Monday, October 1, 2012

Molyneux as Plagiarist

Thanks to some commenters at my post, Molyneux Again, it appears that Stephan Molyneux is a plagiarist. At the point in my post where I quote Molyneux, it appears he just lifted that quote from someone else, without credit.The first commenter writes:
He copy-pasted the text from somewhere on the Internet, but you can't tell because he didn't put a citation. He does this a lot. I can't seem to paste the link here, but if you do a google search for the first two lines of the quote you will find the original source...
The second commenter provides the smoking gun:
Wow, you're right! It's post #129, written by bigpics, on this page:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1456199&page=6 
Molyneux has never been one of my heroes, but if he were, I'd be shocked to discover this. I mean, what kind of person reprints/reposts other people's work without citing them?
Note: bigpics identifies himself as living in Rockland County, NY and a data base manager. Molyneux lives in Canada, so they are not one in the same. It's plagiarism.

I will note that there are factions of the anti-IP movement, who will see nothing wrong with this plagiarism.  But to me this example does nothing but show the absurdity of this view.  That a plagiarist like Molyneux can simply grab another person's writing and give the impression that it is his original writing, in my view, it is a sleazy move and theft.

55 comments:

  1. Sleazy move, yes, but theft? What property has he stolen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has pilfered the thoughts of another, presenting them as original content. Is this technically a crime, maybe not, but as you indicate it is sleazy w/o offer ing proper attribution. And if he benefits commercially, perhaps some crime is committed, who knows.

      Delete
    2. That's my point: You can't "pilfer the thoughts of another".

      If he presented them as his own, that's a lie, and it's sleazy. It does not, however, make it any more "theft" than it does "rape" or "murder".

      Delete
    3. Look up the word pilfer. Thoughts can not be pilfered. They can only be immitated. Immitation is harmless. Word-gaming a harmless immitation into a big moral crime in order to encourage a coercive goverment-enforced monopoly is far sleazier. Wenzel is an intellectual competitor who spends too much time trying to smear other libertarians.

      Delete
    4. @anon 10:07,My thoughts exactly! Oh, oh.

      Delete
  2. I'm pretty sure Molyneux is pro IP as well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. actually no. totally on board with kinsella

      Delete
    2. On Molyneux's website, all his writings and videos are free. Donations accepted. Same as Jeff Tucker, etc.

      Delete
    3. Um...@both Anonymous's:

      1) Offering stuff free of charge does not mean you are waiving or nullifying or denying IP.

      2) Perhaps you ignoramuses should actually read his copyright notices:

      Freedomainradio:

      Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love, Copyright 2008 by Stefan Molyneux. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.


      Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, Copyright 2007 by Stefan Molyneux. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews


      On Truth - The Tyranny of Illusion:Please feel free to distribute this book to whomever you think would benefit from it, as long as you do not modify the contents in any way.

      Delete
  3. In light of this hard-hitting analysis, I move we start to critique Murray Rothbard's outfits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His pants or which "outfit" are you referring to?

      Delete
    2. Do that! You may actually learn something. And what may prove more shocking is to investigate,and 'critique' your darling right and left-wing socialist more intellectually.

      Delete
  4. I think that you are correct that it is sleazy but I don't think that it is theft. Theft implies expropriation which is impossible with infinitely reproducible goods such as ideas.

    In my opinion, this distinction is at the core of the anti-IP argument. I think plagiarism and other IP issues are definitely immoral in that at the very least it's dishonest to claim someone else's work for your own. Also denying the original author credit for his work could be interpreted as damaging his reputation. But as a anarcho-capitalist, to me there is a difference between immoral and illegal. Theft is illegal and should be subject to the use of defensive violence against the aggressor in order to make the victim as whole as possible. Plagiarism and other IP violations are immoral and the perpetrators should be subject to ridicule and censure but not violence. This argument is similar to Lysander Spooner's view in Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. I'd encourage everyone to check it out because it has some great ideas about how vices and other immoral behavior should be handled in civil society without the use of violence.

    We should let Stephan Molyneux know that his behavior is reprehensible and we should not patronize his site or show.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not theft. But still sleazy. Plagiarists are in essence liars. There is no anti-IP position that condones lying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I will note that there are factions of the anti-IP movement, who will see nothing wrong with this plagiarism."

