However, since the Rambam is quoting text from the gemarrah, those works (under current law of the land) would have been considered public domain. Tthe current situation would seem to include a bit of stealing a la copyright infringement - forest through the trees - Rabbi.

Hardly anything one writes is totally original. The sky is blue. Certainly, I'm not the first to notice that. Who should I credit when I repeat that? Our writings would become so full of credits it would become unreadable. Some things are so obvious that the contribution any any particular individual is too insignificant to justify credit. Rambam recognized the relative obviousness to him, from a logical POV. Perhaps it just isn't quite as obvious to some readers. Misrepresentation, however, is deception, lies and false. There is NO justification for it and NO defense of it. If sheeple choose to shoot the messenger and won't pay attention to the value of the reasoning (and it's true that they usually lack that capability, unknowingly worshiping everything from Jzeus to Rashi to Kant), then that's the reality and everyone must live with it and each is accountable for their own acceptance or rejection. That's life... and free will. Ha-Sheim doesn't override anyone's free will or deceive them. Neither may any mortal; and any mortal who does so is UNlike, contradicts and violates, ha-Sheim and His Torah.

if the idea is a religouse one it may be sourced or not as the idea is more important than the source as an example -moses and the good man who teache moses holy things when they traveled in a baot and when he killed the boy and rebuilt the wall ...etc.. here the idea is moses the prophet but the good man knows better than him on some aspcts but realy any saying of moses was commeted by moss as was the one brought the rules from the sky ... this is abought religion but other aspects in sceince or philosophy or any life aspects it must be follow the sources as any one do it for th life and god but religous idea is for god sake only

The is no concept of copyright by Jewish authors and one may take an idea expressed by one and use it, even without giving a source. Why? Because all of the Torah ideas, even ones that Moses did not say, are really the ideas of G-d and there can not be any copyright on this since it is His will that all of Torah be out there for all. See Moshe Feinstien's t'shuvot... But to mention the source is praiseworthy since who ever mentions the source brings the Geula closer...

What Rabbi Broyde did was more than lack of attribution, he created an alter ego who's only purpose was to praise him, this is a personality fault. What the others did was present an idea as their own when it wasn't, The Rambam said the ideas were not his own. also the Chief Rabbi misrepresented his academic credentials, he could have survived one but not both.

Christians knew to expect it two thousand years ago and therefore removed themselves from Jewish orthodoxy. They have been thriving since then, thus proving that Christianity knew what they were doing two thousand years ago. Currently, we the atheists are AGAIN doing it to ALL the religions, because all of them have nothing new to say in the face of science. As to religious plagiarism, who gives a hoot?

Brackmann could be priest, imam, Montezuma's revenge, whatever, but he's no rabbi at all. So why is he mouthing here about people he cannot even grasp what they are doing ?

The Gemara actually is very precise in recording who said what, and who had heard whatever from his teacher so-and -so. Why not stick to that worthy tradition? Plagiarism, on the other hand, especially when it is done to gain money, fame or power, has more than just a taste of theft to it. While the Rambam did what he did for lofty purposes, I doubt that modern figures who plagiarize have his stature and intergity.

Perhaps to deepen this article, one might quote the Magen Avraham in Orech Chaim siman 156 si’if katan 2 where he states that" If one hears a din and knows that the halacha is so it is permitted to say it in the name of an adam gadol in order that they accept it from him [Eruvin daf 51, Pesachim daf 112] ". This in turn is based on the comment of Rashi on Pesachim 112a explaining the phrase "Hang yourself on a great tree" so as to mean "Say it in the name of a great man" (note that others, including his grandson the Rashbam, explain that gemora differently( and also Eruvin 51a where Raba told Rav Yosef that a halacha had been said in the name of Rabbi Yosi, when in fact it hadn't, because he knew that Rav Yosef would accept the halacha if said in the name of Rabbi Yosi. I confess I find this discussion difficult - as do others, see for example the sources brought by Rav Ovadiah in Yabiat OmerYabiat Omer Chelek 2 Choshen Mishpat siman 3 oit 7 which also brings a discussion of the counter sources), but nevertheless it is important to be aware of these sources within our tradition. One would need more than a talkback box to fully develop any kind of philosophical position based on these sources, but the thrust does seem to be along the lines of - if greater truth is going to be served by using the name of an known gadol, by allowing people to be open to true halachos that they would otherwise reject, there is scope for such attribution. It presumably links up with the more famous cases where lying is permitted, such as for shalom bayit (Hashem to Avraham, Yosef to his brothers) etc

I am happy to see that his topic is being discussed. I think, however, that you missed a very important distinction. I is one thing to mention that you might be quoting and to leave out the names of the source. It is quite another - and wrong - to take ownership over an idea, without acknowledging that it is not somebodies own. As to pseudepigrapha - we don't know that it was acceptable. I think especially with books of mysticisim where an argument is not being made for the idea - but it is being hung onto a false tradition - this is very wrong. It is strange to find somebody who would believe supernatural ideas without knowing how the author came to know these ideas about the world.

Visit this site with plagiarism song: "Lobachevsky", performed by Tom Lehrer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQHaGhC7C2E

The usual reason why academics plagiarize is to convince other people that they are smarter than they really are. It would not be a stretch to guess that these two rabbis, both active in communal leadership positions, copied others' works to enlarge themselves. People don't reach these public/political positions by accident. More evidence of rot at the "highest" levels. Sadly

Rabbi Brackman amalgamates the "unorthodox literary strategies" of Rabbi Broyde (a very true appraisal) with the outrageous plagiarism and concealment thereof engaged in by the Chief Rabbi of France. Why, given his concern, does he remain silent in the face of the prosecution of Raphael Golb in New York, in retaliation for a provocatively satirical Internet sock-puppet and “impersonation” campaign concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy? In the course of that campaign, it is well known that Raphael Golb used "unorthodox literary strategies" to call attention to allegations of plagiarism against the former chairman of the Jewish Studies department at NYU. Those allegations were originally made by an Israeli journalist in 1993, but were never investigated at NYU. Rabbi Brackman asserts that he is "strongly opposed to any type of plagiarism." Despite his concern about this phenomenon, he comes to the defense of other rabbis who engaged in conduct arguably far worse than anything Raphael Golb did, and who have not even been charged with a crime. For further information on the trial of the "Dead Sea Scrolls provocateur," who is facing six months of jail as a result of a blatant act of Mesirah and in face of the silence of the Jewish community, see the documentation at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/