Why Plagiarism is Wrong

[Vonny]

Jocky if your own work ever gets copied, you'll be able to figure out the distinction quite easily.


I agree again Stluke!

It's true that art and literature creations were richer back in the days when artists created solely for the purpose of their art and were starving to death.

And when was that?

I was thinking of van Gogh. He made art because it flowed out of him. In a way, that's how my brother's designs happened. My brother does have an engineering background, but his designs resulted when he realized he couldn't buy the kinds of equipment that he needed. It wasn't available on our markets. He wanted to make a contribution to the sport he loves, or I should say, "loved." For a while, I honestly thought he would meet the same ultimate fate as van Gogh. ...My brother had previously worked for Intel, and he had done contract work for other companies. He's very skilled and competent. The problem was that working in those environments was difficult for him because he has something like bipolar. So he did need another line of work, and an income. ...So then he faced the rigors of running a small business. They call having your own business, "The Great American Dream." Well, it's actually, "The Great American Nightmare." And then finally, to have his design stolen! ...Honestly, I'm not sure if he could have continued to run his own business, producing this "item" forever, because it was overwhelming, but he should have been able to sell his design. ...Now his income is very greatly diminished from what he once earned, but he's finally happier with what he's doing, because he's made peace with the past and he has no pressure.

The people who enjoy chatting about artists/designers not needing or deserving money, and all the instances when it's okay to steal someone else's work are people who have never been touched by this, those who don't have talent and want to take someone else's ...and of course those people will always be the great majority.

The other artist that came into my mind as creating solely for the purpose of art was Edvard Munch. I thought of him because I can relate to his art, and I don't think he chose to create art, I think it was inevitable. I'm not sure if he died destitute like van Gogh though. I don't think he died with a bullet through his head.

I know one thing, my brother won't be designing anything else.

JCamilo:

"Very sad the story of your brother. Much sadder when Bayer company has stolen from brazil amazonia several species..."

I'm with you on this. Just give us back our rain forest and all of those species. I will give up everything, even my life. That is truly how I feel.

But I have to admit that if someone in my family had AIDS, I'd consider taking a drug that came from there. And I'm somewhat anti-technology. I don't get into a car if I don't have to. However, in the past year, my mother developed a condition called atrial-fibrillation, a fast and irregular heartbeat. Twice she's needed a "cardioversion," an electrical shock that stops her heart momentarily and restarts it to beat normally. I'm GRATEFUL for this machine.

[JCamilo]

I am not defending the rain forest or anything, just pointing that Law is not synounimous of ethical. The laws of a country are usually an accord between parts to keep that society's demands under control. Changes and new conflicts will change laws.

So, people claimming that there is a ethical vallue in something just because it is legal or that it won't change are just out of line. Morals and laws weren't the same even inside the same nation, imagine when the world is considered.

[Vonny]

JCamilo

I agree completely. I'd say there's little correlation between laws and what is ethical or moral.

And I defend the rain forest, not that it does any good. Also, 90% of the new drugs shouldn't be invented at all. They make people more sick than anything else. But my mom takes a couple of those drugs that have horrendous side-effects, and in that situation I want her to take them. And most of the drugs that are really worthwhile are based on old established drugs. They aren't as new as inventors would have us believe. The best drugs are ones like aspirin, antibiotics, (which have been mishandled, are are losing effectiveness) and vaccines. Drugs such as anti-depressants, for most people, lead to conditions such as obesity and diabetes, and shouldn't be prescribed.

I was thinking about motive, after Stluke mentioning that artists and inventors need an incentive. With my brother, his original motive wasn't just to make tons of money, but when he saw someone else get rich while he went bankrupt, believe me that ended his innovative streak.

I was thinking more about motive. When a person intentionally copies, a relevant question is, "what is the motive?" If it is an amoral "person" who steals the work, then we know the motive. But as individuals copying... the question about motive is: is this new "copied product" complementary to the original? Like, if a new creation is based on the old, does it do justice to the original? Also, are you doing it recklessly without regard for the inventor, without regard for his livelihood, or his feelings? Does it injure anyone?

Also, if you're writing a love story or vampire story, of course we know that those same themes have been regenerated since people sat around the campfire. But you know in your soul if you are blatantly ripping off someone's work.

About that "cardioverter" machine, I don't know who invented it. Being the design of an amoral entity, I would say it was designed by an employee who's invention immediately became the property of someone else. I hope the person or people who designed it have a little income now.