    I don't think anyone in the anti-IP movement thinks it's okay to plagiarize. What they're saying is that it's a political right (and you have the right to do plenty of stupid and immoral things, e.g., if you're on your property, it's your right to have a KKK meeting. Surely few would endorse the act of having a KKK meeting, but we agree it's their right).

    So as Chris points out, I think we'd all agree it's a sleazy move.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeffrey Tucker sees no problem with plagiarism.

      Delete
    2. Email and ask him.

      Delete
    3. I'm not going to, and I doubt anyone else will, accuse Tucker of such a thing in an email based on some accusations by an anonymous internet poster with no evidence. Pony up some evidence or shut up.

      Delete
  7. to be fair, the previous post on his facebook wall was a link to the article on MacRumors about iPhone charge times. Then, the post you blogged about was pulled from the comments on this article. Of course, he still should have cited its source.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The anti-IP position on plagiarism is that it is fraud, not theft.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wenzel is acting like a child.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Plagiarism is harmless. Therefore, it is not immoral, is not sleazy and it certainly is not theft.

    If the plagearism serves the spread of good ideas, it is virtuous. Immitation is education, not stealing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this post is under appreciated.

      Delete
  11. I thought Wenzel was being a little pedantic.

    But they I did some reading on "defooing." Sorry, I agree with Wenzel now.

    One doesn't have to discount or disregard an intellectual because they hold one doctrine you don't agree with (e.g. Rothbard and abortion).

    But "defooing" is a character flaw on the order of sociopathy, militant atheism or misanthropy. You can't actively promote a doctrine like this and have it not permeate your conclusions and character in other parts of your life. The concept is disgusting and militates in favor of seeing Molyneux not as an intellectual, but a cultic con man like the Scientologists running a dirty business. Both mix presentable facts or logic with subtle misdirection and contradiction to convince the ignorant or untrained. So did Anton LeVay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this "defooing" akin to lying on a shiny table on your side while undergoing various flushes to improve one's health?

      Delete
    2. A clear sign of a slanderer is to not actually debunk an idea, but to demonize the idea and equate it with horrible things or just plain old spew insults.

      Which is what you did.

      Defooing means you tell abusive relatives and friends to take a hike. The true crazies are the ones who demand you put up with their bullshit, no matter what.

      Delete
  12. Wenzel is such a petty lapdog.

    Molyneux is citing data, facts, on a blog, not a professional journal.

    Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I plagiarize other people's thoughts & ideas that I happen to like all time in daily conversation.

    I find it too tedious to cite everyone else thoughts that I incorporate into my own thinking all the time via citations in mid sentence or thought. I'd probably have cite my parents more than everyone else's, but I do steal others thoughts none the less.

    Screw the haters.


    ReplyDelete
  14. It's freakin Facebook for crying out loud! When did EPJ become a haven of dorky nerdlings looking to bash one of the few guys who makes voluntaryism practical for the masses.

    Im wondering if its his atheism that bothers our friends from the south.

    Bob have u ever posted stats on ur blog without citing sources? And that whole thing about Stefan being a "budgeter of energy" shows how uve never heard him destroy folks from the Zeitgeist, movement - the ultimate in central planning non-sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you get a pass on crime, if you do it through Facebook?

      As far as Wenzel posting stats, he always posts his sources.

      Delete
    2. "Im wondering if its his atheism that bothers our friends from the south."

      Bingo.

      Delete
  15. he actually cites his source in his posting on his message board:
    http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/36861.aspx

    He usually cross-posts stuff to both his facebook page and his message board. Not sure why he didn't put the link in his facebook post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. THIS piece of plagarism is minor at best.

    How about we focus on where he plagiarised Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative and then re-named it UPB and called it a revolution in ethics?

    THAT'S plagarism, people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ladies and gentlemen, only the first day of October and already the best post of the month.

      To you, Sir/Madam

      Delete
  17. This is unconscionable on Molyneax's part. I just took a look at his Facebook page. Did you guys know he's also posted a bunch of pics and comics on his page without attributing them? It's like he's passing them off as his own work on his own Facebook page.

    Facebook is simply not the place for people to be posting unattributed quotes, copying others' writing, or sharing other people's pictures without proper attribution.

    Molyneux had indeed corrupted the fragile community sense of Facebook by copy-pasting something he found on the internet onto his own Facebook page. I wouldn't be surprised if other less-enlighted, non-philosophers now start sharing comics, pictures, and blatantly stolen or incorrect quotes.

    /sarcasm

    Seriously, if every person on Facebook who's ever shared a quote/thought/IP work without proper attribution is to be considered a plagiarist, then large numbers of FB users are plagiarizing day in and day out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sigh... I'm a fan of Wenzel, and not a fan of Molyneux. (I was, once, for about 48 hours, until I found a rash of arrogant silliness in his Freedomain podcasts.) But come on. This is ludicrous and petty.

    The point made a couple hours ago -- that he DID cite on his own forum -- shows that this is, at best, a very minor oversight.

    Wenzel should apologize, and look more carefully before he accuses someone of dishonesty. (I'm anti-IP myself, but plagiarism shows a character flaw that irritates me, even if I don't consider it a crime.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Until you show they have done harm, it is silly to claim a character flaw in others. You are never going to show that imitation is harm. It is considered flattery in some contexts and learning in others. How is flattering and learning from others a character flaw?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Replies
    1. Yes, let's stop debating ideas and blab about current events instead.

      Delete
  21. Yes, Robert, it was sleazy. The anti-IP people merely say that the law should have no rule banning plagiarism, because you cannot steal something that does not physically exist. To be against plagiarism is a moral stance, which is not the same thing as saying it should be unlawful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either you own your own work or you don't. The anti-IP crowd tries to walk an absurd line that recognizes ownership without recognizing ownership.

      If you don't own your own creation, then there is absolutely no moral wrong in someone else taking it and claiming it as there own. But the anti-IP crown know it's wrong. That's why they use the Creative Commons licensing instead of creating a license that represents complete release of your creation. They know that no one would actually release their work under a license that would represent the true anti-IP intent.

      Trying allow the everyone to own one person's labor is a Marxist concept -- plain and simple.

      Delete
    2. You own your own creations, but you don't own my creations when I imitate you. Doing something and then using violence to prevent others from doing the same thing is hardly libertarian. It is merchantilism with a new rhetorical coat of paint.

      To speak of "allowing others to own one person's labor" is a very inaccurate characterization of the anti-IP position. When I imitate you using MY labor and MY materials, I am not trying to own your labor or your materials.

      The entire pro-IP argument is made up of this kind of inaccurate metaphorical reasoning. An idea in MY head - no matter the source - is not your "property". Nothing in my head belongs to you. Nor do my customers belong to you. You do not own ideas or customers.

      Delete
    3. The core of the anti-IP argument is that the concept of owning an idea is completely different from the concept of owning a physical object. When you give someone an idea, you don't lose the idea yourself, but when you give someone a physical object, you lose the object.

      Even if you don't LEGALLY "own" your ideas, it can still be morally wrong for someone to steal them and claim them as their own. This is the point. The moral realm is LARGER than the legal realm.

      I am not defending a Marxist concept; that doesn't even make sense.

      Delete
    4. Henry writes:

      "Even if you don't LEGALLY "own" your ideas, it can still be morally wrong for someone to steal them and claim them as their own."

      It can't be morally wrong to "steal" what can't be stolen because it can't be property. Once an idea is in my head, it is my idea.

      If you feel it is wrong to USE an idea that you did not originate, then you should stop using language, clothing, and electricity.

      The phoney argument being used by the pro-IP crowd is that to originate an idea is to gain exclusive use of it. But if you want to have exclusive use of an idea, keep it secret, otherwise you have given it to others. They did not steal it. It was a gift from you.

      Delete
    5. Most people would say that lying is immoral. If you say you originated an idea, and you did not, then you are lying.

      However, I agree that if you merely use something that you didn't originate, there is no issue. In fact, people do this everyday.

