>
>
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> You are wandering into a totally different territory when you
> try to make an analogy between requirement of attribution and
> requirement to reveal one's name to a police officer. We have
> laws on libel, slander, forgery, and perjury. None of them has
> any affect on the freedoms of speech and press because they
> are very limited in term of scope and time and focus on the
> consequences of the deceitful actions, not the deceitful actions
> itself.
Laws against libel, slander, etc. certainly DO have an impact on free speech rights, which is why the application of those areas of the law have been limited by the First Amendment.
> Later in your post, you said that ideas are not protected and
> therefore, they do not require attribution. But, plagiarism
> is not limited to fixed copyrightable expressions but also
> extend to all ideas. In a way, the free speech allows one
> to plagiarize by copying ides from other sources without
> attribution.
I mispoke. Ideas should also ethically require attribution when they are clearly the product of a particular person. However, they are not protectable by copyright.
But I do NOT agree that free speech "allows" one to plagerize by copying ideas. The reason copyrights expire is because the Constitution requires that they be for a limited time. There may well be other reasons to require attribution that may not infringe on free speech rights. I am against legally forced attribution just because of the difficulties in proof, etc., not because of any free speech rights.
> > 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.
>
> You are mixing ethics with legality. Is copyright infringement
> the same as stealing?
In my opinion, yes. I'm not sure that attribution should be required by law, but I certainly think that society should encourage it, and those that violate it deserve to be shunned.
> > 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.
>
> Again, you are mixing ethics with legality. Note that I said
> in other post that attribution is nice but it should be always
> optional, meaning that not providing attribution should not
> be made illegal.
>From a legal sense, once copyright has run out, attribution should probably
not be illegal. But there can certainly be ethical and society reasons to
"enforce" attribution.
-Bodi Received on Mon Jun 16 2003 - 18:51:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT