Post-Security-Update Sausages

We'll start off with a look at the bright side of my future:

• In yet further proof that he doesn't know anything of which he writes, Professor Fish op-eds at the NYT on plagiarism, claiming that "Plagiarism is not a philosophical issue." In this, he's flat wrong... and he reaches this conclusion via an argument from inadequate exemplar. The example Fish chose to purportedly illustrate all plagiarism is the copying of a passage in an academic work of nonfiction, which he characterizes as a purely professional offense (and, therefore, not a "philosophical," by which he means "moral," issue). Leaving aside that violating professional standards is a philosophical issue, there's an obvious problem here: He chose the least-likely-to-illuminate exemplar, because one of the other coordinate professional standards is that academics are not supposed to self-identify with their work. Conversely, however, most nonacademic creators — whether we're talking about Fish's own op-ed, the dubious creativity of schlockbuster romance novels or cookie-cutter teen lit, or of a creative work closer to some core of creativity — plagiarism involves a form of identity theft. Identity theft is a moral issue, not just a professional transgression.
• From the department of "means less than it seems to mean," Dorchester announces a shift away from returnable mass-market publishing for its line of originals, going to an e-book first/POD trade-paperback later model. Leaving aside for the moment whether its contracts allow this, it does make some sense for a niche publisher (and perhaps for other niche projects/publishers, too). However, it is as much a reflection of the financial reality and payment delays in publishing as anything else; basically, Dorchester's finances have gotten precarious enough over the last three years that it can't pay the printer for 5,000 copies and then get paid for 2,000 by bookstores a year later, along with the returns. In short, this isn't about e-books; it's about the returns system.
• From Bob's Country Bunker, we've got both kinds here: An unrepentant wrongdoer and a politically motivated prosecution thereof. Two wrongs don't make a right. Lerach's conduct was unacceptable. It was also unexceptional, particularly among the insurance-defense bar. Meanwhile, a Harvard professor tried to scare an ABA meeting by proclaiming that "Clients are beginning to consider the quality of the work product delivered, rather than being satisfied simply because a named partner with an impressive pedigree promises that he's 'on top of it.'" Yeah, that's going to go away just as soon as the corporate clients are satisfied with an Avalon instead of a Lexus.
• On the basis of this dubious trademark case (PDF), perhaps the People's Front of Judea might have a case against the Popular Front of Judea...
• Thanks to squabbling among the children and alleged attempts (denied, of course) by some of the bullies to gang up on everyone else, the FCC has ended facilitated negotiations on network neutrality. So, I suspect that what the children are going to get instead is more playground monitors — the exact thing that these talks were "supposed" to avoid in the first place. Well done, everyone! Those short-term interests sure look a lot better now, don't they? And, as Professor Grimmelmann notes, this isn't exactly isolated behavior.