Why Plagiarism is Wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

In what way did Homer actually "profit"? For centuries his works weren't even written down, but rather passed from
generations to generation via the oral tradition......

When an individual therefore creates a work of art -- despite how little financial value it may garner -- he or she is the author of that work. Others may read it, appreciate it, vilify it, use it to line birdcages, but no one else can claim that he created it but the original author himself.

That is why we can't plagiarise or use any part of it without due attribution. I still can't see how this compromises your freedom, ecurb.

And by the bye, just whom are you calling "hacks"? Certainly not your fellow LitNetters, right?

---

Most scholars assume Homer was a performing artist. He probably went from city to city performing his poems for the rich and famous. Nobody knows exactly how he was paid, but he probably was paid.

As far as “individuals” creating works of art, that is a stretch, as you would know if you had read my posts. How about a playwright? Does he “create” the play? Or do the director, the actor, the stage manager, the scenery designer, etc. also play a role? How about Rowling? Does she “own” her characters, so that it’s reasonable for her to sue people who write “fan fiction” about them? Is writing "fan fiction" plagiarism? You appear to ignore nuance.

I haven’t spent any time reading the LitNet fiction and poetry, so I have no opinion about its quality (which is irrelevant to my position here).

One more thing, OF COURSE people “CAN” claim that they created a work they plagiarized. They do it all the time. The question at hand is not whether they “can” copy things – it’s whether we as a society should clap them in irons and throw them into dungeons for doing so. It is certainly true that some morally repugnant behaviors should nonetheless NOT subject those who do them to violent punishment. Lying, it seems to me, is one of those behaviors. If we start imprisoning all the liars, our prisons would soon overflow. Let's leave the regulation of commercial speech to the government, and leave punishing non-commercial liars to community opinion.

"Use every man after his desert, and who would 'scape whipping?" -- Hamlet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

In what way did Homer actually "profit"? For centuries his works weren't even written down, but rather passed from
generations to generation via the oral tradition.

---

If Homer acted like most oral storytellers they have the profit of receiving food, house, gifts, status, etc. At least, the poets who recited homer received it.

Quote:

---

It's absurd to talk about copyrights in antiquity.

---

Let me see. Everyone knows George Romero directed (and his group) Night of living dead. It is the forefather of modern zoombie industry. They didnt receive any for it. They didnt even for the re-make of the movie. You know why... some burocratic mistake which them (movie students, etc) where unware, the movie was in public domain a few years after the release. Now, this make talking about copyrights in modern days absurd... And to think the idea of plagiarism came from antiquity...

Quote:

---

Likewise, we don't even know the author of many seminal works in history; for instance, who wrote the Bible and Beowulf? We don't know who created the medieval allegory "The Pearl," so scholars refer to him (or her!) as "The Pearl poet."

---

So? If I find a academic work in the net and there is not authorship declared to someone know, it is fine to use it as my own? Knowing or not the author should not be an ethical problem... if claiming that taking credit for a work that you didn't created is wrong, then the presence or an author or not, is irreelevant. You know you didn't it.

Quote:

---

We are, however, in the 21st century in which-- regardless how unenlightened mankind still remains-- the sovereignty of the individual has become a cherished value.

---

Actually, Democracy and Socialistm are cheerished vallues, considerable more powerfull than individualism. Everyone is leveled, that is actually the origem of the copyrights laws, giving "rights" to all.

Quote:

---

When an individual therefore creates a work of art -- despite how little financial value it may garner -- he or she is the author of that work. Others may read it, appreciate it, vilify it, use it to line birdcages, but no one else can claim that he created it but the original author himself.

---

This is not copyright. Copyright is the right of someone, creator or not, to use the work. Disney was not the "creator" of Mickey, Bob Kane was not the sole creator of Batman, DC Comics was not the creator of Superman.

Quote:

---

That is why we can't plagiarise or use any part of it without due attribution. I still can't see how this compromises your freedom, ecurb

---

Because plagiarims is not just using the word by word text, but even ideas, structures, style without credit. It is painting the Last Super in the same position as everyone else did. And if there was a law forbidding it Da Vinci Last Super would not exist, he would be arrested, his freedom to paint that scene, to use those solutions and organization, damaged.

Okay, we're all getting off-track and off-topic here.

Here's the gist of what I am saying and what I am NOT
saying:

I'm not saying:
that modern and post-modern works, jazz improvisations, and literary allusions are copying or plagiarizing or stealing.

I'm not saying:
that corporations and big entertainment industries can usurp the rights of indvidual artists. It's never right for
anyone to scam or scrhooohooohoooew anyone else or to
bully him or her because the bully is rich and the victim is poor. (Or for any reason, for that matter.)

I am saying:
Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression.However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.

I am saying:
Whether the work of art is a masterpiece or a piece of crap
or whether it earns millions or nothing, the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work.

What I am saying, LOUDLY and I hope everybody can hear me FINALLY:

Don't quote anyone's work without attribution.

