![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Plagiarism & Copyright
A website called Plagiarism Today posted a thoughtful response to my rather off-the-cuff send-up of a website devoted to helping teachers catch and punish kids who are using internet technology to plagiarize school projects. This is obviously a lot more heated of area of discussion than I was aware of when I put together that piece last night. I’m glad we’re having the chance to continue the conversation further. In any case, I’m used to wading through minefields of heated discussion. If anything, I’m attracted to them because they offer explosive potentials for learning and growth on all sides.
The website Plagiarism Today’s tagline is “Exploring the wasteland of plagiarism online”, which to me is a really bizarre thing to write about. But hey, I write about the occult and stuff that people think is nuts, so if you’re fascinated by plagiarism, then I say more power to you.
Anyway, rather than try to reply to everything that JB, the author from that website, wrote in response to my piece, I thought this one section of it would make for an interesting discussion.
Finally, on a personal level, I take great exception to the fact that he offers support to those who plagiarize without even paying lip service to the copyright holders they steal from. Like most interested in academic plagiarism, he pays no attention to the rights of the original copyright holders or their feelings about seeing their work passed off as someone else’s.
Be it academic, journalistic, poetic, artistic or musical, we all build our careers based upon ownership of our prior works. Having them stolen, even in an academic setting, diminishes that and hampers both our credibility and our livelihood. The rampant plagiarism on the Web discourages countless individuals from posting their work, be it academic or artistic, and depriving the public of access to it. Apparently, even the new models of knowledge require some level of copyright protection to be completely successful.
As a very prolific internet author, I have to say that people rip me off all the time. I actually think it’s really positive because it means I’m having an impact on people. I even have ALL my content licensed for use under a flexible Creative Commons license, which allows for non-commercial use by attribution, provided people share and share alike. Though I don’t currently license any of my projects under them, I also wholeheartedly support Copyleft and other public domain intellectual property initiatives.
The fact is that I think most copyright and intellectual property law is too restrictive and stifles rather than stimulates cultural growth. So do I get pissed when people post things that I’ve written to other websites? Yes it’s happened, and no I don’t get pissed. 999 times out of a thousand, the person cross-posting it includes either my name or a link to my website, and usually both. If people want to see it in it’s original context, they can go check it out. I consider it free advertising. On the other hand, if somebody’s out there making money off my work that I could be making myself, then sure I’m going to pursue that with more vigor. It’s not happened yet - knock on wood. But I happen to think that the best way for me to prevent other people making money off my stuff is simply to do it myself. Figure out the best way to make the most from it; that’s what I’m in the process of doing now. Beyond that, I recommend making your work distinct enough that it’s instantly recognizable as yours. My best protection against somebody making money off my work is that so many people know my work and would tell me as soon as they spotted it.
If JB’s comments above are really accurate, I find it completely comical that there are people who are sitting around wanting to post their work online but fucking terrified that they’ll be plagiarized. Come on folks! Your ideas can’t be that original that everybody in the entire world is going to come and steal them the very second you post online. And if they do, you know what that means? That means you become famous! *Gasp!*
To me, these kinds of excuses sound like (A) timidity masking deeper problems with either the work or the person’s confidence in their work, or (B) an uncertainty about how information really works on the internet, or how information translates into money. If you’re too scared of leaving your house because of possibly getting mugged, you’re never going to see the wider world out there or meet any of the interesting people in it. The web isn’t a “wasteland of plagiarism”, it’s a breeding ground for new ideas built out of the scraps and fragments of the old. Be a part of it! It’s exciting!
- “Facilitation of Copyright Infringement”
- Canada, home of govt sold pot, and legal file-sharing
- Authorship in semiotics & cultural theory
- Non-free media rationale for use
- Turnitin.com
- Prev: Dream Dictionaries & Life
- Next: Rasta Lawyer “Flying High”
September 6th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Tim,
Specifically I was discussing the case in this article on my site: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=75.
It involves a teacher who had posted several sample essays on her site for her students to use as guides, had them ripped off and sold them to paper mills. She then removed the essays from the Web depriving her students and others a very legitimate study aid. You might find it an interesting read.
I happen to agree strongly with you that most copyright laws, especially the DMCA, are too restrictive. If you’ll notice, I use a very liberal CC license on my site as well. Everything I’ve ever written has been licensed under some form of the CC license.
However, I don’t consider people reusing my work to be ripping it off and it certainly isn’t plagiarism.
The caveat of every CC license is attribution. If you have no problem with people plagiarizing your work, then you don’t need to be using a CC license, but rather, placing your works in the public domain. However, from reading your comments, I can see that’s not an option.