[Ecurb]

While I am questioning the current copyright laws that favor wealthy corporations and that do not deal intelligently with current realities of digital reproduction, the problems of international piracy of intellectual "property", and the viral nature of the internet and spread of information... nor the issues of derivative art forms such as collage, montage, parody, etc... I am not calling for throwing the baby out with the bath water. The notion that artists should not make a profit from their artistic endeavors is simply absurd... or more likely naive. Art involves a great deal of labor and the individual expects to be compensated for their labor... whatever that may be.

As I said in earlier posts, I support the notion of copyright -- in limited form. It is true that some artists expect to profit from their endeavors, and that such an expectation is, in part, the result of their expectation that their work will be protected by copyright laws. However, Homer’s work was not protected by copyright laws (although he probably profited).

Obviously, the notion that artists SHOULD profit from their artistic endeavors is absurd, as the failure of many artists to so profit surely suggests. The hack poet, the lousy painter, and the amateur rock star all invest a great deal of labor into their art, and none of them are compensated. It is thus clear that the amount of labor invested is irrelevant to whether an artist should be compensated. Instead, an artist should be compensated if readers, viewers, or listeners agree to pay him for his performances. Obviously, the extent to which the artist can copyright his works that are easily reproduced has an impact on this, and that’s what we’re talking about.

This, of course, makes no sense, outside of a communal system of economics where everyone's needs are met. Obviously, the artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work no less than the doctor or the laborer. If you are suggesting that artists need to somehow keep themselves free on moral grounds from the taint of money, then that is completely absurd. Artist are no different than anyone else in moral terms.

The doctor and laborer CONTRACT for their services. So does the artist, sometimes. A singer performing for a live audience contracts for his services. A painter who sells his painting contracts to give it to a buyer for money. However, the issue we are discussing is copyright. I’ll grant that since we have copyright laws, the artist has an expectation of intellectual property, based on the law. However, my point is that such an expectation is not universal; laws vary; and the expectation is based on arbitrary, culturally constituted law rather than some universal or “natural” law. As Marx pointed out, all property rights involve the legal right of one person to limit the freedom of other people (and that’s ALL they involve). I’m not a Marxist. I don’t object to all forms of property. But intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them. It would be ridiculous, for example, to refuse to allow people to make wheels because someone had patented the idea 8000 years ago. That’s why most patents and copyrights have limited validity in terms of time (which I think is a good idea, and perhaps the time limits should be shorter).

One example is the VCR snafu. Networks thought taping TV shows violated copyrights. If we think there is some sort of “natural” or “universal” ethos in support of intellectual property, the networks were right. My point is this: since there is no universal ethos supporting intellectual property rights, we can decide based on our reasonable preferences. Do we want to tape TV shows? It might make TV shows worse, by limiting the money they can make. Or do we want to disallow the taping of shows?

In addition, technological changes (like the VCR or the internet) make copyrights difficult to enforce. Since I don’t think that there is any “natural” right to intellectual property, I hardly think this is a huge tragedy.

The problem with your example is that it ignores the basic question of motive. Why would a company continue to invest millions into research and development of a product if there was no money to be made? Why would an artist continue to labor for years to perfect his or her skills if he or she knew for a fact that there would never be any compensation? Where is the motive?

Of course it is correct that U.S. drug companies, operating on a profit motive, developed most of the best HIV drugs. That’s why it’s such a complicated issue. My point was that although we want to promote the research and intellectual dynamism that results from a profit motive, the issue is morally complex. To say that some African mother is simply “stealing” because she is buying black market drugs that violate patents is, even if true, a vast oversimplification of the moral issue.

[Emil Miller]

....until someone wised up and observed that it was all advertising and popular musicians are all a bunch of thieving untalented ratbags anyway, so it really doesn't matter who's stolen the most millions with the least talent

Absolutely true, but what about the case where someone like Lord Webber, who actually can read and write music, has been criticised for using the compositions of others? I don't think much of his stuff and didn't know the truth of these allegations as I don't listen his songs. One day, however, I was listening to the radio and it was playing something called 'I Don't Know How to Love Him', and I sat bolt upright as it's a pinch from Mahler's 6th symphony. Later, I was listening to Lord Webber talking about music and he said that it's amazing how many little melodies run counter to a symphony's main themes that many people are unaware of.

