1. deltoid
  2. Monckton copyright scofflaw

Monckton copyright scofflaw

By tlambert on August 6, 2008.

Eli Rabett has the latest: Monckton and SPPI seem to think that if you declare that it is "for educational purposes" you can ignore copyright.

Tags
Monckton

More like this

Lott, Ball, Monckton?
William Connolley has the latest on Monckton. It seems that he's throwing around threats to sue for libel. Also Eli Rabett describes yet another Monckton error.
Obama's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Is Not Hopey or Changey
Over at BoingBoing, we read about the leaked version of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a copyright treaty (so much for the Obama Administration's commitment to transparency. Maybe it's something in the White House water?). Two items caught my eye: â¢That ISPs have to cut off the…
Why is Monckton afraid of a debate with Abraham?
Monckton's response to Abraham has drawn the attention of bloggers everywhere. George Monbiot finds it "magnificently bonkers". Gareth Renowden examines Monckton's claim to have a science background. Eli Rabett is collecting limericks. Richard Littlemore believes if they look at Abraham's…
Bolt lost in stratosphere
John Quiggin catches Andrew Bolt pointing to stratospheric cooling as evidence against global warming. Stratospheric cooling is one of the pieces of evidence that suggest that the warming at the Earth's surface (where people other than Andrew Bolt live) is caused by greenhouse gasses rather than…

The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Clinton Did It... Clinton Did It... Clinton Did It... The Clenis Did It... The Clenis Did It... The Clenis Did It... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... China Did It... China Did It... China Did It... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Galileo... Galileo... Galileo... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om... Om...

It'll come.

Perhaps there should be a petition to encourage Smith to sue Monckton!

The knave deserves it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Aug 2008 #permalink

Bernard J.:

When there are so many petitions floating around, things can get pretty confusing. Of course, that's OK with the inactivists, who love confusion, but perhaps we should do better. :)

Tim,

Since your above post Arthur Smith has posted the following at Rabbett's blog,

"Actually, this is the first chance I've had to look at it, and it looks like they did meet the conditions I requested, at least in the updated version on the SPPI website."

I'm sure your, and Eli's, apology to Monckton is forthcoming.

Clueless, Frank.

Best,

D

I demand you issue forthwith a full and complete and also not incomplete apology to the Fourth and Final Discount Monk of Peter Benchley. How dare you?

Dear Lance,

You may have noticed that Arthur Smith's demand of Monckton was

Since your posting it is in violation of my copyright, I demand you either:

(A) immediately take it down, or
(B) post a modified copy removing any mention of "The American Physical Society"

and

(C) Publicly issue a correction on the above web page including the statement I made above, that "I was in no way representing the society, and my work was in no way authorized, suggested, sponsored, or even approved by any other employee or official of the society beyond myself. "

Monckton did not do that although Smith may (after Eli's post on the matter) have subsequently waived these conditions. I stand by my post.

Dear Eli,

Monckton should obviously not misrepresent Arthur Smith as representing the APS.

That said he certainly has the right to respond to a paper publically criticizing, and citing, his work.

Not by copying the whole thing and before it is accepted and published. As Eli remembers (and he don;t remember too good lately) you are/were a graduate student. Did they throw you off the island for not studying the tribal mores?

Eli,

Quoting Monckton from your blog,

"Soon thereafter, a database manager for the American Physical Society, Arthur Smith, drafted and circulated a critique of Monckton's paper."

Assuming this is true, Monckton was just responding to something Smith had "circulated" himself.

Would you not grant Monckton the right to rebut Smith's rebuttal?

As Mary McCarthy once said about Lillian Hellman, when you quote Monckton, be aware that every word is a lie including the and and.

Dr. Smith sent a copy of his manuscript to the Forum on Physics and Society (a submission) to the Physics and Society, the Forum's current president (Zwicker) and to the authors of the papers he commented on

Monckton
David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz

This is by no means "circulating" the document, but submission with a courtesy copy to those whose work was commented on. In the usual run of things they would be asked by the newsletter for responses. Monckton then independently published Smiths comment without permission. Monckton is perfectly free to publish his own writings. He is not free to publish that of others without permission.

"He is not free to publish that of others without permission."

Fair enough.

If your version of the incident is correct Monckton jumped the gun and should apologize to Smith.