      Delete
  22. In personal conversation, electronic or otherwise, it is a standard of behavior to give credit for significant ideas, if asked. We don't go around in conversation all day footnoting our every utterance. If one spouts off as if all his thoughts were invented solely between his own ears, though, it's essentially look at as haughty and bad manners, but hardly a crime--sort of like belching at the dinner table. Now, if one were to represent another's ideas as original to gain an advantage in employment/career as a "knowledge worker," then that could be considered a lie or fraudulent, depending on the situation. Ostracizing the ill mannered offender is about as far as we should go.

    Do I need a footnote to Stephan Kinsella for the any of the above??? Actually, I was pirating music before he was born. Maybe he should be footnoting me. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Now, if one were to represent another's ideas as original to gain an advantage in employment/career as a "knowledge worker," then that could be considered a lie or fraudulent, depending on the situation."

      How do you suppose I could make money? I could only make money on someone's ideas if I improved on them. If I were to publish Ludwig Von Mises' writings under my name, no one would buy them! People tend to prefer the original author. If I were to make my own additions to his writings (and IP law didn't exist), then I could publish them and maybe make some money.

      "Ostracizing the ill mannered offender is about as far as we should go."

      This statement requires collective action. Is it enforced by law? In that case you are a supporter of IP law, but I doubt this is the case. I believe you again are confusing the moral and the legal realms.

      Delete
    2. You could make money through products and services based on other people's ideas, which is what many people do--actually what everybody does when you put any time into considering the question. That's why they go to school, read books, etc., to become knowledgeable about what went before, and to use that knowledge for personal gain.

      Ostracizing the ill mannered has nothing to do with gov't made law. It implies collective action, yes. Your point???

      I haven't confused anything. I think you have. ;-)

      Delete
  23. Once again the anti-IP crowd disingenuously changes the debate. You can't patent or copyright ideas; that IP law doesn't exist.

    If you write a story using the same concept as mine, that's different than just swiping my story. IP is a very specific expression of an idea. IP takes a lot of time, and companies pay employees lots of money to create IP like programming, movies, books, etc. The thought that people would continue to be paid for things that are free once created is ludicrous. The anti-IP position, if implemented would push information and ideas underground. The tragedy of the commons is lost on the anti-IP crowd; they didn't understand the lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am not changing the debate. Mickey Mouse (C) and Star Wars (TM) don't exist in the real world. They only exist in people's heads; they are ideas. Yet, if I were to make a cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse (C), and sold it, I could be jailed for copyright infringement.

    I doubt Disney (C) would stop making cartoons if their copyright expired. It would enable outside entrepreneurs to enter the Mickey Mouse (C) market and bolster competition. This would raise the quality and lower the price of Mickey Mouse (C) products. People will demand Mickey Mouse (C) merchandize regardless of who sells it (and consequently entrepreneurs will be attracted).

    Historically, copyrights and patents were created by governments to make MONOPOLIES for their friends. They had their own selfish interests in mind, not the interests of the rest of society.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sorry, IP nubbies.......there is NO original thought! And once written or verbalized, it belongs to the universe. Molyneax has Done NOTHING to be coerced into feeling shame over nor have to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Seriously Bob, if you want to have this debate, you need to have it with Kinsella. It's not worth slipping these kinds of little jabs in here. Have it out on your show.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I can't remember where, but I believe that Murray Rothbard made the argument that theft is a crime in kind with murder. This is a strong argument against taxation because you're literally taking someone's life away from them. The only difference is you're not taking ALL of their life away. What you're really taking from them is the time it took to work to acquire the item you stole, not just the item itself.

    How is this different than profiting from someone's idea? People in the real world really do have original ideas and thoughts from time to time. These ideas and thoughts take time to develop and they lead to gain. This is necessarily true as humans are rational and they always act with the intention to gain or improve themselves. I'm not in favor of current government control over patents and copyrights, but I think as a principle, it's not valid to just say "an idea or thought is not physical so it doesn't exist or can't be stolen." It seems that if this is a general principle, it would stand up in every possible situation. Intuitively, it seems like it doesn't. Also, it's an idea, so it doesn't exist. Why should anyone listen to it? Obviously, because ideas have consequences that affect the real world.

    ReplyDelete