[MystyrMystyry]

Emil,a tune is a tune is a tune

Henry VIII may have composed Greensleeves but it's public domain - free for use if you can do something with it, and somewhere I'm sure someone has

Musicians generally don't really have a that's mine you can't use it attitude unless there's lots of money involved (often it's just a lawyer who decides they have a case separate from from artistic merit)

There's no song I can think of which upon the copier being successfully sued are then forced to not receive airplay or inclusion on an album - it's a creation based on another's creation, and doesn't need to be accredited because the people versed in musicology already know the source - you can still buy Need a New Drug and Ghostbusters if you wish (though why is a question)

But musicians, you know, different breed - and music law is there to prevent wholesale copying of another's work, though it's all a copy of something else because music requires certain rules which can't be broken - just manipulated in slightly different ways

The words are a different matter, because they can be anything about anything, and if the similarities are too striking then credit where it's due I guess (Achey Breaky Heart - you know it's just a silly song - but it was a hugely successful song, and one which also was taken to the courts

'Genius is not that which can't be copied, it's that which no-one dare copy'

Beatles took tunes from Bach and Beethoven, but they didn't get sued by the estate (because there isn't one?) and most people couldn't tell you exactly what they've copied - actually the Beatles have a pretty good record in NOT being sued

I remember Disney wanting to do a Tarzan movie, but the family of Edgar Rice Burroughs decided Disney would do it no justice, even though few people read the original novels these days [interesting that the family still control the rights a hundred years later]

[Vonny]

"intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them.

It doesn't really. Take the Peanuts comic strip for example. If Charles Shultz hadn't invented it, the world wouldn't have Charlie Brown today. You wouldn't have Charlie Brown to steal or to turn into a zombie.

In the case of a great poem. We all use the English language, but a great poem could not be written by a multitude of people. A unique poem can be written by only one person.

And my brother's design. People say "ideas are free." His design wasn't simply an idea. It was many many ideas. It was/is an intricate precision instrument. I don't think anyone else in this world could've come up with precisely that "thing."


It would be ridiculous, for example, to refuse to allow people to make wheels because someone had patented the idea 8000 years ago. That’s why most patents and copyrights have limited validity in terms of time (which I think is a good idea, and perhaps the time limits should be shorter)."

I agree. Hopefully the person who thought up the first wheel didn't die the hungriest person in his village. And if someone comes up with a state-of-the art wheel, he should earn a decent profit.

"Do we want to tape TV shows? It might make TV shows worse, by limiting the money they can make."
This concerns you?

Somehow, there's a difference between the entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about and an individual artist or inventor. But how can laws be tailored, especially if people can't distinguish a difference between the two?

Those companies that produce the AIDS drugs. Profit drives them, but have you checked lately on who profits and how much? It seems there ought to be a legal way for a mom to get that for her child. Otherwise, maybe none of us really need that drug.



Since I don’t think that there is any “natural” right to intellectual property, I hardly think this is a huge tragedy.

This is one reason my brother is in Wyoming, as far from people as he can get. I think that other innovative and creative people will also vanish and not share their gifts. It isn't just about the money. And it isn't just about enforcing laws. If there isn't a public out there who can appreciate and respect what they do for us, then why will they bother? Artists do get depressed.

Maybe people deserve another reality show that is a guy eating a worm over and over and over again, only just a different guy/girl and a different worm.

[Ecurb]

One good example of copyrights that are excessively oppressive is JK Rowling’s attempts to limit “fan fiction” about Harry Potter (I haven't really followed this, so I don't know how successful she's been). Personally, I never write fan fiction, and I never read fan fiction. However, I think it’s ridiculous that Rowling can limit people’s not-for-profit internet scribblings.

Copyrights might reasonably limit other authors’ ability to PROFIT from writing about the Harry Potter characters – but limiting their not-for-profit writings seems to me to be an egregious attack on freedom of expression. What’s next? Should Rowling be allowed to limit what Harry Potter games children play with their friends? Should she sue any kid who dresses up as Harry Potter for Halloween (unless he buys an “official” costume)? Perhaps these further limitations on freedom seem ridiculous, but so does suing people who write harmless, not-for-profit fan fiction. Authors should have some economic propriety over their works, but the characters no more "belong" to the author than to the reader. Any attempt to limit how the reader thinks about, discusses, or writes about (without profit) the characters is, in my not so humble opinion, ludicrous.

[Delta40]

Good Point Ecurb. I'm not a JK Rowling fan . That one time author has sued poor but devoted fans of Harry Potter on the basis that she is protecting her intellectual property. Their actions are an expression of their admiration for her. Websites created in her honour are dismantled with hefty repercussions. Why not hire them, pay them to continue to extol her virtues rather than putting them into bankruptcy with law suits? In my book, JK Rowling has been unable to shake her underclass single mother paranoia and is therefore overly viscious.

[Ecurb]

"intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them.

It doesn't really. Take the Peanuts comic strip for example. If Charles Shultz hadn't invented it, the world wouldn't have Charlie Brown today. You wouldn't have Charlie Brown to steal or to turn into a zombie.

