Originally Posted by kennyc
There are laws - copyright laws (and others) that limit the use of other creators work. She overstepped the bounds, she broke the law and the trust by not saying it up front. That's why it's wrong. Not circular at all.
Ah, I didn't realize it was a conversation about lawfulness. I thought it was a conversation about whether it was a or could be "good" book or not. The suggestion seemed to be that because the way in which the book was compiled it was rendered automatically a bad thing. I thought it was some kind of moral argument. Presumably you think there are never any circumstances under which breaking the law is right, or at least not wrong, (from protesting monks in Burma to DRM strippers - think about it).
Now that her publisher has acknowledged her sources - there are rules about how much of a work another author can cite - is she no longer breaking the law? If she is no longer breaking the law what she did is not - on your account - wrong. Am I understanding you correctly?