Don't claim somebody else's work as your own.

That's simple enough to understand-- or it should be!

Stluke, that's very interesting. You remind me of why I came to LitNet, because I enjoy learning about literature, art, and philosophy.

My brother's legacy will live on. For one thing, there is a limited number of the originals in existence, and those out there are owned, cherished and even coveted, by the very top sportsmen. As I said, two of those "items" are owned by the son of one of the richest and most famous men in this country. (Though this guy is not at the top of his sport, nor is he someone I particularly admire.) Many of my brother's originals have personalized engravings that the buyer requested. Those "things" will be handed down from father to son, and in at least one instance, from mother to daughter. My brother's creation is known by, and engraved with, his initials. Those who own the original "thing," do know what they have. In truth, the copy is nothing like the original. (Actually, the copy is made in Korea, and not in China, as I had said.) The copy is relatively inexpensive junk. This is consolation for my brother since he has never been a money hungry or materialistic sort.

Actually, although my brother had a gift for creating (and though he has training, he also simply has a great mind, a gift) I am actually glad to see him working outdoors now. It's much healthier for him.

Ecurb,

"I didn't mean to be disrespectful of you or your brother -- just to express my opinion."

I find you rather endearing and humble actually. I like your response to the visitor on your visitor page. I like LitNet because people are respectful here. That's very rare on a forum, from what I've heard. It's good that everyone has his/her opinion, what fun would there be without that?

I tend to agree with you about the punishment of offenders. The ones punished would be those like the guy I mentioned earlier in the thread. The people who are really destroying this world get patted on the back, as Delta mentioned in the "beggars" thread.

At least, AunkShecky, you are finally making a reasonable statement by saying “don’t quote anyone’s work without attribution” instead of “you can’t quote anyone’s work without attribution”. The latter statement was clearly incorrect. Even so, however, I don’t agree (as my example of telling a joke without attribution clearly demonstrates).

In addition, you say, “Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression. However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.” I don’t know exactly what the right to free speech allows and doesn’t allow, not being a lawyer. My point, though, is that a right to free expression includes the right to lie. In general (again, in my inexpert legal opinion) economic speech is reasonably regulated to a greater extent than non-economic speech. Misrepresenting something you are selling constitutes “fraud”. Misrepresenting something you are not selling constitutes lying, but is not illegal, nor should it be illegal.

The problem is copyright is not about autorship ,it is about ownership. It does not prevent people from quoting or using a work as if you created it. It prevents me from using or quoting a work as if I own it. It is even legal to claim you are the author of someone else work: Ghost writers do it. 99,9 of politicians or anything else, pay someone to write for them their discurses, etc. Those things do not break copyright laws. So, when it is said "and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work." you are actually going against the copyright law which allow a compary to own the beneficts of a creation without having to share their profit with the original creator. Schuster and Siegel had a very small profit from Superman compared to DC Comics, because they own (or owned) the copyrights of the creation. So, copyright laws, legality, etc has little to do with the ethical merits (or demerits) of plagiarism.


The problem of assuming the authorship of a work which is not yours, is something else and clearly shaddy. There may obvious cases (the aforementioned poem copy and pasting) which seems easy to take a side. But there is others which are not, because plagiarism is not the faithfull copy but also the very similar allusion. You cann't say "i am against plagiarism, except those plagiarism I approve" and not find the matter to be quite arguable.

Hi again Ecurb,


"Obviously, if the owner of a house didn't pay to have the house built, nobody could sleep in the house. Nonetheless, "ownership" of the house means nothing more than the owner's right to forcibly prevent other people from using the house without his permission."

"-- a great many people feel they've been screwed by the system when they haven't been."

I trust you're not a homeowner there in Oregon? Ownership of a house means you've lost a lot of money lately. Do you think that happened naturally, or was criminal behavior involved?

I just love a person like you Ecurb :smile5: And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

"Of course the the huge logs on those trucks are used to make not only the cardboard boxes, but also the copyrighted books."

Touche! (I need an accent on that "e") I'm considering an e-reader, though I'm not keen on plastic either. ....Isn't it funny how there's no solutions to anything?!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

I trust you're not a homeowner there in Oregon? Ownership of a house means you've lost a lot of money lately. Do you think that happened naturally, or was criminal behavior involved?

---

I am a homeowner in Oregon, and I haven't lost a lot of money (except on paper). My house is still worth a lot more than I paid for it 15 years ago. I’m not an expert on the economic collapse, but irresponsible behavior abounded, as did some criminal behavior (the exact dollar value the I’ve “lost” from each of these being uncertain). On the other hand, the reason my house doubled in value before the collapse was (in part) due to the some of the same irresponsible lending schemes that led to the collapse.

Easy come, easy go, I say!

Ecurb, We're off topic. You're right, but I'm happy not to be a homeowner right now. Who knows if or when the market will rise again.

