Aoife> He's had issues with this particular group of people using his work without permission or reference before and has tried to go to them behind the scenes but didn't get any results.
ok. So they're all jenky. *shrug*
Maybe Lyle needs a better PR machine.
If nothing else, people who know nothing will likely prefer to believe the person who seems reasonable, versus the one who seems like a ranting looney. Charisma usually wins. That's why politics suck.
If I pulled this crap on a highschool paper it would be labeled as plagiarism (and just plain laziness) and I would get an F.
If it constituted your entire paper, you deserve to fail. If it was part and you didn't cite it properly according to the rules, then you get an F, a trip to the principal's office, a detention and possible suspension.
Now, I'm not familiar with either product as I'm done with packaged diets, but it seems to me Alwyn had the green light to birth his project, he just inadvertently left out the thank-you-for-knocking-me-up card.
The reason the discussion between you and Aoife continued was because SHE didn't take your insults (i.e. your bait).
Can you own that you (and your friend cyco) said those insulting things to her? Whether or not you feel attacked doesn't change whether your not you did some attacking of your own. You are an adult and mature adults own their poor behavoir, so can you own that you attacked Aoife?
This is a behavior pattern that you have been called on before, at some point you won't be able to ignore any longer and you'll have to change. IMO, sooner would be better than later.
Hmm.
I see what you're saying. I know it's not all about me or anything, nor am I trying to undermine your message. But…
I think some people see a finer line than others, or a different line. And some people don't see the need for overwhelming diplomacy.
I won't speak to anyone else, but for me, I've read enough of Matt's posts (damn, dude, I hope I'm right that your name is Matt, lol) to know where his line is, and I can't say I felt attacked.
(Same with cyco.)
Can anyone show me where in the letter Alwyn asked for permission to do anything? Where Lyle gave permission to do anything? Where Alwyn indicated that his work would be a paraphrase of Lyle's and not an original work based on Lyle's?
What I read was:
A: I'm going to write an original work that is based enough on your work that I ought to credit you. How should I credit you? Please not that I have not asked permission to do anything because what I have said I am doing would be legal without your permission. If I was just paraphrasing your work and repeating parts verbatim, that would be illegal without your permission, but I am making no indication that I intend to do that.
L: Here are instructions for crediting you. Along with this instructions you will find attached a complete lack of permission being granted.
Hmm.
I see what you're saying. I know it's not all about me or anything, nor am I trying to undermine your message. But…
I think some people see a finer line than others, or a different line. And some people don't see the need for overwhelming diplomacy.
I won't speak to anyone else, but for me, I've read enough of Matt's posts (damn, dude, I hope I'm right that your name is Matt, lol) to know where his line is, and I can't say I felt attacked.
(Same with cyco.)
I am glad that you don't feel attacked and that you have thicker skin than lots of folks. But this communication style is one that he's previously been asked to refrain from because we do require diplomacy at JPF (whether your right, wrong, thick or thin skinned).
Maybe Lyle needs a better PR machine. Charisma usually wins.
kinda reminds me of Gates and Jobs in "Pirates of the Silicon Valley"...only, of course, Gates didn't have any charisma...just a good smell for business opportunities.
kinda reminds me of Gates and Jobs in "Pirates of the Silicon Valley"...only, of course, Gates didn't have any charisma...just a good smell for business opportunities.
You're telling me you don't find Gates incredibly handsome and charismatic?
Can anyone show me where in the letter Alwyn asked for permission to do anything? Where Lyle gave permission to do anything? Where Alwyn indicated that his work would be a paraphrase of Lyle's and not an original work based on Lyle's?
Quote:
From Alwyn Cosgrove
To Lyle McDonald
Date Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 8:45 PM
mailed-bygmail.com
I'm also working on Afterburn II.
I am going to put in a chapter on fat metabolism.
To be honest it will be a short summary - nothing in depth.
However your chapter in UD2.0 has influenced me the most, to the point where I'd feel uncomfortable not saying that directly in the text.
basically the chapter will be primarily a summary of your chapter plus a few others (your chapter is 2200 words, the summary is about 600- 750).
In other words I want to credit you directly in that chapter.
So how do you prefer it was referenced - direct to you and your site, or direct to the book?
