Page 1 of 1
Plagerism in Wisdom
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:02 am
Something I stumbled accross while getting ideas for my website. Thought it would be a nice conversation piece to enter the new year with.
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2002 1:55 pm
Thanks for such an interesting subject. I voted Other. I know I have probably copywrited stuff a lot but I am trying to get out of that bad habbit. Its ethically wrong and its a federal crime. It worries me too as a graphic designer that people will be copywriting my stuff and therefore I won't get the money I deserve for my creations. It happens with words, pictures, ect. The problem is huge and its very hard to control but every little bit of stopping it helps...........
Love and Light
Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2002 5:18 pm
I use a lot of resources from the Internet when I create my rituals, but I always TRY to credit the sources. Many of the ones I find useful have been "reworked" and their original source(s) are usually credited, too. I appreciate that some offer information for "free" personal use (which I claim) and ask for credit (or refuse access to copying) for publishing or profit elsewhere. Original creations are works of art, regardless of the form taken. I liked the opinion: Ideas belong to people, Truth and Wisdom belong to the world. (I actually voted for it!!) But it begs the question, how are Truth and Wisdom achieved without Ideas??
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:21 am
When I was thinking about the ideas, I was more or less thinking of particular merchandise like mickey mouse and barbie, those can be sold off while the soul or the idea that god exists everywhere and in everything cannot be sold. In that cast it's neither wisdom or truth for we don't know the truth but it's an idea or is that when it becomes an ideal? No, ideas are for everyone and we would not be able to grow and learn like we have as a society and species but in the answers above take it as ideas made commercial.
The only thing I have against the rant the link goes to is that using written text for educational purposes, like a student's report or for teaching a class is not prohibited and is protected by the law itself. Students should still give credit but the law is a little more giving as to what you can or cannot use. By law anyone and everyone are alowed only a protion that is 10% or 200 words of a document. The 200th word is highlighted in blue for those of you, who want an idea of how much 200 words are. Students and teachers however can use up to an entire chapter. I believe, don't quote me on that.
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 7:58 pm
Sounds like what you're really talking about is things, not ideas. If you get an idea to create a "thing" and you copywrite it, then the entire concept, idea and all, belongs to you and yes, it can be sold...by you. That's different from the 2nd example about god existing everywhere. It is better described as an ideology, I think, which is defined in my dictionary as: 1] the ideas and objectives that influence a whole group or national culture, shaping their political and social procedure; 2] the science that treats of the origin, evolution, and expression of human ideas; and 3] fanciful or visionary speculation. I don't think "merchandise" fits any of those categories.
Celtic_Dragon wrote:When I was thinking about the ideas, I was more or less thinking of particular merchandise like mickey mouse and barbie, those can be sold off while the soul or the idea that god exists everywhere and in everything cannot be sold.
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:03 am
ok, I fixed!
I have a bad habit of coming in late on topics!
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:49 pm
If I'm not mistaken, Celtic Dragon, there are also intellectual property rights wrapped up in here. I think it's morally OK to use another person's poetry, song lyrics, the song itself, or written words as long as: (1) credit is given where credit is due; and (2) the borrower doesn't profit from the original author/artist's work (one exception to that would be a cover song, although the reworking is the work of the cover artist).
People work hard to foster creative ideas, and for another to benefit financially by plagiarizing someone's work is just plain wrong. For example, let's say you're an up and coming artist who just copyrighted some songs with the Library of Congress. If someone else profits from reworking your songs without giving you the songwriting credits, this person is not only breaking the law but also taking food out of your mouth.
My ultimate point is that although no one should even attempt to make free thought the priviledged right of a few or one, certain intellectual property rights should still be respected. People's livelihoods could very well hang in the balance.
Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 5:42 pm
thats interesting, i think that it is wrong in someways but i still think it is part of freedom of spech to tell ppl it was bad
but she dose make a point that it is stellin to post large portions all over the net
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2003 6:59 pm
Well, my "do it mainly for the love of the art" principal got me laughed at by my friends many times for being "naive". But if i would make song for example, and someone else would make money by performing the song, my hat's off to them. Why, because if they are able to perform the composition and the lyrics i wrote so good that people would pay for it, they deserve it. And i would sure be happy to know that they like the song and the music even if the artist wasn't deacent enough to give me credit. People should pay for performance, not the idea.
Same with books, if i published my book and made good money on it that means people loved it and recommended it to others and on and on. Why would i care if someone printed it whole on the net for people to see? Hell i would go around preaching my story for free if no one bought it.
Today people don't care if their creation is what people like, they wanna be famous want credit, and most of all money. Everything today is rediculously commercialised, from art to christmas...
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:43 pm
I'd love to be able to invest the time in making things nice enough people would steal them...be it story/art/whatever. However, I'd like it even more if we had a culture that didn't drain you dry enough with petty stuff to make whatever you put into art a real expenditure..and all the more valuble. If someone is trying to charge for it, some respect needs to be paid to that to try to support the continuation of the creation process.
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:26 pm
I voted other. If this is a book that is copywritten, then it should not be taken and posted without permission even in pieces.
Now, if this is non-copywritten work, then there should be no problem with it.
The only reason I say this is, a lot of copywritten work is persons thoughts written down. I would not want someone sharing my individual thoughts with the world unless I gave permission.
If this is something such as rituals, magical spells, exercizes etc, I don't think you could legally copywrite those too easily. And if you were able too, I would not use them as at that point you are trying to just plain make money, and you are not being true to your self, or to you religious community.
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:14 pm
I would add that it depends on copy write expiration and source of material. I mean, if someone was piecing together info from other sources, more or less verbatim, then I think anyone should be able to use it. However, if they created it, then one should respect it in the context they have allowed others to use it.
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:02 pm
The only thing that I see is that by using quotes from things, it's like free publicity, and a lot of people like that. I'm a writer, and hope to get my stuff published. For me, I wouldn't want people to take my stuff and put it out there as their own, but if they say that I thought it up, then I don't mind. And that is the rule that I go by when I'm doing something like copying things. My english teacher told me to copy the pages from books so that she could see where I got my info from. I don't mind copying one page for that, and writing the bibliography stuff for it.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:42 am
I read something somewhere once.... "Knowledge is knowing about the fire. Wisdom is remembering the burn."
So, I don't think you can plagiarise wisdom. Wisdom is something you gain, not something you can give.
My university kicks people out for plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as having three words in a row that are the same as the source material. If it's a direct quote (which is Frowned Upon anyway) it's okay, as long as it's properly cited. If not you must rephrase. And it can be very difficult to rephrase a simple sentence so that no three consecutive words are the same. But still, it's a good idea. Stops people from stealing work that wasn't theirs, and everything. I know I'd be fairly miffed if someone nicked off with my intellectual property without making sure everyone knew it was mine.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:30 pm
Windwalker wrote:And it can be very difficult to rephrase a simple sentence so that no three consecutive words are the same.
From law of averages alone, i would have id it was pretty near impüopssible.
Edinburgh just said that if a sentece was reccognisable as to where it came from, and was not "sourced".
I supose, though, that some courses need more "direct quotes" than others.
Also the differences between a "sientific" proof, and "interpretive" work.
But surely that depends on your writting style?
Plagarism was never really mentioned except "in passing", and I do not remember ever hearing of any one "sacked" for it.