Skip to main content

Cheeky monkey

A naughty person has cut and pasted as their own work a chpt of my The Great Philosophers on the internet without any acknowledgement or credit or permission. What to do...?

http://hubpages.com/hub/johnlocke

Comments

littleshotlarry said…
I love how he says in his profile, "My writing has improved since I've joined."

You don't say?! Haha
By linking to it you might be getting him more ad revenue.
1. Demand that it be removed and give him a deadline to do so.

2. If that doesn't work, contact his server; and

3. If that doesn't work, give me a call and I will be happy to pursue the matter on a pro bono basis.
DavidMWW said…
http://hubpages.com/help/copyright_infringement
Stephen Law said…
Thanks to all - I have let publisher know, so they'll probably take care of it. If not I'll follow up that link...
Anonymous said…
Any of his other stuff yours? Like http://hubpages.com/hub/plato_theory_of_forms or http://hubpages.com/hub/thomashobbes ?
Mike said…
Stephen,
I have to run to work, so I was only able to make a cursory glance at the articles, but I can see that this guy also lifted your material on Plato, Bacon, Hobbs and James. As a person who makes his living by creating copyrighted material, this sort of thing infuriates me. The guy even makes introductory statements like, "I felt compelled to write this hub after discovering this philosopher inadvertently..." The website in question is a for-profit scheme, and this guy has stolen your work to draw traffic (i.e. revenue) to his site. Please make copies of all the relevant pages immediately and consult your lawyer.
Anonymous said…
He has made several spelling errors when transcribing ... maybe he should be sued for that too?
Welcome said…
My post earlier hasn't come up, so I'll write it again and hope this works.
I think maybe the reference to the Karamazov 'quote' could do with a little more discussion as it's been so apallingly hijacked erroneously in all kinds of fields, including humanists via Sartre.
Before you scream WORD COUNT! I really think the reference needs a bit more - just a few lines. I think the reader will be frustrated not to have more info but also you'd be doing us all a favour (not to mention Dostoevsky)!
Part of the novel's strategy is to show how dangerous irresponsible intellectualising like Ivan's can be. Dostoevsky makes Ivan say things to perniciously mislead other characters to show how evil, or at least wrongdoing, can be generated by people like Ivan playing with people's minds.
As you say, the 'quote line' is not spoken by Ivan at all. He pretends to conclude that there's no God, no morality (but later says he does believe in God - is this ambiguous?) What every reference to the 'quote' that I've come across fails to see is that Dostoevsky was a novelist - he orchestrated characters and story to make meaning of far greater complexity than a simplistic 'Does-God-exist-or-not?' soundbite. By the way, Shakespeare is the prime victim of this kind of lamentable ignorance of how fiction works which is why we have him hijacked onto pro-war waggons etc etc.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks anon. Had not spotted that.

Thanks Mike. OK it's all with the publishers. I'm sure they will kick butt.

Pauline - OK I shall follow your advice on the Ivan matter...
Unknown said…
Your heading "Cheeky monkey" also directs to his page, rather than to this main post.
Stephen Law said…
I fixed that Ron. BTW someone alerted me to one of these posts ages ago and I remember leaving a comment along the lines of "please credit me" and then forgot all about it. Bit shocking to find it still there, and indeed, added to...

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist