dogged

I spent the weekend again dogged by accusations of plagiarism. The most recent attack came in the comments to Friday's piece 'ewatse'. Anonymous complains:

What a fuc***g crock! I read this same review on the Onion like six months ago.

I folded last week when the first DMCA takedown notice arrived -- see Thursday's 'regret' for more background. I thought then that I couldn't afford to fight. I know now that I can't afford not to.

Let's take Anonymous point by point. First, I do not tolerate sailor's language in the comments. Second, the review in question (here) is for Apple's original iPad and not for the SIIG Windshield iPad Car Mount. Third, that review was from March 2010 -- predating Anonymous' claim by almost two years.

The most troubling part of this cowardly snipe gets right to the heart of the very idea of intellectual property in the new economy. That review was written by a dolphin. You simply cannot plagarize a cetacean, no matter if it is the beautiful song of a Humpback Whale, the clicks of a Harbor Porpoise, or the commentary of a Bottlenose like Beepo the Dolphin.

Did NASA need clearance when they included whale song on the Voyager records? Certainly not.

"The Sounds of Earth" includes whale song without attribution
(Photo credit: NASA)

Many court watchers expect this issue to be put to rest firmly when the Court again takes up Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics  and rules on the validity of gene patents but I think the issue is already decided. Either whale song is a product of nature and therefore not intellectual property or it can become the intellectual property of a human author upon isolation and purification. Neither outcome creates a new IP grant to whales or a new obligation to 'cite' their work.

I hope that puts the matter to rest. Thanks to everyone who stuck by me.