Haven't we been brainwashed that home ownership is the best investment we can make? And most homeowners haven't been irresponsible -- Some buyers were irresponsible, but they knew what they were doing.

My brother also sold his house there in Oregon last year. He had to sell in order to separate from his wife. If you're one who takes the loss, it stings. (If you're one who gains, of course you're happy.) I'm not here complaining though. He's stronger and smarter from what he's been through, and I've learned from his mistakes, (including about marriage.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Okay, we're all getting off-track and off-topic here.

Here's the gist of what I am saying and what I am NOT
saying:

I'm not saying:
that modern and post-modern works, jazz improvisations, and literary allusions are copying or plagiarizing or stealing.

I'm not saying:
that corporations and big entertainment industries can usurp the rights of indvidual artists. It's never right for
anyone to scam or scrhooohooohoooew anyone else or to
bully him or her because the bully is rich and the victim is poor. (Or for any reason, for that matter.)

I am saying:
Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression.However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.

I am saying:
Whether the work of art is a masterpiece or a piece of crap
or whether it earns millions or nothing, the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work.

What I am saying, LOUDLY and I hope everybody can hear me FINALLY:

Don't quote anyone's work without attribution.

Don't claim somebody else's work as your own.

That's simple enough to understand-- or it should be!

---

This needs a repeat.

Really?

Then lets repeat: Copyright does not Prevent people from claiming the authorship of a work they didnt create. Therefore this: "the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work." is against he copyright law. Therefore legal rights, watever US constitution which IS NOT an authority on ethics and plagiarism, is irrelevant for the subject. It only shows a side of the history, the american interpretation of their law, that is all.

And Literary allusions, references, etc are plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying someone work letter by letter, it is the appropriation of ideas, concepts, etc even with a completely different text (technique, style, etc). Plagiarism can be subtle that only specialists may discern. The only reason why Lion King was not sued of plagiarism by producers (or distributors) of Kimba was they rather used it as profit. There is enough similitudes. Captain Marvel was ruled as plagiarism to superman because both had superforce, speed ad invunerability, alter-ego and tigh uniform with a cape, and nothing else. Just small references.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

And Literary allusions, references, etc are plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying someone work letter by letter, it is the appropriation of ideas, concepts, etc even with a completely different text (technique, style, etc). Plagiarism can be subtle that only specialists may discern. The only reason why Lion King was not sued of plagiarism by producers (or distributors) of Kimba was they rather used it as profit. There is enough similitudes. Captain Marvel was ruled as plagiarism to superman because both had superforce, speed ad invunerability, alter-ego and tigh uniform with a cape, and nothing else. Just small references.

---

For LitNet purposes, I think this is okay to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Therefore legal rights, watever US constitution which IS NOT an authority on ethics and plagiarism, is irrelevant for the subject. It only shows a side of the history, the american interpretation of their law, that is all.

---

The U.S. not the authority? But we are The Greatest Country on Earth. Ever wonder why we're The Americans and not you, even though you live on the American continents as well as us? It's because we're Great. We have freedoms such as freedom of speech.

Some folks here, not being lawyers, don't know what is covered under "freedom of speech." We can talk about anything except for politics and those entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about.

And also, we're higher-minded, especially citizens lower on the pecking order, than those in other countries. For instance, if our life savings gets channeled upwards, we say "Money is only paper. Easy come, easy go!"

And also, as Americans, we don't go around whining. We're not "negative" here. We always have a "Hollywood spin" to our stories.

(I hope it's okay to say this. I never talk to the cab driver because I'm afraid he might shoot me.)

I always talk to cab drivers, because it's interesting discovering how they got to America. None of them have shot me, although, on occasion, they have driven so fast that I thought that I might die.

JCamilo made some very good points about copyright. Ghostwriters obviously do not violate copyrights, although John F. Kennedy did claim to have written "Profiles in Courage". It may have been disingenuous of Kennedy to claim authorship -- but it was not illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I always talk to cab drivers, because it's interesting discovering how they got to America. None of them have shot me, although, on occasion, they have driven so fast that I thought that I might die.

---

:lol:

I don't mean to keep it off topic, but to respond... Oregon is Very, Very Different from North Idaho. You know this. We're the Christians and all white. People here recite talk radio "chapter and verse." But our type is mingled throughout the country.

If I can ever transfer my job, I may end up an Oregonian. My friend, however, can't move because (being dumb and young, right out of college) she bought a house a couple of years ago, and is now stuck here, probably for life, with an inflated mortgage.

Bloody artists, speak about me being off topic, you lot should be carted away and dropped off non-returnable in Neverland. At the end of the day everyone plagiarises, but has the good sense to adapt and change works of genius to incorporate their own individuality. That is why Dan Bown escaped censure for his bloody awful ' Da Vinci Code'. Next thing you will be telling me is Van Gogh's ' The Potato Eaters ' is a work of extraordinary brilliance charting the chrysalis of an exceptional talent. At the end of the day the market decides the value of a painting and artists have little or no say in this process.