Canadian Report On IP Not Just Deceptive... But Plagiarized

from the oops dept

Once again, we're seeing a report or person pushing for stronger IP laws that seems to feel that it's fine if they cut some corners. Michael Geist has the story of a report from The Conference Board of Canada, which describes itself as "the foremost, independent, not-for-profit applied research organization in Canada. Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests." Except... when the money's good. It's latest report, backed by a bunch of copyright lobbyists and the gov't of Ontatio (taxpayer money!) isn't just deceptive but appears to plagiarize widely from other already debunked reports, without a hint of skepticism or independent thought. Instead, it appears to have simply cut & pasted certain sections. While plagiarism and copyright are two separate issues, they are related in some ways -- and it's rather stunning that a report complaining about mass piracy in Canada would plagiarize large sections. But, even worse, of course, is the claim that this is from an independent group with no lobbying interests, when the plagiarized sections were written by lobbyists. Whatever credibility The Conference Board of Canada had (and apparently it's a well-respected organization), it just lost a bunch of it. Meanwhile, The Conference Board insists that it's standing by the report and only made a minor mistake in how it cited the info used in its report. Of course, that's not quite true. It didn't clearly quote the sections it copied, nor did it do any work to confirm whether that information was correct or simply repeated what the lobbyists who hired the company had already written elsewhere.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2009 @ 6:22am

    Actually, the blogger who brought this up does mention that most of the areas he discusses do have citations.

    Hmmm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    YouAreWrong, May 26th, 2009 @ 6:58am

    in legal writing

    most of what is lifted is not exactly plagiarism. in legal writing, it is commonplace (and well accepted) to paraphrase something, not use quotation marks, and then use a citation right after. in this form, you're supposed to use one citation per sentence, and then short cites for the remainder of what you paraphrase. you only use quotation marks if you're quoting exactly what someone else said.

    this paper's uses are in the grey area, as some statements are paraphrased more than others. had the author who lifted these statements used a full cite followed by a short cite for the second sentence (instead of just one cite), this is not technically plagiarism. i suspect this group got some intern to write the report and s/he just hasn't learned proper legal citation techniques.

    also note that academic plagiarism has a much higher standard than practitioner's plagiarism, so citing some canadian university's standard is irrelevant. however, and to Geist's defense, citation techniques/standards may differ in Canada than in the US. also, I don't know how much of this paper was made up from these improperly cited statements -- I can't register for their e-library account.

    but I do agree that it is pretty nasty when the group claims it's bias free, only to follow with all the IIPA talking points and its own made up numbers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2009 @ 7:04am

    Plagiarism Defined

    I steal from you - it is research.
    You steal from me - it is plagiarism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    ren, May 26th, 2009 @ 7:09am

    to YouAreWrong

    Geist can be found here( www dot michaelgeist dot ca)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    pk, May 26th, 2009 @ 7:17am

    A side by side comparison can also be seen here:

    http://www.p2pnet.net/story/22226

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Rob R., May 26th, 2009 @ 7:31am

    Re: in legal writing

    Although I agree with what you say, I do find it to be completely fascinating that you are offering an expert opinion on legal writing, and you have 4 paragraphs almost devoid of capitalization. You almost have correct usage for proper names, but Canadian is indeed a proper name. Even though "I" not only begins a sentence, it also is referring to yourself and stands in for a proper name. You use it correctly at times, but not another time. Fascinating.

    Please do not offer literary critique when you yourself fail the writing test. It is considered bad form.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Brad Eleven, May 26th, 2009 @ 8:49am

    Commonplace & Well Accepted

    Well, then. I find it commonplace and well accepted among my peers to engage in fair use.

    Sure, legal presentations of all kinds--e.g., opinions and reports--rely on precedent, which does indeed account for what is considered as plagiarism elsewhere. This does not address the idea that these "cited" works have been debunked.

    After reviewing the report, I find that it depends heavily on statistics. While I agree that these numbers are important to the report, I place more emphasis on the accuracy of the statistics.

    Perhaps lawyers really don't know any better than to simply cite others' work, as opposed to researching and compiling their own statistics--let alone verifying these statistics.

    It would appear that lawyers are not the solution to the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    DWDI, May 26th, 2009 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: in legal writing

    Missing the forest for the trees. or full of yourself you pick.
    Arinocdcg to rencet rseaerch, the hmuan brian is plrectfey albe to raed colmpex pasasges of txet caiinontng wdors in whcih the lrettes hvae been jmblued, pvioedrd the frsit and lsat leetrts rmeian in teihr crcerot piiotsons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    wow, May 26th, 2009 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: in legal writing

    fascinated about capitalization in a blog comment? gtfo NOOB

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2009 @ 9:09am

    Many here a missing the main point. This allegedly 'independent' body is supposed to weigh in on issues regarding copyright with a balanced approach to determining the benefits and detriments to current situation. From what I can tell they didn't do any independent research, validation of method or even offer dissenting opinion. I think the tax payer deserves better then simply parroting a clearly biased industry position paper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    YouAreWrong, May 26th, 2009 @ 9:58am

    Re: geist's comparison

    I read through Geist's take on it. I was talking about the actual report itself, so I don't know if they used short cites at all (or even one of the many legal citation formats).

    But I still agree with AC10 -- the big problem is not so much the bad citations, but the fact that they label themselves as uninterested, but then they make up stats (in a ridiculously non-scientific manner nonetheless) to back the talking point of a trade group. By their logic, because I ate 2 slices of pizza two weeks ago, and 4 slices last week, then I will apparently eat 8 slices this week.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    YouAreWrong, May 26th, 2009 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: in legal writing (Rob R.)

    modern word processors automatically capitalize sentences for you, but generally not proper nouns. i was just working on something else in a "modern" word processor that does exactly this, and I'm not losing sleep over proofreading or perfecting a blog comment.

    ask yourself, is capitalization really that important in a blog comment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Rob R., May 26th, 2009 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re: Re: in legal writing (Rob R.)

    A blog comment that is stressing writing abilities? Yes. I also use "modern" word processors, but I'm not so lazy that I can't hit a "shift" key. When I make a comment, I don't do something that shows how little I care about the subject.

    Oh well, not that it matters a great deal. I just pointed it out. Hadn't planned on making a major issue of it, so you all have fun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), May 26th, 2009 @ 12:14pm

    Re: in legal writing

    most of what is lifted is not exactly plagiarism. in legal writing, it is commonplace (and well accepted) to paraphrase something, not use quotation marks, and then use a citation right after. in this form, you're supposed to use one citation per sentence, and then short cites for the remainder of what you paraphrase. you only use quotation marks if you're quoting exactly what someone else said.

    Those aren't quite paraphrased. Those are taken whole cloth with just a couple words changed. Paraphrasing is putting it into your own words. That wasn't done. This was a cut and past job that someone went back and edited. That highlights the sloppy level of the research, in that it wasn't "research" at all, but cut and paste.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2009 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: in legal writing

    Missing the forest for the trees. or full of yourself you pick.

    When some pretending to offer an expert opinion on writing demonstrates very poor writing skills themselves, it seems relevant to me. And your vulgar name calling really doesn't doesn't do your position any good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2009 @ 12:02am

    newspapers

    I know this is not about newspapers, but since newspapers like to claim democracy can't exist without their investigating reporting, have any reported on this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This