@temptoetiam What struck me the most in the January 10 #receptiogate document by #Rossi was the (strategic? uninformed?) conflation of #copyright infringement and #plagiarism. CR denies copyright infringement took place, claiming the materials either did not rise to the level of "works" or are in the public domain. But the accusations are in fact related to plagiarism, primarily a matter of academic standards and honesty, not copyright law, and are not addressed by CR at all.
@christof @temptoetiam
It's worse than not addressing the charges of plagiarism; by arguing public domain, she is essentially admitting that she plagiarized.
The work of 19th century scholars such as Ludwig Traube is all public domain by any standard. It's still plagiarism if I copy it without quotation and attribution.
@taoish @temptoetiam Exactly! – She's also arguing that Kidd does not have a copyright statement on his blog, and sort of concludes that this means there is no issue with lifting content. Which is absurd, of course, because copyright does not need to be claimed, it arises automatically. (I'm not a copyright lawyer by any means, but that's pretty basic stuff.)
@taoish @temptoetiam Inversely, the latest brief statement by CR (Jan. 14?) tries to argue that, because ENERGIE9 was "hardly more than a blog" (my translation), it was somehow (this part is implicit) not susceptible to plagiarism. Absurd in itself, but note also that the "mere blog" did have an ISSN, had the word "journal" in its subtitle and had an "Editor-in-Chief" (CR, of course), among other signs of academic prestige. And a "Copyright (C)" notice, of course! #receptiogate #rabbithole
@christof @temptoetiam@octodon.social @taoish In her own words, Energie9 is “crap”: “Lees mijn serieuze boeken, mailt zij, ‘not this crap on Energie9.’” https://nieuwscheckers.nl/meer-plagiaat-in-werk-zwitserse-onderzoekster/