In turn, that’s all I’m asking for in regards to my material on PT or my other sites, attribution and a link back. It’s a small token to ask, I think, but I’ve dealt with over 200 incidents of people lifting my work and claiming it as their own. Many have been profiting from it and several even published my work in books.
In the end, everyone has a different comfort level when it comes to their work. I’m liberal, you’re liberal, but many aren’t. I feel the artist should have the right to choose and that’s a right that plagiarists steal. I disagree with the Metallicas of the world, but it’s their choice.
Besides, even we demand attribution, if nothing else than through our CC licenses. We have to protect the rights we reserve and that’s what my site is about, plagiarism self-defense. Protecting your copyright and your work from thieves.
Personally though, it seems we agree more than we disagree, I just don’t see standing up for plagiarists to be a good thing. I also don’t think people are weak-willed, ignorant about the workings of the ‘net or unsure of themselves for not wanting to brave the threat of plagiarism online. It’s just another factor to consider when publishing your work, the fact that others might take it.
For some, especially those who see writing as a deeply personal thing, it’s just not worth it and I can respect that.
But, to quote Dennis Miller, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…
September 6th, 2005 at 8:08 am
JB wrote:
That quote is the most important part of everything said so far. It’s a succinct definition of plagiarism. I have no doubt that Tim has had snippets here and there ripped off from his writings. It happens to everyone. However, I have had entire articles ripped off, word for word. They post it to their site with no attribution - take my name off and keep it completely as it first appeared on my site - and thus a visitor is giving the impression that the owner of the site has created the piece and it is their own work. That is stealing, lying, and the lowest of the low. When I catch these theives in the act they usually give me some sorry-ass excuse; continuing the lie and dishonesty to the very end - proving what type of person they really are. That’s the sort of thing I define as plagiarism, it is disgusting.
I’m a musician as well. I’ve been playing guitar in bands and writing music for 20 years. If someone incorporates a lick here and there, from something they’ve heard me play, it is fine. Because that’s what musicians do anyway, it is the highest form of praise and the best way to learn your particular instrument. I have untold Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Hendrix, and Wes Montgomery runs and fills in my bag-o-tricks. I try and put my own style on them, but to another fan of those musicians it will be immediately apparent where I learned the technique. I believe that sort of analogy can’t be compared to writing. If you steal even one whole paragraph, it isn’t the same thing; it is more serious than stealing a lick from your favorite guitarist.
Likewise, the plagiarism of the type your talking about can be likened to someone coming along and stealing “Enter Sandman” whole - from start to finish; same guitar, lyrics, melodies, the whole works. And the thief then goes and records it again with his own band (calling it his own creation) and expects everyone not to notice that Metallica is the rightful owner of the song. A lot more serious than simply infringing copyright by making duplicate copies and sharing with the community. Even if the guy never made a dime off the song, he would be still be trying to con the world into thinking he was talented enough to come up with it on his own. This is an extreme example, I admit. The guy would be dead within a few days if he was that insane to try and pass off a Metallica song as his own. But I believe it’s an apt anaology to the main points brought up by JB.
September 6th, 2005 at 10:23 am
I even have ALL my content licensed for use under a flexible Creative Commons license, which allows for non-commercial use by attribution, provided people share and share alike.
Tim,
You would be well served by reading Dvorak’s take on Creative Commons.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Terry,
I think you said it well. I can offer nothing further but saying thanks for the clarificatin and analogy. A perfect example.
JB
September 6th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Just to clarify, I have had people take entire pieces of mine and publish elsewhere without attribution or a link.
September 6th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Plagarism means jack in the age where everything has been said before. In this post-post modern (whatever philosophical title you want to give it) era we have overabudance of burroughlian cultural cut-ups and Grandmaster DJ`s & music.
Nothing is original anymore!
September 6th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
That’s a fine point, NM. I mean shit, there’s even a part in the Old Testament that said the same thing thousands of years ago:
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10:
September 6th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
i’ve always found the idea that one can ‘own’ thoughts kind of weird. can you imagine the state of modern spirituality if ancient authors had had to ‘copyright’ their work? what about all those pseudopigraphical texts that are attributed to wise men so the contents will gain credibility (like, you know, the Gospels)? is that anti-plagarism? what if i write some kind of stunning philosophical treatise and then attribute it to Tim?
September 6th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Yeah, pseudoepigraphy is awesome. I was thinking about that very same thing the other day. There are so many weird possibilities with it…
September 6th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Let us look at the latest developpments in culture today and see if they are not plagiarised…
Top Selling Book- Da Vinci Code ie Holy Blood, Holy Grail knock-off with a twist.
