Personally, I think burning people is worse than burning books (and I am a lit. lover).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Printable View
Personally, I think burning people is worse than burning books (and I am a lit. lover).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
see, I thought we were keeping it confined to "crimes of the literary world" Yes burning people is pretty bad - although there are some people who I would choose to burn over certain books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I couldn't do it. If I write something I want it to be mine, and the idea of turning it over to some shallow, self-serving idiot cheater makes me queasy.
How about turning it over to some sophisticated, generous, brilliant cheater? How would that make you feel?Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
In addition, I think the "If I write something I want it to be mine" is silly. Surely you want people to READ what you've written, and when they do the words are no longer "yours". They are shared by the author and the reader.
LOL! It sounds that you don’t consider the possibility that somebody can use your idea and take to the highs you can’t imagine. I guess everything goes back to self confidence. If we trust ourselves that we we create more and better ….we can share our ideas with an open heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
LOL? You're laughing? Then you act as if the other person must have a confidence issue? Then you trumpet your heart? Enough emotional judo. (Or is it, quite?) I can't decide if I should use an LOL here--but I will question whether you've considered the possibility you might be trying to get a rush out of cheaply shaming people on an internet forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
No, the subject of intellectual property is more interesting than insecure people vs. people endlessly giving to each other. There is a value to giving credit where it's due, and it's worth considering whether or not you believe that the creativity of the human individual should be valued and acknowledged, and how that should be done, in which cases, etc. None of this means someone shouldn't be able to use the ideas of others, or make new and better ideas.
In the context of education, it's about encouraging creativity, of course. People should be able to do better than simply track down some essay and claim it as their own. Finding sources, though, is a skill--and sources can be pointed to in one's work, and used to create a new perspective on some issue, or to find a new solution to a problem, etc. It's not about insecurity. And, surely, (outside of some Library Science course work, I suppose) if we want students to practice thinking and writing for themselves, we wouldn't be satisfied with them simply producing another person's essay, whether it was attributed or not. (If I type LOL here, do you think more people viewing the thread will agree with me? Remember, the LOL weapon is here for all of us to share and take to new heights...)
Generally, though, if you want to share, you of course are free to. And a good system of intellectual property legislation would recognize that all protections should be balanced, not excessive. Absolutely barring access and use by others should be pretty rare. Also, methods and levels of compensation would need to be calibrated wisely (ie. don't just effectively let media corporations do it). Protections that are too ornerous (excessive red-tape, excessive fees) make the creativity less useful to society, and are thus counterproductive, and so this issue also needs to figure into the balancing.
There are some gray areas, and certainly a blind eye would probably be turned against some peculiarities and minor infractions that would inevitably pop up in a system that would seem impossible to perfect to everyone's complete satisfaction.
But we are people, not robots trying to construct simple and robot-like modes of interaction--we are designed to live among gray areas. Individuals have value (in my opinion), and boundary-less, unattributed, and devalued sharing of individual contribution seems an anal-retentive way of simplifying things, and making more primitive forms of bare-eyed "noticing" and "finding" more valuable than the more uniquely-human versions that reside in individual perspective and individual synthesis.
No, I didn’t intend to shame. I never do that! But it sounds that it triggered your shame. Sorry, but it is your issue then, and please, don’t project your issues and blame others for it. If you carefully read the post I responded to, you will understand why I was laughing. I have chosen to laugh rather than being judgmental. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by billl
This reader thinks there's something to this. Maybe because when you create something it is always yours and when other people assert the illusion of any kind of ownership it is intensely alienating. The creation essentially is you, for that matter, a representation of the 'internal' you in the actual world.Quote:
I couldn't do it. If I write something I want it to be mine, and the idea of turning it over to some shallow, self-serving idiot cheater makes me queasy.
And billl, like most of your posts here... well, pearls before swine. It often feels like what you try to say deserves a better outlet than an internet forum.
J
I agree with Billl that intellectual property is an interesting subject. However, Jack of Heart’s opinion that “The creation essentially is you, for that matter, a representation of the 'internal' you in the actual world....” is irrelevant to whether intellectual property rights should be protected. Let’s look at a few simple examples:
1) You sing a song in the shower.
2) A garage band sings a song at a party. They got $75 for playing there.
3) A bar band plays a song in a set in a bar.
4) A big show in Las Vegas plays a song.
Let’s assume the song is under copyright. Who should pay a royalty? (Since, as I said earlier, I support free speech, I would suggest only 4 should, although 3 and maybe 2 are supposed to under current law (I think, although they probably never collect).
All property rights involve nothing more than the right of one person to limit the freedom of other people. I you own a house, if other people try to walk in your yard, or sleep in your house you can call the police and have them hauled off to jail, for example. Copyrights and patents limit freedom in a similar way. So if we think freedom is a good thing, we should limit it only for a good reason. Of course in the case of intellectual property, we limit freedom to allow inventors and artists to make a living by selling their protected works. I’m not against that at all, but we shouldn’t make the mistaken claim that “property” has any bearing on what is “essentially you”. Instead, it simply allows the property owner to limit the freedom of others.
I remember the band (I forget which one) that objected to one of its songs being used in support of some conservative candidate. That’s the kind of egregious misuse of property rights to which I object. If the user buys the CD (or whatever it is) fair and square, there’s no reason why the seller should be able to limit its use. They should “own” some economic protection, but what’s next? Can they sue someone who plays the song in his car, because they disapprove of fossil fuel consumption?
Patents encourage creativity. However, patented drugs that could save millions of lives in Africa and cost pennies to make are withheld, for fear they will be “diverted” back to lucrative markets in the U.S. and Europe. In general scientists see further than their predecessors because they stand on the shoulders of giants. Intellectual pursuit is a cooperative endeavor.
I’ve moved on from “cheating” and “plagiarism” – mainly because I think intellectual property issues are interesting. Obviously Billl is correct that the student learns more from writing an essay than from plagiarizing it. I don’t deny that. But the options aren’t always writing a decent essay or plagiarizing one. They might be plagiarizing an essay or failing to turn one in, and having the teacher embarrass you in front of the class. Some kids might face a beating at home if they don’t get a “C”. There are all sorts of excuses for cheating that I see as reasonable. Maybe a good student has had some personal crisis and wants to slide by, just this once. Minor indiscretions, that harm nobody and protect some child from emotional or physical harm, don’t seem so bad to me.
That's right. Jack of Hearts wasn't preparing discourse for the overarching argument, and has no desire to (having largely ignored it- which to disdain more, academia or the exchanges that imitate it?).
J
You have brought very good points. I agree that there are many reasons why students choose to plagiarize. The educational system is far from being perfect. There are students who don’t have any interest in literature and writing but they are great in math or physics, or perhaps, they will be a good computer programmer, doctor, or electrician. But they have to finish high school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Life is not black or white.
If you can't be bothered to engage in the discussion, can't you just plagiarize something? At least that way, we'd keep the communication flowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
Haha, classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
But seriously, must bow out now. There are others interested in having the discussion, even if this reader is not. He just came in to empathize with and express something regarding qimissung's post. And apparently give bill street cred for some reason.
J
Yes, Ecurb, I do understand the interchange between writer and reader-but that's not what this thread is about. The only question being discussed is that of writing something in order to sell it to someone who plans to say they wrote it. Under those circumstances my answer stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Well, of course I would prefer to be the one taking an idea to highs heretofore unimagined, but back to the main point...Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Have you ever seen the movie "Finding Forrester"? In it a young man is given the first couple of paragraphs of a novel (it's given to him by the author) and from that he proceeds to write a short story (I think) which wins a prize. He is then accused of plagerism. It all ends well, but the point I am making is the generosity of the author in sharing his work with the novice writer and what the young writer then did with it.
A lot of rap music nowadays also "sample" or take a portion of other musicians music to create something of their own.
All art builds on other existing art. Nothing is created in a vacuum. I get that-and thrive on it as an artist (of sorts).
Again, this thread is not about that. It is about someone who, with the permission of another, passes off their work as his/hers. Not the same thing at all. I mainly object because of the sheer laziness of it all. To even suggest that it is remotely similar in nature to the act of creation is almost sacreligious to me.
Billl, your rebuttal was a thing of beauty, and I would like to thank you and Jack of Hearts for your show of support. I have always depended on the kindness of strangers, as Blanche Dubois once said. :)
You can relax then. If somebody will take your idea….you will create a better one.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
My last point is that we didn’t have these rules, for example, 100 years ago. They didn’t need that. Humans don’t change that much. Only rules that….we may accept without questioning.
As Alan Watts said,
“Insecure society are the most intolerant….So unsure of the validity of their game rules. Everybody must play the rule. We become more conformist………..Everybody is equally inferior”. :p