you’ve made a flamboyant but meaningless insult, kind of like calling a political opponent a fascist. He may fit the exact definition of the Italian fascisti of World War II, but all he hears is what’s become a meaningless insult.

That’s why I use the word “plagiarism” with people outside the industry. They may not know its precise definition, but they certainly know what you’re talking about.

Of course, I’m all for educating people on the fine points of content theft. But I don’t think this case is a good illustration of it, because the thief’s response would have been the same no matter what it was called. For the reasons stated above, I flatly deny it was a mix-up in terminology that caused things to “get out of hand”. She flew off the handle in response to a simple, blandly-stated, 24-word cease-and-desist order. It doesn’t matter what words I used — she gives no evidence of knowing the meaning of them anyway. It was the order to cease-and-desist (which constitutes the entirety of my communication in her direction, before or after) that put her into flame mode.

By the way, another quibble on terminology. You say the theft was “definitely sizable”. I would say it was “absolutely complete”. She stole every single word of my copyrighted article.