Prison time for Baron zu Guttenberg?

It turns out that the "Copy-Gate" affair concerning EX-defense minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is not quite over.  The legal ordeal is just beginning, since zu Guttenberg enjoyed some level of immunity from prosecution while holding office.  Now that he has resigned, the criminal investigation can commence.

Die Zeit has information on the more than 100 complaints filed against zu Guttenberg.  They accuse the baron of breaking three separate laws:

Die Anzeigenerstatter werfen Guttenberg Verstöße gegen das Urheberstrafrecht, Untreue und Titelmissbrauch vor.

(The complainants accuse Guttenberg of violating the copyright laws. of disloyalty and of misusing the (doctorate) title.) 

The unauthorized use of the doctorate title is most likely difficult to prove, since the title was actually conferred by the University of Bayreuth.  (Why the university failed to detect the numerous instances of plagiarism is another issue: the reputation of Uni Bayreuth has certainly suffered a blow.)

It may also be difficult to prove that zu Guttenberg misused his office - and the taxpayers' money - for private purposes (Untreue). 

The most serious charge is the violation of German copyright law:

Am ehesten Substanz hat wohl der Vorwurf einer strafbaren Verletzung des Urheberrechts. Nach Paragraf 106 des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist die Vervielfältigung eines Werks «ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten» strafbar - mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder Geldstrafe. Die seitenweise Übernahme fremder Texte in einer Dissertation ist damit grundsätzlich strafbar.

(The charge most likely to stick is the accusation of a criminal infringement of copyright. Clause 106 of the Copyright Act, reproduction of a work "without the consent of the origianl author " us a criminal offense - with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.  Using pages of copied texts without attribution in a dissertation is in principle a prosecutable offense.)

Here are the relevant parts of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz):

Article 107 Unlawful Affixing of Designation of Author

(1) Any person who:

1. without the author's consent, affixes a designation of author (Article 10(1)) to the original of a work of fine art or distributes an original bearing such designation,

2. affixes a designation of author (Article 10(1)) on a copy, adaptation or transformation of a work of fine art in such manner as to give to the copy, adaptation or transformation the appearance of an original or distributes a copy, adaptation or transformation bearing such designation,

shall be liable to imprisonment for up to three years or a fine if the offense does not carry a more severe penalty under other provisions.

(2) The attempt to commit such an offense shall be punishable.

If the Internet sleuths behind the GuttenplagWiki have done their work correctly, the prosecuters have an open and shut case against the baron. 

Comments

[John in Michigan, USA]

More importantly: when was the last time a prominent plagiarist was actually prosecuted under this law? When was the last time a prominent plagiarist actually got *jail time*?

Your enthusiasm for his head is unseemly and disproportionate. Outside of alleged plagiarism, what is is supposed to have done that is so awful?

Will you call for the head of the film aristocrat, Roman Polanski?

Do note, he was actually convicted, released early on very special permission due to his connections to big business (Hollywood is the ultimate company town), was found to be back at his old tricks (allegedly, molesting children at a Paris disco instead of completing his film like he was supposed to), and then became a fugitive from justice.

Will you call for the well-documented violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in ClimateGate to be prosecuted?

Waiting...

[David]

Who said I was calling for his imprisonment? I am just trying to understand the crimes he is being charged with by the state. Ascribing views on Polanski et al to me is absurd.

[John in Michigan, USA]

Well, since you wrote the part about "imprisonment for up to three years" in bold, and described the case as "open and shut", I assumed you were.

And I can't help noticing you avoided the chance to actually state your position re jail time. So: are you saying that, given the facts as you know them today, you would speak out against his imprisonment?

I didn't ascribe any views to you re Polanski or ClimateGate, instead, I asked what your views are about these crimes (alleged, in the later case). And we're still waiting.

And I'd be interested to see the list of prominent Germans who have been jailed for a single, albeit flagrant, case of plagiarism.

[David]

Actually I hope he doesn't go to jail, since that would make him even more of a martyr in the eyes of his admirers. I recall what happened last time a charismatic political leader was put in a Bavarian prison.

I've written extensively about the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal in Germany and don't feel compelled to discuss Polanski's crimes in this forum.

[Strahler 70]

Rhön-Klinikum AG donated 750,000 € to the University of Bayreuth. Guess who was on the board.

[Strahler 70]

Pro Guttenberg demos poorly frequented.
München: 300
Hamburg: 300
Berlin: 100
Köln: 50
Bremen and Hannover: cancelled

[John in Michigan, USA]

Polanski's crimes are a good window for understanding international differences (which of them are real, which of them are superficial or politically motivated).

What about discussing ClimateGate? I've searched the archives (via Google) and not found any posts.

Your concern for academic or artistic integrity seems limited to scoring political points.

Perhaps these issues (Polanski, ClimateGate) are just too complex?

[David]

"ClimateGate" was a phony controversy dreamed up by the birther crowd for the FoxNews audience. It has nothing to do with Germany, which is the focus of this blog.

[John in Michigan, USA]

You've been getting too much of your news from Fox, David! If you think ClimateGate was phony or dreamed up, you don't understand it. Actually, Fox was behind the curve, the controvery had been brewing for years before they covered it much. But you managed to include several of your favorite rhetorical buzz-concepts while avoiding the question. If the thing is so phoney, why not just explain why?

For example, read about "The Jesus Paper"

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Don't you think it wrong that the scientists cannot follow their own rules for publication? Doesn't this demean the concept of peer review? Please note, the critics include fully accredited scientists whose politics range left and right.

Another example: Do you really think the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035 as was 'proven' by 'peer reviewed' science?

The UN IPCC didn't just withdraw their chairman's claim about the Himalayan glaciers because of a phony controversy. Why would they do that unless there was a real problem?

In this case, there was specific, scientific misconduct that was admitted. As you read more, you will see it was unlikely to have been an innocent mistake, but even if it was, the coverup was a disgrace (and the chairman still hasn't explained or fully admitted his 'error')

And there are at least 10 more examples of serious problems that fall under the heading ClimateGate.

Shouldn't someone loose their job?

[David]

Penn State Univ. conducted an exhaustive inquiry into "controversy" and reported there is nothing there. If you want to debate ClimateGate engage the PhD scientists at Penn State. Case closed.

[John in Michigan, USA]

Did you actually read the report from Penn State?

http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

The report had many flaws, including:

"At the time of initiation of the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of
research misconduct had been submitted to any University official. Therefore, the emails
and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell, and from these she synthesized the
following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put
forth but rather her best effo11 to reduce to reviewable allegations the many different
accusations that were received from pm1ies outside of the University. The four
synthesized allegations were as follows..."

"Synthesized allegations?!?"

This is flat out untrue, there *were* formal accusations. I've linked to some of them. The emails themselves talk about how important it was to prevent the formal allegations from being published, and otherwise supress them. Remember, the accused had allegedly hijacked the peer review process.

So, the committee's approach was to erect a straw man, and then destroy it. Also, they somehow failed to interview a single one of the major, credentialed critics.

Even in that favorable environment, they could not exonerate Mann on 1 out of 4 "synthesized" counts, and recommended an additional investigation. See page 5 of the PDF, bottom of the page.

This is typical of how the dam begins to crack in a highly politically charged field. It is very hard to get the establishment to pay attention to the substance, because the substance is so devastating.

Somehow, your media sources have distorted this into a vindication!

[David]

Look, the vast majority of scientists at respected institutions around the world support the science of anthropogenic global warming.

Until they collectively come to the conclusion that "OMG, Glenn Beck was right! We were mistaken!" I'll follow the scientific community.

If you believe they are all mistaken, take it up with them. I didn't realize you were a climatologist and had data that could convince them of their errors.

[John in Michigan, USA]

The topic was academic misconduct; why pretend that I've asked you to debate the entirety of the science of AGW (I'd like to, but that would be off topic)? One doesn't need to take a position for or against the AGW theory in order to criticize misconduct such as I've documented.

You make a good point about media martyrs. I think the ClimateGate misconduct should not result in jail time.

Glenn Beck is a muckraking journalist, although he can be fun to watch, I take everything he says with somewhere between a grain and a mound of salt. Why do you keep trying to inject him and Fox into the conversation? What straw man will you erect next?

I went out of my way to congratulate you when you turned out to be right about the Baron. Why can't you give me the decency of responding directly to my real points, instead of avoiding them at all costs?

I have shown clear cases of academic misconduct. You seem only interested in misconduct when it serves your political agenda. Is Harvard nothing but a refuge for close-minded "academics"? Why not engage? Are you really so egotistical to believe that all the important questions have been answered and nothing remains but activism?