You make assumptions instead of reading what is written.
He said it is plagiarism, then affirms again that t is stealing. This is the generally accepted definition of plagarism. He doesn't accuse anyone of a crime, if he had maybe he would have used words like fraud or copyright infringement, or something along those lines, instead he said plagiarize; and as other have commented, plagiarism doesn't necessarily constitute copyright infringement and vice versa.
And then you proceeded to take the insult to injury comment out of context, in context he meant that obviously this author who plagiarized didn't even care enough to find out if someone owned the image either, or further that it had apparently been edited by the blogger in question. No claims were made about copyright infringement whatsoever, but it showed a significant lack of due diligence even further so then simply plagiarizing the article.
So now that I am done refering to myself in 3rd person. I would absolutely love to take a lesson out of your book and assume you are something based on what you write (or don't write) out of context and make myself feel 5 times better, but your not worth it.
And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea.
And if negative karma is the consequence of well worded opinion, then I haven't a clue why anyone would want positive karma.
> And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea.
No, they get thrown out for doing something against the rules of the school. The fact that they get thrown out does not prove that an idea was meaningfully stolen (as opposed to the simpler explanation, in which the student experienced a lapse of integrity in following citation requirements).
A thought experiment: If I believe that we have a duty to repay society for all that it has done for us, then in order not to be a thief, am I required to raise Immanuel Kant from the dead and ask him for permission every time I want to bring it up in conversation? Obviously, no. I'm allowed to believe the same thing as Immanuel Kant and it is not theft. If I got my ideas from Kant but tried to deny it, that would be dishonest, and he would still be the originator, but ideas aren't really property.
This isn't defending what the Long Island Press did, but you're going too far in the other direction.
He said it is plagiarism, then affirms again that t is stealing. This is the generally accepted definition of plagarism. He doesn't accuse anyone of a crime, if he had maybe he would have used words like fraud or copyright infringement, or something along those lines, instead he said plagiarize; and as other have commented, plagiarism doesn't necessarily constitute copyright infringement and vice versa.
And then you proceeded to take the insult to injury comment out of context, in context he meant that obviously this author who plagiarized didn't even care enough to find out if someone owned the image either, or further that it had apparently been edited by the blogger in question. No claims were made about copyright infringement whatsoever, but it showed a significant lack of due diligence even further so then simply plagiarizing the article.
So now that I am done refering to myself in 3rd person. I would absolutely love to take a lesson out of your book and assume you are something based on what you write (or don't write) out of context and make myself feel 5 times better, but your not worth it.
And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea.
And if negative karma is the consequence of well worded opinion, then I haven't a clue why anyone would want positive karma.