Top Box-Office Movie - 40 year Old Virgin ie Graduate (w/Dustin Hoffman) knock-off with a twist.
Top Selling Album - Hilary Duff`s Most Wanted ie Generic Kid-Pop that started with Madonna and Cindy Lauper
Latest Art Movement - Low Brow Art - Pop Surrealism based on Surrealism and Pop Culture - ohh how original
Latest Philosophy - Matrix / Gnosis / Quantum Theory ie the Gnostics, Plato and ancient theories of singularity
Latest Politics - Neo-Conservatism / Neo-Liberalism ie Machavellian and Straussian Corporate Fascism ala Mussolini
Need I really go on.
Of course history has alays been like this, but in this age of intellectual rights, where we THINK that we have rights over words and concepts such as patents for genomes, we are simply full of ourselves and in the midst of privitising thought.
The greatest example of privitised thought is in academia where you must use sources (leaglised plagiarism) to support your work. Thus if you work on something that does not have supporting work for you, well tuff luck because whatever it is you are working on, is useless because some prior has not thought of it before you have. Quoting sources then re-enforces the power of the work from which you are quoting from.
September 6th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Damn, all great examples. Put that in your plagiarism pipe and smoke it!
September 6th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Unfortunately, you all have missed the point completely. You’re talking about ideas now and ideas are not copyrightable. Ideas fall under the realm of patent law and taking an idea is not an act of plagiarism. If you’re interested in patent law, I can recommend some very good attorneys.
The only things that can be copyrighted, and thus plagiarized, are tangible objects. Be then words on paper, songs on a CD or images on a canvas. If you understood thing one about copyright law and what plagiarism actually is, you’d see that and have never wasted your time with that list.
Yes, reusing ideas is old and the examples you gave are all true, but the thing is that, in every case, the people who came later did their own work. They created their own songs, their own writings and their own material. Hillary Duff might be a rip off of Madonna, but she didn’t take her actual work and claim it as her own. She (or someone else) still had to take the time to create the music, write the lyrics, play the notes, mix the songs and press the new CDs.
You’re trying to debunk the idea of plagiarism by applying it to something that it’s never been applied to historically or legally. That’s a fallacious argument based upon invalid notions of copyright law and what plagiarism is.
Is there anything new under the sun? I don’t claim to know nor do I really care. Copyright law is designed to protect the effort in the creation of the piece, not the idea behind it. You can create another site on plagiarism if you want, but you can’t use any of my content or actual work.
Using a philosophical argument that has no bearing on plagiarism to justify the actions of thieves and liars is not just ignorant, but deplorable. I’m sorry, there’s just no way around it.
You can debate what’s new in the world until your blue in the face, it doesn’t change the legal and moral implications of plagiarism. All of your examples, though amusing, aren’t applicable to this debate.
If you’d like to get this back on topic, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
September 7th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Simmer down, JB. We haven’t missed the point. We’ve merely changed the point.
September 7th, 2005 at 2:46 am
Seems like you were still talking about plagiarism to me…
September 7th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Tim, I agree with JB that in most of the examples mentioned, you’re talking about something other than plagiarism. It doesn’t make any sense to claim NM’s examples, or people citing your work with attribution, are plagiarism, and that therefore plagiarism is ok. Those things aren’t plagiarism. Derivative works of the kind NM describe aren’t plagiarism. The “999 out of 1000″ cases where people attribute your work to you aren’t plagiarism. My cutting and pasting your posts on to my blog, without mentioning you anywhere - that would be plagiarism. My printing out your blog and selling it as my own work - that would be plagiarism.
If by “not missing the point but changing the point” you mean “expanding the definition of plagiarism so my argument is sound,” then you’re just being intellectually dishonest. And for someone who claims to like heated exchange, you sure do like to tell people to “simmer down.”
Now are we disagreeing over the same issues, or aren’t we?
September 7th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Seems like you’re taking all of this a little too seriously. When I suggest you put things into your pipe and smoke then, I’m pretty much always joking. Lighten up.
In any event, I get what everybody’s saying. I understand the differences and perspectives. If y’all want to debate it more, feel free. I never meant to get anybody riled up over it in the first place. And now that I’ve said my piece, I don’t have a lot else to say.
September 7th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Context folks, context.
The list I wrote above was in context of my mentioning that nothing is original anymore. Thus if nothing is original anymore plagirism should be obsolete because your sentence or riff that you BELIEVE is copywrighted has been done before in more chances than none.
For example, do you know that drum beats cannot be copywrighted?
My examples above where also to support the fact that we are living in a era where the main sources of culture as exposed in one of the latest WIRED magazines is William Burroughs ideal of the cut-up method.
Do you realise how pervasive this technique is used now in this day of age? From Nike ads, to Gap commercials, to movies where Tarantino rips straight from his influences like Sonny Cheeba, to hip hop music where practically nothing but the drum beat is original (all samples and background noise are usually taken from other copywrighted material but tweaked enough to be unique).
What is the difference between someone whom has plaigiarised and someone whom has plagiarised so well that you cannot tell that they actually have commited in your eyes what consittues a crime?
In high-school, I was such a lazy genius that I would plagiarise whole texts but simply took the information and put it in my own words. NEVER was I caught for plaigiarism in my life despite using this technique throughout University.
I believe that those whom are such ardent supporters of copywright laws and plaigiarisms are the most insecure people in the world. Isn`t there a saying that imitation is the highest form of flattery? In your cases, I sense that you are afraid that you might not be able to create anymore, thus must support a `fort` called copywright laws to protect your lazy creative creations that you hold so dearly that you MUST have credit and MONEY for it.
Get over yourselves!
September 7th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Ha ha ha!
September 7th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
I just wanted to add a final note.
Copywright Laws & Patent Laws = Thought Police
With the Mc Luhan sense of a world where our overabundance of information is exponentially created under copywright laws, how long before every word, sentence and or image is copywrighted?
As an artist, I understand those whom want to protect their investment and be conpensated for their work. But we live in the information age where creativity can be produced at an increasingly cheaper costs.
Years ago you would find X number of books that are about a certain topic. Today you will find double the X amount on the same topic growing exponentially. Ideas will intersect and eventually originality will decrease to absolute zero.
On another note, let us say someone plagiarises your work.
1. That person is inadventantly giving you advertising.
2. A copy will NEVER be purer and true than the original.
Finally to put these two thoughts together, despite the amount of creative works in our age the cream always rises to the top. You will be compensated for it. But also with the increasing amount of creative products out in the market your share of the profits will decrease.
This is something that Mainstream media doesn`t get when they are looking for reasons why people aren`t watching CNN or major networks in in the same numbers as before. Or the reccent drops in Box-Office reciepts are growing.
In other words, if you want to make money doing something creative it better be good because only then will you make money off it. If you want to make more money create more stuff.
But then you are feeding the beast of information which brings me back to…
I hope that I made my point clearer.
September 7th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Oh oh oh. I’m insecure and uncreative. That must be it. Thanks, NM!
September 7th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
The fact that you have not refuted any of my points, but resorted to sublte sarcasim, solidifies my claim.
BTW your welcome!
September 9th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Time out, guys. I have to agree with JB, you did miss the point.
If I took Metallika’s Enter Sandman, copied it straight from the album, put it on my album, then sued Metallika for all the back royalties, I’d lose the case, and, hopefully, the judge would rule a summary judgment against me so that I’d have to pay for a frivolous lawsuit. That’s fair. If I distribute it for free, Metallika sues me and I go to prison. That’s not fair, that’s moronic, especially if I have their name on the album.
Let me elucidate another point by extending the metaphor. Do you own an album you lost the liner notes to, and the CD cover is just a stupid picture? Have you forgotten the names of the songs? Do you ever listen to the radio and miss the name of a song you wanted to know? In all those cases, even though the “goal information,” if you will, has been presented, the source has not, making it difficult to track-back. Imagine a conversation, “You know that one song, on that album, uh, it’s pretty obscure, uh…” Everybody loses out that way. In a similar manner, outright word-for-word plagarism actually diminishes information available. Suppose you want to find more works by the same author, or performer. They’re uncredited, or someone else is falsely credited, so you cannot. Essentially, everyone loses, and the person posting without reference gains little. I’m not so much advocating that they face punishment as much as I implore them to be help us find things.
Simply put, attribution and referencing eliminate many of the problems with “plagarism.” As far as kids writing papers, when I was in school, we wrote theses, not research papers. Research backs up a thesis, and research ought to be referenced for the same reasons. It’s strange to consider that forty years ago, it was an accepted behavior in schools to pad a bibliography or works cited list, but now the opposite problem occurs, complete lack of citation.
September 9th, 2005 at 11:15 am
No, seriously I get you guys points, I am playing the devils advocate here in this thread and talking about plagiarism in the greater context.
You guys are looking at it in the judicial sense. The Me vision…
I am arguing plaigiarism in the sense of its` power on society. The effect on the We.
So yeah, I definately get where you guys are comming from, I don`t know if the same can be considered for my argument.