by Mike Masnick
Thu, Oct 2nd 2008 1:36pm
Why is it so often that we find those who strongly push for certain types of draconian laws are later found to be guilty of violating those laws? The latest is a mini-scandal in Canada, involving a plagiarized speech. Now, I've pointed out before that I'm actually all for plagiarizing politicians. However, as Rob Hyndman points out, it turns out that the guy who copied the speech, one Owen Lippert, wrote a book on intellectual property, where he pushed for much stronger intellectual property rules to be included in trade agreements. Of course, it's worth pointing out that plagiarism and copyright are related, but not the same -- but you would think that someone who believes so strongly in more stringent intellectual property laws would be a lot more careful about potentially doing anything that shows a disregard for intellectual property.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- While Other Countries Debate Copyright Terms, Canada Just Takes Record Labels' Word That It Needs To Increase
- No, Just Because Seymour Hersh Had The Same Story As You, It's Not 'Plagiarism'
- Canadian Law Enforcement Complains Child Molesters Are Benefiting Most From ISP Subscriber Data Warrant Requirements
- Why Is Consumers' Research Pushing For Anti-Consumer Trade Deals, And Bad Intellectual Property Laws?
- Quebec Town Makes It Illegal To Insult Police Officers And Other Public Officials