AC
Reply:
From Lyle McDonald
To Alwyn Cosgrove
Date Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 8:53 PM
At 8:45 PM -0700 8/14/06, Alwyn Cosgrove wrote:
>I'm also working on Afterburn II.
>
>I am going to put in a chapter on fat metabolism.
>To be honest it will be a short summary - nothing in depth.
>
>However your chapter in UD2.0 has influenced me the most, to the point where I'd feel uncomfortable not saying that directly in the text.
>basically the chapter will be primarily a summary of your chapter plus a few others (your chapter is 2200 words, the summary is about 600- 750).
>
>In other words I want to credit you directly in that chapter.
>
>So how do you prefer it was referenced - direct to you and your site, or direct to the book?
Yes (all three)
Quote:
What I read was:
A: I'm going to write an original work that is based enough on your work that I ought to credit you. How should I credit you? Please not that I have not asked permission to do anything because what I have said I am doing would be legal without your permission. If I was just paraphrasing your work and repeating parts verbatim, that would be illegal without your permission, but I am making no indication that I intend to do that.
L: Here are instructions for crediting you. Along with this instructions you will find attached a complete lack of permission being granted.
Alwyn said he was basing a chapter on Lyle's work and told Lyle upfront. He asked how to properly cite him and Lyle's response was "all three" not "don't even think about it."
Lyle knew it was happening and did not deny AC permission. Ideally, you want to get those words "I grant permission," but among people of understanding, these things are often unspoken, but inferred.
I have no problem with quoting someone (the original text) and then citing the reference.
This is an entire chapter. It has pretty much been cut and pasted, words changed slightly, and then sold as an original product.
If this is the citationbold mine)
Quote:
(This chapter has been highly influenced by the work of Lyle McDonald and is essentially a very brief summary of his Fat Metabolism chapter in "The Ultimate Diet 2.0. I'd like to thank Lyle for his help both personally and professionally and his contributions to this field. I strongly urge you to check out Lyle's website – www.bodyrecomposition.net).
How is this "wrong" other than it being left off.
Now, one can believe or disbelieve whether it was "accidental" or not,
although logic would dictate that the easiest thing to do for complete ass-coverage is to include it, since enough people likely know both products well enough that SOMEONE would be bound to call you out on it.
But, your belief or disbelief of if it was accidently left off or intentional stealing is going to be largely based on your previous knowledge of these people and their situation, or your own bias for or against someone, perhaps because of the previous knowledge.
To anyone else, it'll look like a bunch of people all hatin on Alwyn because he's all successful and crap. Or whatever.
Proof of intent to steal without proper citation? Show it. Prove it wasn't a mistake in the WSFL camp.
Or keep circle jerking the love/hate-fest. *shrug*
Alwyn said he was basing a chapter on Lyle's work and told Lyle upfront. He asked how to properly cite him and Lyle's response was "all three" not "don't even think about it."
Lyle knew it was happening and did not deny AC permission. Ideally, you want to get those words "I grant permission," but among people of understanding, these things are often unspoken, but inferred.
You and Alwyn have a creative definition of "basing" if copying and pasting is considered to be basing.
Maybe Lyle didn't explicity grant permission because Alwyn never asked for permission for anything.
For what it's worth I don't think it was intent to steal as much as not caring about putting out an original, quality product (free of typo's, misc errors...referencing quotes from other authors work). Due to the lack of caring it "caused" material to be stolen. Intent isn't relevant.
I'm sorry I've demonstrated such a low comprehension of how the world of business works.
No, that's not how business works. Proper business defines the conditions, expectations and definitions clearly. Nothing is left to chance, nothing is left for inference. That's a sure ticket to a lengthy and expensive civil case.
These two have some "guru" understanding that they will deal with each other with a degree of integrity. But that is not how business operates.
I've been employed by a global corporation for 11 years and I'm closer to executives and high level management then I really care to be. I'm not a fan of big business, but I am caught up in it for a living. I've learned a few things about what they will do and how they protect themselves.
If Alwyn and Lyle had wanted to do it proper with the least amount of hassle, they would have each had copyright lawyers working out the details of permission and credit.
Why did Lyle feel he had to go to his blog first about this? It's like seeing a group of teenager go to youtube with their video of what an adult did to them, rather than a cop, cop's supervisor/captain, principle, etc.
I've heard, though not seen, that many of the "gurus" here take their differences to PM, but obviously, Lyle didn't anything like that. He could have called Alwyn and say "Al! What the fuck are you doing?" or tell his lawyer "Get in touch with Cosgrove or his lawyer and find out what the fuck he think he's doing."
Why did Lyle feel he had to go to his blog first about this? It's like seeing a group of teenager go to youtube with their video of what an adult did to them, rather than a cop, cop's supervisor/captain, principle, etc.
I've heard, though not seen, that many of the "gurus" here take their differences to PM, but obviously, Lyle didn't anything like that. He could have called Alwyn and say "Al! What the fuck are you doing?" or tell his lawyer "Get in touch with Cosgrove or his lawyer and find out what the fuck he think he's doing."
Stage 1: Deny that Cosgrove did anything wrong.
Stage2: Be angry at Lyle for publicizing what Cosgrove did wrong.
Stage 1: Deny that Cosgrove did anything wrong.
Stage2: Be angry at Lyle for publicizing what Cosgrove did wrong.
2 down, 3 to go.
x2.
This topic is on quite a few boards, and pretty blunt. I dont have anything against AC, but obvious is obvious, and what he is asking of Lyle is after the fact (or damage) in my opinion. Anyone can say 'whoops, I forgot to add the credit where its due, or it somehow it was omitted'...doesnt mean its right or true.
I'll be honest, I think Lyle can be a dick, no doubt. But, he does know his shit, and should be credited for his work. If you are going to copy and paste, credit the source. Whether or not you did 2 years ago, doesnt matter if you are profiting today on a new project, period.
I've been following this discussion w/ interest since it started. Just to be upfront, yeah, I'm new to this board, came to it as a user of some of Lyle McDonald's products (though not UD2.0), have been roaming the fitness/fat loss boards including stuff by Tom Venuto, Craig Ballantyne, John Berardi for a couple of years now. I have nothing against Alwyn Cosgrove, in fact would be probably using some of his stuff except that I happened across other people's stuff first. All that by way of saying, just because I just joined this forum & this is my first post on it, or that I've also posted a version of this post on bodybuilders.com, or that I've been using Lyle's products does not automatically discount what I have to say or mean that I'm an "Alwyn hater."
Okay, disclaimer dispensed with. Here's the rest:
I'm wondering if Lyle ever saw a copy of Alwyn's previous book the Rapid Fat Loss Manual (RFLM) that his edited-to-shorten version of Lyle's UD2.0 chapter was in. Because I think characterizing the RFLM chapter as a "summary" was a false characterization. From Alwyn's original email to Lyle about the chapter:
Quote:
basically the chapter will be primarily a summary of your chapter plus a few others (your chapter is 2200 words, the summary is about 600- 750).
There's nothing in that email to indicate that it wasn't really a summary (which is typically in the summary writer's own words) rather than just an edited down version of the original author's work. In fact, Alwyn wasn't even really asking for permission for anything: he was saying "I wrote a summary of your chapter for inclusion in my book, & I want to credit you for that info: what's the best way to do it?" And Lyle said, "Credit me this way."
I think if Lyle had actually seen the "summary" back then, he'd have said, "That's not a summary, that's an edited-down (i.e., plagiarized) version of my chapter." I haven't asked him, but seems unlikely to me that he would have said, "sure, crib away, that's cool!" It's not as if he's licensed his stuff under a Creative Commons copyright scheme. And the two versions are so close that even to call Alwyn's version a "paraphrase" rather than a "summary" is more than generous, but downright inaccurate.
Furthermore, supposedly that chapter was gonna be in Afterburn II, but actually Alwyn put it in two products back then: Afterburn II (workouts) plus the Rapid Fat Loss Manual (when he'd only mentioned the first of these two products in his original email to Lyle). Then two years later, it appeared in yet another new work.
I don't think Alwyn necessarily meant to do evil. But clearly he had a different understanding of the "agreement" he & Lyle made two years ago than Lyle did.
Alwyn thought "summary" meant "edited version of Lyle's chapter" whereas Lyle probably thought it meant "summary" -- i.e., a rundown, but in Alwyn's own words, of the info from Lyle's UD2.0 chapter.
Alwyn thought he had an "agreement" about use of the edited version of the chapter. Lyle thought Alwyn was seeking info on how to credit him, & provided it; there was no "agreement" per se, just info on how to credit.
Alwyn thought this supposed agreement meant he had blanket permission to continue to use the edited-down version of the chapter into the indefinite future for other products.
In other words, Lyle never agreed to having an edited-down version of his chapter appear in even one, much less a succession, of Alwyn's products (unless someone can produce other emails showing he did). He only responded to a request for information on how to credit him for a summary, which is akin to asking an academic colleague how to cite a professional paper or journal article. Which is where Lyle's thinking would be likely to be, seeing as he spends a lot of time delving into scientific journals & making sure he cites info properly himself. I'm not as familiar with Alwyn's stuff, having just started looking into it a month or two ago, but I don't get that he's quite so familiar with the anal-retentive ways of doing things with citation, copyright, fair use, & all that stuff.
Not evil, maybe, but certainly naive in this area.
And if he did feel he had an "agreement" about some sort of fair use of an edited-down version of Lyle's stuff, he should have asked him again.
I also found it interesting that in his email of explanation, Alwyn makes no mention of one of the other things Lyle mentioned in his blog about this, which was the uncredited verbatim use of Lyle's original Stubborn Fat Loss protocol (SFP 1.0) in New Rules of Lifting & again in the Warp Speed Fat Loss book, again completely uncredited.
You make some valid arguments. I might challenge your assertion that you don't necessarily have a dog in the fight as you are a frequent contributor to a forum that notoriously slams AC. Not to say that you don't raise some good questions, and not to say that I myself am not biased. I fully admit that I am because I know Alwyn personally, and will give him the benefit of the doubt. Even with my admitted bias, I don't have any negative bias toward Lyle, so I'm not out to prove him wrong.
I personally think that this was handled extremely unprofessionally. If this gets resolved to Lyle's satisfaction (should he take Alwyn's offer up to speak on the phone), he has done a significant amount to damage to Alwyn's reputation, as you can see that this has spread across several forums.
Even if Alwyn were guilty of blatant plagiarism this would not have been the way to handle it. This just started a lynch mob akin to accusing someone of rape or child molestation, where people immediately assume guilt, and the damage is permanent.
I didn't fail to notice that the same people accusing him of blatant plagiarism shifted into a new gear once the past emails showed up, focusing then on the degree of similarity, slamming him for deliberately omitting the passage, or suggesting that the exact same material that he already got permission to publish wasn't "transferable."
The degree of similarity keeps getting referred to as verbatim. I think maybe I have a different definition of verbatim.
No one can know for sure if the omission was deliberate, but based on his credibility and his past record for acknowledging where he gets his knowledge, I will lean toward believing it was accidental.
As far as transferability, that wasn't the original argument. Maybe a valid point, but very different than plagiarism. I would wait and see what Lyle has to say on the topic. That seems like something they should discuss privately.
I guess being a fitness professional with a little visibility (albeit no where near the status of Lyle or Alwyn), I am very sensitive to the viral nature of accusations like this, and I think that if there is any validity to Lyle's accusations that they would have been exposed following a more formal legal process. Trial by mob is not fair and so far that is all this is.
The degree of similarity keeps getting referred to as verbatim. I think maybe I have a different definition of verbatim.
According to wikipedia:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
As a linguistic term, the Latin word "verbatim" means an exact reproduction of a sentence, phrase, quote or other sequence of text from one source into another. The same words appear in exactly the same order, with no paraphrasing, substitution, or abbreviation of any kind, not even any trivial changes that would not have affected the meaning in any way, ie: grammatical interjections such as "um" "er" etc (commonly called "hesitation devices") or the removal of profanities.
Most of Alwyn's passage was not verbatim although for most of it the only differences were omissions and substitutions.
There are parts of the passage that are copied verbatim. I can understand if you haven't read Lyle's blog post carefully given your strong desire to find no fault with Alwyn.
If you have read the blog post carefully and find no sections that were copied verbatim, I am extremely interested in knowing more about how you define the word because we certainly disagree about what it means.
I personally think that this was handled extremely unprofessionally. If this gets resolved to Lyle's satisfaction (should he take Alwyn's offer up to speak on the phone), he has done a significant amount to damage to Alwyn's reputation, as you can see that this has spread across several forums.
When you've tried other avenues, what's your recourse?
ie, all of you assuming Lyle didn't try other methods first -- how do you know?
Why jump to the conclusion that he's being the shady one in this instance? The guy is abrasive and I'm sure quite a few people don't like him because he's a giant meanie-head, but one thing he is not is a liar.
Quote:
Even if Alwyn were guilty of blatant plagiarism this would not have been the way to handle it. This just started a lynch mob akin to accusing someone of rape or child molestation, where people immediately assume guilt, and the damage is permanent.
Again -- how can you affirm other avenues weren't tried first?
I knew about this over a month ago, and I was ready to come in guns a-blazin', but Lyle's actually the one that asked me to hold off.
Quote:
I didn't fail to notice that the same people accusing him of blatant plagiarism shifted into a new gear once the past emails showed up, focusing then on the degree of similarity, slamming him for deliberately omitting the passage, or suggesting that the exact same material that he already got permission to publish wasn't "transferable."
Oh not me. I still think it's garbage all the way around.
Quote:
No one can know for sure if the omission was deliberate, but based on his credibility and his past record for acknowledging where he gets his knowledge, I will lean toward believing it was accidental.
And the point stands that it's BS that never should have happened to begin with. If there weren't this mad rush to crank out garbage product after garbage product to Get Rich, we wouldn't see this sort of crap going down.
Quote:
I guess being a fitness professional with a little visibility (albeit no where near the status of Lyle or Alwyn), I am very sensitive to the viral nature of accusations like this, and I think that if there is any validity to Lyle's accusations that they would have been exposed following a more formal legal process. Trial by mob is not fair and so far that is all this is.
Formal legal process = time and money. The reason it went this way is very likely because of that. Would it make sense to spend thousands on a lawyer and court costs to recoup only a fraction of that?
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
There are parts of the passage that are copied verbatim. I can understand if you haven't read Lyle's blog post carefully given your strong desire to find no fault with Alwyn.
If you have read the blog post carefully and find no sections that were copied verbatim, I am extremely interested in knowing more about how you define the word because we certainly disagree about what it means.
I have read them. I haven't read Lyle's work in its entirety, nor have I with Alwyn's product. We've already learned one thing we didn't know about that shined a new light on things. You don't execute a murder suspect. You try them and get all the facts. You also presume innocence. Any defense of Alwyn is first based on a desire to be fair.
I certainly haven't said anywhere that I find no fault. He should have acknowledged Lyle. I'm willing to accept that it was an oversight considering it appeared in a previous incarnation. That is very different than finding no fault. Obviously it was hurtful to Lyle. It is up to him whether or not he will accept Alwyn's apology, but that is not my business.
When you've tried other avenues, what's your recourse?
ie, all of you assuming Lyle didn't try other methods first -- how do you know?
Why jump to the conclusion that he's being the shady one in this instance? The guy is abrasive and I'm sure quite a few people don't like him because he's a giant meanie-head, but one thing he is not is a liar.
I have never claimed that he was a liar. I'm not claiming he's being shady inasmuch as I am playing devil's advocate. I have no idea if he tried other methods. My first action if I suspected something like this is to pick up a phone.
Quote:
I knew about this over a month ago, and I was ready to come in guns a-blazin', but Lyle's actually the one that asked me to hold off.
Why would he do that?
Quote:
Oh not me. I still think it's garbage all the way around.
And the point stands that it's BS that never should have happened to begin with. If there weren't this mad rush to crank out garbage product after garbage product to Get Rich, we wouldn't see this sort of crap going down.
Moving the goal posts. I have never argued for the quality if either author's products. I haven't read them. My argument is based solely on what I have read on this thread and Lyle's blog.
Quote:
Formal legal process = time and money. The reason it went this way is very likely because of that. Would it make sense to spend thousands on a lawyer and court costs to recoup only a fraction of that?
Absolutely yes. For the principle if nothing else.
[hijack]Many years ago I helped create an online supplement company. I worked an insane amount of hours to help this start-up for a tiny piece of it. When it started looking like they might get some pretty serious investment (right towards the end of the internet bubble), they suddenly realized that my 2% was a pretty significant chunk.
We had a large warehouse, and one of my many roles was writing supplement descriptions along with other content, so I had a bunch of stuff on my desk at all times. They accused me of stealing product so they could free up my shares (my contract stated that I wouldn't get them if I was terminated "with cause" so they had to come up with something).
I was broke at that point, and my core business (my gym) suffered a bit in my absence. Regardless, I hired a lawyer and sued them. It took a year to go through the process, but in the end I won my case. I got my shares (which were worth nothing since they eventually went bankrupt) and a small chunk of cash, of which most went to the lawyer, but I got to sit across from the table from each one of those guys and watch them squirm as they had to testify under oath. I don't care how hard or expensive it was... It was worth it!
[/hijack]
Bottom line, it is worth it if there is a legit case to be made. If there isn't, then the assertion that Alwyn plagiarized is just character assassination.
You make some valid arguments. I might challenge your assertion that you don't necessarily have a dog in the fight as you are a frequent contributor to a forum that notoriously slams AC.
I made no claim that I "have no dog in the fight." What I said was, quote, "I have nothing against Alwyn Cosgrove." Esp. as I've heard a lot of good things about him from other fitness pros whose opinions I respect, like Venuto, Berardi, Ballantyne (in spite of Ballantyne's annoying zillion money-maker posts that keep filling up my email inbox), etc. That's regardless of my membership/participation in forums at Lyle McDonald's sites -- whether other people slam him or not, I have not & do not. I hang out on those forums because Lyle is a thorough researcher who provides good, reliable, accurate, well-written info which also works, even for an insulin resistant prediabetic like me.
Lyle's facts I respect, very much; I'm not so impressed by some of his less mature ways of communicating, which unfortunately extends to many of the participants on his forums. He actually has two forums, one (the older) which is plumb-full of hectoring; Lyle opened up a new "polite" one shortly before I came across his stuff in a search for the actual facts (as opposed to bunkum) about ketosis back in early May. I participate extensively in the "polite" forum, not usually in the other one because there's too much useless flaming behavior there. I'm interested in factual info, not partisanship, & if you were to check out the thread about John Berardi on the "polite" forum there, you'd see that I've already got an established record of defending with facts the reliable info provided by fitness professionals other than Lyle who are getting slammed by other members there (including at times, yes, Lyle himself).
All of which is a longwinded way of saying: don't assume that I'm a blind partisan of Lyle's simply because I respect his factual info, & benefit from it; don't assume either that I'm a blind condemnor of Alwyn's because of this controversy.
The problem for me with Alwyn here is that I do think that he plagiarized, if only because he doesn't appear, from what I can see, to have a clear idea of how to distinguish summary or even paraphrase from plagiarism -- even if he hadn't inadvertently dropped his acknowledgment from his most recent resse of his edited-down version of Lyle's fat metabolism chapter. That's just factually so.
I don't assume that he made his error out of evil intent, but the plain fact of the matter is that if he was a university student (I work in an academic environment), he'd have gotten an F for that effort at "summary" & would likely have been kicked out of the course as well, for plagiarism & academic dishonesty. I've seen it happen, from people who meant no evil but simply were ignorant of what the lines were. If he'd been a university faculty member, that effort would have gotten him at very least severe reprimand from his departmental chair, but possibly more severe discipline even to the level of getting booted out of his position.
So he's not a student, & he's not a faculty member: he's a fitness professional who is also a writer out in the big wide world. Well, believe me, writers need to know these lines too. And while I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was attempting to act in good faith & just made mistakes, the fact is that he did make mistakes -- more mistakes than he actually admitted to in his email to Lyle -- & if he wants to restore his integrity in the eyes of the fitness community (including consumers like me), it's incumbent upon him to publicly demonstrate that he's learned from those errors through (1) apology; & (2) learning the difference between "original writing" & "editing other people's work & publishing it under his own name."
Quote:
Not to say that you don't raise some good questions, and not to say that I myself am not biased. I fully admit that I am because I know Alwyn personally, and will give him the benefit of the doubt. Even with my admitted bias, I don't have any negative bias toward Lyle, so I'm not out to prove him wrong.
Fair enough.
Quote:
I personally think that this was handled extremely unprofessionally.
Oh yes. I'd say from the very beginning. Probably back in August 1986, Alwyn should have provided Lyle with an actual copy of the chapter as he had it written (or rather, as edited from Lyle's chapter), & this error could have been nipped in the bud, without hard feelings having to develop between them. I think at the outset they both assumed good faith, & clearly Alwyn has a lot of respect for Lyle's work. But they handled it so informally that an egregious error was committed, which has only gotten worse.
Quote:
If this gets resolved to Lyle's satisfaction (should he take Alwyn's offer up to speak on the phone), he has done a significant amount to damage to Alwyn's reputation, as you can see that this has spread across several forums.
Even if Alwyn were guilty of blatant plagiarism this would not have been the way to handle it. This just started a lynch mob akin to accusing someone of rape or child molestation, where people immediately assume guilt, and the damage is permanent.
Yes, I agree that Lyle should have talked with Alwyn, privately, as soon as he discovered a problem. Given that he is saying Alwyn used Lyle's SFP 1.0 protocol, verbatim & uncredited, in his New Rules of Lifting some time ago, he should have done it then: it likely would have prevented the error from continuing into this latest book; probably the problem with the UD2.0 material would have been discovered then too.
Given that that didn't happen, & instead it came out in public, well, yes -- let's hope he's taken Alwyn up on the private phone call, let's hope they can work this out between them, & the bad opinions that various people on any side of the issue have formed of both or either of them can be redressed, & their reputations restored.
Quote:
I didn't fail to notice that the same people accusing him of blatant plagiarism shifted into a new gear once the past emails showed up, focusing then on the degree of similarity, slamming him for deliberately omitting the passage, or suggesting that the exact same material that he already got permission to publish wasn't "transferable."
The point in my previous post still stands: I'm none too sure that Alwyn ever received permission from Lyle to publish the edited version of Lyle's chapter that was published, because what Lyle was led to believe in Alywyn's original August 2006 email was that he was publishing a summary of the information in his own words, not the shortened version with a few words changed here & there that was essentially (as someone pointed out on one of Lyle's forums) was just a Reader's Digest version of Lyle's chapter. The only way I will agree that Lyle gave him "permission" to publish that chapter as it was is if someone can offer proof that (1) Alywn provided him with a copy of his version of the chapter before publication; & (2) Lyle said, "that's fine, you can go with it."
Again, what Alwyn's original email indicated was, "I am including a summary [implied: written in my own words] of the info from your UD2.0 chapter, but I want to acknowledge it's based on your work; what's the best way to do that, & to direct people to your original work?" That's not "asking for permission." That's asking for citation information. What Lyle said was, "acknowledge me like this." If it really had been a summary written in Alwyn's own words, that would have been well done, & there would be no problem.
Again, I don't assume Alwyn was doing anything other than attempting to act in good faith with that chapter. But he also was not accurate about what his version of the UD2.0 chapter on fat metabolism was, apparently because of ignorance about the dividing line between "summary" or "paraphrase" and "plagiarism."
But given that the chapter wasn't truly written in his own words, but just edited Lyle's words, what he was actually doing was taking Lyle's copyrighted work & publishing it in his own book. Now, let's assume for argument's sake that Lyle knew that, & did give him permission to do that. Nonetheless, any writer who knows squat about protecting their copyright can tell you that granting permission to publish one's work in one work (i.e., Afterburn II, the only Alwyn work mentioned in the original email) does not constitute permission to republish the same work in separate works (i.e., first the Real World Fat Loss Manual, then later Warp Speed Fat Loss). Copyright law is very specific about this kind of thing.
Now, if Alwyn's chapter had truly been a summary, in his own writing, the copyright question wouldn't be an issue, & there would be no necessity for him to ask "permission". But since it wasn't a summary, but an edit of Lyle's original work, copyright is an issue, & he would be required to ask permission for using Lyle's work in each separate work of his own. Or to draw up a contract to begin with that would have had the same effect.
That he never asked permission at all, but simply for information how to attribute the information he had, tells me (because I'm assuming good faith), that he didn't know the line that meant his "summary" wasn't his own writing, really. Though I give him the benefit of the doubt, I can only do so by still faulting him for being professionally ignorant, as a writer about fitness who gets paid for his writing, about intellectual property & copyright. I hope he redresses his ignorance about this.
Quote:
The degree of similarity keeps getting referred to as verbatim. I think maybe I have a different definition of verbatim.
PerfectMartini answered this well enough for me. Except to reiterate that Lyle says his original Stubborn Fat protocol (SFP 1.0) was copied verbatim & unattributed in two of Alwyn's works. I can't assess that claim, as I don't have copies of any of the three works, but I hope what happened there can be clarified too.
Quote:
No one can know for sure if the omission was deliberate, but based on his credibility and his past record for acknowledging where he gets his knowledge, I will lean toward believing it was accidental.
I agree. But, as I've belaboringly made clear by now, that is to me the least of the problems here.
Quote:
As far as transferability, that wasn't the original argument.
So? It's still a valid point. I would reckon that Lyle didn't bring up the transferability argument in his blog in part because he didn't know when he wrote it that Alwyn believed he had a right to that material in that form in the first place. Because (yes I know I'm repeating this endlessly) Alwyn himself didn't seem to realize that he was assuming rights he didn't have over Lyle's original wording.
Quote:
Maybe a valid point, but very different than plagiarism. I would wait and see what Lyle has to say on the topic. That seems like something they should discuss privately.
I hope they are doing that.
Quote:
I guess being a fitness professional with a little visibility (albeit no where near the status of Lyle or Alwyn), I am very sensitive to the viral nature of accusations like this, and I think that if there is any validity to Lyle's accusations that they would have been exposed following a more formal legal process. Trial by mob is not fair and so far that is all this is.
I agree with you there too. I hope that both of them can rise to the challenge to try to sort out the issue from here on out.
Since the thing did come out into public ruckus, my interest has been to attempt to point out that the whole problem didn't probably have its origin in evil intent, but out of a misunderstanding on Alwyn's part about what constitutes "original writing" & what does not.
But given that the chapter wasn't truly written in his own words, but just edited Lyle's words, what he was actually doing was taking Lyle's copyrighted work & publishing it in his own book. Now, let's assume for argument's sake that Lyle knew that, & did give him permission to do that. Nonetheless, any writer who knows squat about protecting their copyright can tell you that granting permission to publish one's work in one work (i.e., Afterburn II, the only Alwyn work mentioned in the original email) does not constitute permission to republish the same work in separate works (i.e., first the Real World Fat Loss Manual, then later Warp Speed Fat Loss). Copyright law is very specific about this kind of thing.
Now, if Alwyn's chapter had truly been a summary, in his own writing, the copyright question wouldn't be an issue, & there would be no necessity for him to ask "permission". But since it wasn't a summary, but an edit of Lyle's original work, copyright is an issue, & he would be required to ask permission for using Lyle's work in each separate work of his own. Or to draw up a contract to begin with that would have had the same effect.
Okay, gotta correct myself here.
Taking into account that Wikipedia sometimes makes mistakes, here's (some of) what it has to say on the subject of plagiarism:
Quote:
(from Wikipedia) Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work
Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier, simply by copying and pasting text from one web page to another.
Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
If this is correct, then copyright is not in fact a legal issue, & Lyle would probably have no legal recourse even if he did attempt to do so, unless a court determined that the level of verbatim quoting was so large as to consitute copyright infringement. (Though in the case of the SFP 1.0 protocol, which is claimed to have been used in its entirety, verbatim & unattributed, Lyle would likely have a case.)
So then the issue comes down to professional ethics & public reputation.
Some might even dispute that it was plagiarism, if the attribution paragraph hadn't fallen away. My own opinion is that it would still be plagiarism with the attribution paragraph for the reason that the portions of Alwyn's version that were verbatim quotes were not placed in quotation marks. Quotation marks would have unambiguously indicated what of the text was Lyle's, & what was Alwyn's.
The lesson seems to be: even if the info is scientifically dense & difficult to frame in your own words, make the effort anyway. Or use quotation marks & attribute clearly.
bold mine)
Linear Mode