In the case of a great poem. We all use the English language, but a great poem could not be written by a multitude of people. A unique poem can be written by only one person..

What does all this have to do with whether intellectual property involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of another? Absolutely nothing. 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. In otherwords, it means nothing more than the owner's ability to limit the freedom of others. This is obvious -- but it doesn't mean we have to oppose all property rights. ALL LAWS LIMIT FREEDOM (including property laws). Because copyright and patent laws limit freedom of expression and invention, we should be particularly careful about passing and accepting such laws, and do so only for very good reasons.

This is one reason my brother is in Wyoming, as far from people as he can get. I think that other innovative and creative people will also vanish and not share their gifts. It isn't just about the money. And it isn't just about enforcing laws. If there isn't a public out there who can appreciate and respect what they do for us, then why will they bother? Artists do get depressed.
.

What's wrong with Wyoming? True: it's a little depressing in Annie Proulx or Maille Melloy stories -- but I like the place. I've spent many, many months there, of my own free will. And I like people!

Advice to Vonny's brother: The public doesn't OWE anyone respect and appreciation -- a great many people feel they've been screwed by the system when they haven't been. I don't know your circumstances, but the sooner you get over it, the better off youll be!

[MystyrMystyry]

Maybe she wants to limit what others do with her characters because she might inadvertently steal their idea and then get sued?

Could happen...

[Vonny]

Ecurb,


No, people don't owe inventors/artists respect or appreciation, and maybe not even compensation ...but like I said, if no one appreciates anything of value, even a forest, we won't continue to have it. And that's why things really are in decline.

My brother does love Wyoming, and he loves his work out there. He also lives part of the year on the Oregon Coast, where he's out to himself. He does have a good circle of friends there in Oregon. He's very happy not to be tied down.


Actually, I'm here mostly because I find it fun, and I think this is a good practice for me, not because I thought I could influence anyone's opinions.

Hey, I bet there in Oregon you see those HUGE trucks carrying HUGE, HUGE logs down the highway from the forest to the cardboard box factory, don't you?

[stlukesguild]

I was thinking of van Gogh. He made art because it flowed out of him...

The other artist that came into my mind as creating solely for the purpose of art was Edvard Munch. I thought of him because I can relate to his art, and I don't think he chose to create art, I think it was inevitable. I'm not sure if he died destitute like van Gogh though. I don't think he died with a bullet through his head...

It is dangerous to over-romanticize artists. Van Gogh's "career" as an artist lasted a mere 10 years. His work was shockingly new in many ways... to an extent that it took some time for it to be digested. His lack of financial success was owed to his isolation from the art market of the time... physically (he was working in the South of France rather than Paris)... and mentally (his mental illness made it difficult for him to deal with the realities of the art market). In spite of all of this, Van Gogh's fame spread rapidly following his death. Along with Cezanne, Gauguin, and Munch, Van Gogh was a leading source of inspiration for the following generation of artists (Picasso, Vlaminck, Bonnard, Vuillard, Matisse, Beckmann, etc...).

Few artists make a name for themselves early in their career. Monet, Renoir, Matisse, Picasso, Rodin, Rothko, etc... all struggled for a decade or longer before they gained recognition. In many ways it seems that this struggle strengthens the artist... those who rapidly achieve fame and fortune often fall prey to sycophants and burn themselves out in endless repetition. Munch, unfortunately, seems to have been one of the first of these "art stars" of the 20th century. Almost all that he achieved of merit was achieved within a ten-year period early in his career. We see this pattern repeat itself again and again in the careers of artists who achieve stardom early on... and then just lose any relevance as they repeat themselves ad nauseum: Warhol, Wesselman, Rauschenberg, etc... Artists such as Lucian Freud who achieve fame later in their career seem mature enough not to let it go to their head and not to be taken in by con artists and sycophants.

[AuntShecky]

As I said in earlier posts, I support the notion of copyright -- in limited form. It is true that some artists expect to profit from their endeavors, and that such an expectation is, in part, the result of their expectation that their work will be protected by copyright laws. However, Homer’s work was not protected by copyright laws (although he probably profited).

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.

It's absurd to talk about copyrights in antiquity.

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."

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.

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?

[Ecurb]

Ecurb,
Actually, I'm here mostly because I find it fun, and I think this is a good practice for me, not because I thought I could influence anyone's opinions.

Hey, I bet there in Oregon you see those HUGE trucks carrying HUGE, HUGE logs down the highway from the forest to the cardboard box factory, don't you?

I didn't mean to be disrespectful of you or your brother -- just to express my opinion. I think freedom of speech and ideas is at least as important as the financial gains of artists -- and striking a fair balance between the two is a delicate business.

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