[TAG] A case of copyright violation / plagiarism?

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:58:53AM +0100, Neil Youngman wrote:
> 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.

[sigh] Neil, I've been to Washington and breathed the same air as Bush.
I've also used some of the same words in English that he has used. This
does not make me responsible for the war in Iraq. By the same token, not
using any terms that RIAA has used has never been an explicit goal of
mine.

I disagree with their position on intellectual property - and still
consider plagiarism as theft.

> 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.

Yes - and that credit *IS* the property under discussion. Thus, my
entire point.
 
> 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?

Neil, let me recap the situation: Amit implied that he was ignorant of
the issue. How, exactly, would you explain plagiarism by using only
"plagiarism"?


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *