Friday, June 29, 2012

Gene Burmington | An Open Letter To Dave Vara

| »

The following is a guest post by Gene Burmington.

Davy Vara
Davy Vara

I'm noticing a great deal of drama on this blog due to your misunderstanding of very elementary materials. What makes your claims illegitimate is that Mr. McKen has been running the blog the same way for years, and it can be argued that he is ultimately doing a good job with it, as he hasn't received any other complaints from others that he quoted from.

Given the grand cosmological odds of the internet, you'd think that if Joé were doing something wrong or dishonest, he would have been caught by now, but no. Perhaps you think blogs must follow the scholarly edict that requires a great deal more citation for a work, but for such strictly casual purposes as these, no serious authentication is required.

In McKen's second response to your further threats of litigation, he is more than reasonable to elaborate all that he has done to outline fair use and give an author all credit needed as per the free use statutes of the internet. Despite your bold claims and those of your legal representative, McKen is not "stealing" any of your work. Quoted in context, it is very clear that he didn't write or take responsibility as the originator of those words. Imagine for a second, sir, how tedious it would become if Joé had to place your name right under every single quotation, as is required of other, more formal works.

I do not know what the typical traffic is that your articles receive on average, but I'm sure it's more than a fair assumption that some of views your article received came from the reference in Joé's post. I personally went to read your article after I found it referenced on this blog. People following Joé often follow the hyperlinks he provides so that they may see the author's original words for themselves.

In regards to your accusation of libel, you present a contradiction. How can there be libel against you if you claim not to be represented in the article? That is a fair bit absurd. Sir, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is clear indication that you are being directly targeted with false accusations, or there is no such mention. Furthermore, exactly how are you being libeled, seeing as Joé makes no mention of you in his post? All he expressed was his remarkable distaste for the behavior of the police officers mentioned in your article, not yourself.

Lastly, I am fairly in agreement with Mr. McKen with regards to your legal help. As in, they aren't. Whatever silly ideas your paralegal representative has filled you with, he is either ignorant of common-use laws, or he is simply arrogant, if he thinks he can find a loophole in that mess that is your plagiarism fantasy.