I don't fully agree with @brianlfrye's legalistic take; but I'm finding the paper based it to be hilarious. E.g. "The tragicomedy of plagiarism norms is their ambiguity, which often slides into incoherence." Yes! Paper link: [ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3462144] https://twitter.com/AnneHummert/status/1265024553098625025

I appreciated this: 16:51

"Real common tendency among academics to like, read other people’s work and see their own work.... And, either lament or object to the fact that that person failed to acknowledge the greatness of their own contribution by providing multiple citations."

Again from the podcast: [ https://shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/episodes/unh-law-podcast-brian-l-frye-on-plagiarism-and-podcasting]

"I think that that mentality is behind the desire to be able to force attribution and to claim ownership of ideas that we actually don’t think people should be able to own." – @brianlfrye

On an intellectual level, I agree. Practically, it's more complicated. From the paper, "Plagiarize This Paper" [ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3462144]

"Academic plagiarism norms are illegitimate, because they depend on the illusion of novelty. Originality is but a chimera." – @brianlfrye

Important distinction that @brianlfrye makes in the paper (and podcast) is between junior & senior scholars. When a senior takes from a junior because of privileged access, he calls it "sub rosa plagiarism" which he says, "sounds primarily in trade secret law." +

Noting the power differences is key. Here, in the podcast, at 11:00, @brianlfrye says, he objects to “turning the scholarly gift economy into a propertarian economy.” He call this "framing property rights as ethics." +

I'm sympathetic to the longing for the "gift economy" of scholars. I'm even emotional about it. But, the facts are, a very limited number of people get to fully participate in that. Race, class, culture, language, national origin, access to print publishing, and internet are +