There's more of it here. Sure, there's no crime in it, except stealing.

I mildly disagree. Dylan's work is peppered with literary references. This isn't lifting text a la Ambrose but it's pretty disappointing. Artists find inspiration from many places and lifts like these are pretty common without a songwriting credit. I can think of at least a dozen instances where Costello has done it. That, however, is over a 25 year career. Zimmy has, according the the WSJ article, "tweaked" a dozen phrases from this one work alone on one album. Pretty embarassing.

I guess the good news is that the author isn't offended and is happy for the attention. Which begs the question - are these his phrases or the voice of the English translator?

Bob, borrow? Are you kidding?
Just start at the very first album.

He's still the greatest, cause he knows what to beg, borrow and steal. He's the lyrical king of Ready-Made.

Any outrage should be tempered by the fact that millions of people now are aware of this Japanese writer whom they'd never heard of before. References like this give resonance to Dylan's songs, or anyone's. The title "Love and Theft" is itself lifted from a recent scholarly book about black face minstrelsy, which is pretty self-deprecating on Dylan's part. Not to mention funny. 8^)

I'd note that circumstantial evaluation of situations like this leads to favoratism toward stealing of which we approve. This is pretty clearly derivative work and the law doesn't make exceptions because you're a much beloved songwriter. "Literary references" are presumably recognized allusions, rather than taking unknown phrases from an obscure writer and claiming that you wrote them.

Dr. Saga's newfound fame is a result of Dylan getting caught, not because he's sought to acknowledge his work, or that of the translator. The consequences may be the same, but it seems odd to forgive Dylan's transgressions because of something someone else did. If an undergrad in one of my classes engaged in the liberal "borrowing" of phrases of this magnitude, without attribution, I'd seek disciplinary action.

I'm pleased that Dr. Saga isn't upset by the borrowing, because it seems like a situation wherein everyone could come out a winner. I'm just a little disturbed at the readiness of people to forgive something of Dylan that another person wouldn't get away with so easily.

Plagiarists like Jayson Blair and Mike Barnacle are empty-headed creeps who steal to hide their lack of inspiration -- the same motivation as undergrads who've stayed out late drinking instead of writing their term paper. Dylan doesn't quite meet this profile, to put it mildly. Anyone who'd ever written a song or book would recognize the difference. The title of Dylan's previous album, "Time Out of Mind," may or may not have been lifted from a song by Warren Zevon. After WZ was diagnosed with terminal cancer last year, Dylan took the extraordinary step of playing several Zevon songs per night in his live shows. This is a rare form of tribute, and a weakened Zevon himself showed up at one of the gigs because it had moved him so. Artists have a clearer understanding of these things than some detached observers have.

Borrowing phrases for song lyrics falls into the category of homage, a way for the writer to tip his cap to someone who inspired him. Dylan has never gone out of his way to explain himself, which probably makes him an easy target for anyone who'd take him to task for doing what every artist does. A much older Dylan song, "Stuck Inside of Mobile (With the Memphis Blues Again)," includes the line "All those railroad men just drink up your blood like wine," which came straight from an old Bascomb Lamar Lunsford song. Do you think I'd have ever heard of Lunsford if not for Dylan? When the "Confessions of a Yakuza" author complains, that's when I'll start to worry. Which is to say: Never.

Vern defends with gusto, because he steals like crazy himself... ;-)

IMHO, labeling what Dylan did/does stealing is akin to zero tolerance and an over-reaction. The Japanese author has an healthy attitude about it, so should we. But in these days of intellectual property and copyright protection above all else, I guess it's to be expected. Gonna play the sue me sue you blues (sorry George!). Speaking of, the settlement on the She's So Fine/My Sweet Lord unconscious borrow still rings of injustice. Both stand as unique contributions to the pop cannon, from All Those Years Ago.

The point for me is whether Dylan's work stands as art in it's own right (/write - sorry Johnny!). Even now that we see Dylan might have borrowed some words, do the songs shrink, as works of art?

Like the scraps of ocean debris in an Octopuses Garden, ok...I'll stop before we get to Paul. His silly love songs are all his.

While it might be painful to acknowledge it, copyright law makes no distinction between Dylan and Jayson Blair. If you use someone else's words or ideas without attribution (such as a mention in the liner notes, and at that point he would have ostensibly requested and received permission to use the author's language), you're violating that person's copyright.

So he uses it for good, for the sake of art. It doesn't matter if Dylan has been artistically inspired and has created his best album in years. What about the Vanilla Ice case, where he stole that bit from Queen's "Under Pressure"? He lost that case, because it was clear that he was using someone else's creative ideas and claiming them as his own.

So this Japanese author doesn't want to sue, and will get more awareness, publicity, more books sold out of it. That's great, but that doesn't make what Dylan did less wrong. If the author wanted to he'd probably have a good case for copyright violation. Just because it's Dylan and not Vanilla Ice doesn't make it ok.

What if somebody cheesy like Justin Timberlake used Dylan's (original) lyrics in some song and claimed them as his own songwriting? Justin's pretty little head would be on the chopping block, both from fans and from Dylan's legal people. That's why permissions are required in order to do music sampling in songs, like all the Puffy Combs crap. Copyright allows a person to protect their creative work, to be duly acknowledged and compensated for its use. If Dylan had gotten permission, he could use whatever the author said was ok to use. But this guy's words are on Dylan's album, for which only Dylan is making royalties. Why should it be ok for him to get artistic credit and make money off of someone else's work, just because he's Dylan?

Granted, the law's getting messy now in the digital age. But the law is not selective, it doesn't recognize quality or purity of artistic purpose. What matters in applying the law is whether the instance meets the law's standards for whether or not copyright has been violated. The status of the parties involved is irrelevant.

I couldn't say it better than Lady C. Like it or not, intellectual property is property and defending theft because you like the specific result or because you're a fan of the perp is no way to approach an ethical or legal question. "Homage," again, rings as hollow as literary reference, since no effort is made to acknowledge the source.

As for Dr. Saga complaining, he did say that Dylan acknowledging his use of Saga's lines would be "very honorable." I hope I would be as mature if somebody stole text from my recently produced copyrighted work without crediting me. As I am a published author, this isn't merely hypothetical.

Copyright law is much more flexible than its depiction in popular myth. IP, unlike most property rights, is supposed to expire so that its productive use isn't lost and I'm sure a lot of the sources Dylan and many other writers use are in public domain. Fair use also allows a variety of quotation and reproduction for some purposes, but usually requires attribution.

Once again, it seems like in this case everybody's going to come out ahead, especially if Dylan acknowledges his inspiration, and that's nice. It would also be nice if famous artists were held to the same principled standards others are, but I guess that's too much to ask.

Justin's new song is called "Cry Me A River."
I wonder if Arthur Hamilton is worried about that... ;-)

I think song titles aren't subject to the same rules.

As much as I see the points being made by Dean and Vernam, I have to agree with Scott and LC. I think it's fine to slip in a little reference or line here or there, as Dylan has done in the past—and I should also state that I'm a huge Dylan fan—but it's quite obvious that Bob consciously lifted those lines from the book. I think it would have been fine if he'd noted which lines were borrowed, either through a general mention of the "Yakuza" book in the liner notes, or, preferably by footnoting which lines were borrowed/adapted, as I've seen other songwriters do.

I used to chuckle each time I heard the lines:
"Samantha Brown lived in my house for about four or five months/Don't know how it looked to other people/I never slept with her even once"... now I feel kind of cheated.

I always wondered why the title of the album is in quotation marks. Kind of ironic, I suppose. Unless Bob had some larger artistic reason for the whole thing. Maybe it's all borrowed/adapted from obscure sources? Maybe he sees it as an extension of the folk song tradition? All I know is, if he borrowed liberally from something I wrote, and didn't bother to attribute it to me, I'd be pissed.

Plaigarism my ass! The man is simply very well read, and is very clearly in his own words, expressing both his impressions of what he has just read and cluing us in on quality literary material so we can all partake of it. As the saying goes "a good book holds more treasures than the largest bank".

And any so-called " Dylanologist should know that F. Scott Fitgerald is the primary reading source of " LOve and Theft". "Summer Days" DUH! The great Gatsby! In Mississippi- "Well, the Devil's in the alley" DIRECTLY FROM Fitgerald's "This Side of Paradise" Mule's in the stall- well every literate person should know that refers to Hemingway!
Anyone who says Dylan is not a genius-Well,give it up!!

I meant Fitzgerald- my "Z' key stuck! Sorry:-)