Friends,

I'm no lawyer, but "plagiarism" is not usually a legal issue, unless there is a strong case for fraud or copyright infringement. It is an ethical issue, prohibited not by the law but by codes of conduct at universities, or an internalized sense of acting in good faith as scholars, giving credit where credit's due, and so on. There are a few widely-accepted definitions of plagiarism, but this discussion will never end if we try to adjudicate the matter. In any case, it's up to the copyright holders to take legal action.

All of us probably had opinions about RM's agitations before the plagiarism accusations. I don't suppose any of those opinions have been changed; mine, at least, has been confirmed. I appreciated hearing about the matter through INDOLOGY, but I think we have been in the "diminishing returns" part of the discussion for some time.

Andrew

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos@uni-muenchen.de> wrote:

Howard Resnick wrote:

> […] If Arlo is right, then why treat the offender with all the rage reserved
> for for malicious, criminal intent?

At the risk of being perceived as 'aggressive in tone' again, I would
like to quote, in humble respect towards my readers, what I wrote
already ten days ago:

"What we see in the case of Malhotra is not mere conscious copying, but
also tinkering with the precise wording. One cannot do this if one
honestly wishes to quote another author."

> Best,

RZ

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)

http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)