>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Michael Graham <mgraham[_at_]marshallip.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, I cannot impose my opinion on others. However, I am unclear on how
> > being truthful in attribution threatens free speech?
>
> Being truthful in attribution by itself is not a threat to the
> free speech. It is the requirement itself that is problematic.
> The enforcement of attributions - forcing people to provide
> attributions - places limitations on the freedoms of speech
> and press.
I fail to see how a requirement to attribute a work to its author violates anybody's free speech, any more than the requirement that one identify oneself to a police officer does. You take the right of free speech too far if you give others the right to plagerize. And note that plagiarism does NOT require an existing copyright. One can plagerize from the public domain.
>
> Do we really want the great-great-great-great-grandchildren of
> Charles Dickens to force people to provide attribution whenever
> they copy any idea from Charles Dickens' _Christmas Carol_ even
> though the copyright protection has expired?
If they take a substantial amount of the text, then YES. Copyright has nothing at all to do with it. The issue is that one should recognize the sources of one's ideas when those sources are known. That not only is fair and ethical, but it BROADENS the practice of free speech because it allows others to investigate further. The advancement of knowledge is not furthered by hiding the sources of one's works. Quite the opposite is true. By listing sources, one helps others check and improve one's works.
> Do we really want
> the authors and their descendants watching over our shoulders
> to make sure that we give proper credit for every item that we
> copy from them? The mere threat of lawsuit if you don't provide
> proper attribution is enough to produce chilling effect on how
> you write or speak.
The issue isn't necessarily one of lawsuits. The concept does not need to be legally enforced, but it should be ethically enforced. For example, historians that have "borrowed" from others without attribution and subsequently have been outed aren't necessarily sued, but their works become suspect, as well they should. Thus, there is peer pressure to attribute the works of others. Self-policing can work. The problem is that you appear to be saying that it is PROPER to not attribute. That I cannot agree with. A student who turns in a paper copied from a Shakespeare play should get a failing grade if proper attribution is not given. That is the proper response.
>
> Being truthful in attribution can be also a problem. Even you
> are very honest in providing attribution to Charles Dickens'
> works, do we want the descendents of Charles Dickens to have the
> ability to force (through lawsuit) you to eliminate attribution if
> they find your works not meeting their tastes (such as X-rate or
> even R-rate movie on _Christmas Carol_)?
I don't think that anybody suggested such an enforcement scheme.
>
> J. K. Rowling's books on Harry Potter are fun to read. I am
> looking forward to fifth book. Many ideas in her books came
> from the public domain world (never mind what she said - she
> was not 100% candid).
"Ideas" are not protected. I serously doubt that she copied, verbatin or even closely, the works of an identifiable other person. Hence, no attribution is necessary. You are distorting the issue of when attribution is needed.
> Just imagine the consequence if she
> is required to provide attribution for each idea that she
> copies from the public domain world. She would not be able
> to succeed if we let the bars of attribution imprison her.
> It is far better to let her have the freedom to communicate,
> the freedom to tell a story, than having her hands handcuffed
> with the chains of attribution that are as long as Nile River.
Again, noboby is suggesting that this must be done.
>
> We must not let authors gain perpetual copyright through the
> guise of trademark.
Nobody suggested this be done.
-Bodi Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 19:17:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT