[TAG] A case of copyright violation / plagiarism?
ny at youngman.org.uk
Mon Oct 9 13:58:53 MSD 2006
On or around Monday 09 October 2006 01:57, Benjamin A. Okopnik reorganised a
bunch of electrons to form the message:
> Let's start with the basic premise: plagiarism is theft of
> another person's property; it is flatly wrong.
At the risk of starting a flame war, I'd like to say that I'm unhappy with the
words "theft" and "property" here.
Obviously plagiarism is wrong, but "theft" and "property" are a little too
close to RIAA propaganda for my taste. In the term "Intellectual Property",
property is only an analogy, which gets badly abused. Use of these terms
promotes an over simplistic view of the complex legal issues
surrounding "Intellectual Property".
As I recall, theft is "taking of property with intent to permanently deprive
the owner of that property". The author is not being deprived of his IP when
it is copied, although in this case he may be deprived of the credit for it.
While the word "theft" makes the point very strongly, it is best avoided in
these debates. Could we please avoid such loaded terms as "theft"
and "piracy" and stick to "plagiarism" and "copyright violation" please?
More information about the TAG