Some dumbass reporter (Stephen Koff, skoff@plaind.com, 216-999-4212) accuses the Sherrod Brown campaign of plagiarizing Nathan Newman's research on Alito's labor record. Reporter completely ignores the substance of Nathan's research (Alito's anti-labor record). Nathan tells the dumbass reporter that
he's an idiot.
While some bloggers obsess over copyright and getting "credit" and shit like that, most of us are simply happy when our ideas and arguments gain wider currency. Nathan, a labor blogger, was probably quite happy to hear that Brown was using his research on Alito to hold DeWine accountable on the Alito nomination. For some reporter to make an issue out of it, when the so-called victim didn't have a problem with it, is bizarre.
As Nathan notes, "Did the Plain Dealer do an indepth analysis of Alito's labor record in response? No, they created a bullshit meta-story that was of such supposed breaking news value that they couldn't wait for me to get back from my mini-honeymoon to get my reaction."
For the record, the copyright notice at the bottom of this page basically gives permission to Brown and anyone else to use whatever they want from the site: "Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified." Note that I don't use a license that requires attribution nor any other type of citation. As long as diarists don't assert ownership of their content, it's public domain.
So campaigns like Brown's can use it without permission, attribution, or whatever. In a war of ideas, nothing can help the cause more than a free and unfettered flow of ideas.
(And while we're on the subject, here's Nathan's great post on Alito's labor record.)