Re: Re: Acknowledging samples

On 9/19/06, Steven Jamar <stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. I thought giving attribution was simple courtesy.

When courtesy is combined with the threat of failing grade or expulsion from university, it is no longer a courtesy but it is now a prod. The academia is prodding the students to provide attribution with the noose hanging over their heads.

Courtesy involves the element of free will that comes from the heart. When a person is glad to acknowledge someone else, it is courtesy just as when a man opens a door for a lady or girl. But when a student is fearful of not passing his course or being expelled from university even on one small oversight, there is no courtesy in it and only we can see fear in it.

> And
> plagiarism does count in the world outside of academia, though not
> quite so rigorously, except in the press, perhaps.

There is too much double standard in world. It is obvious that J. K. Rowling derived from many sources for her books. Yet, the publishers and authors do not complain about her plagiarism (recall that plagiarism is not limited to words but also covers ideas). If she were to submit her books as a thesis at a college, she would be expelled pronto.

> Some are indeed
> driven by ego. I confess to liking seeing my work credited.

We all love praise, attention, acknowledgement, and so on. But when a person forces his egoism on other people, he is taking away from the people the freedom to acknowledge or not to acknowledge.

> At least a few of us consider giving credit where credit is due,
> especially for hard work and creative activity, to be an aspect of
> honesty and integrity. Last I looked those were at least Biblical
> values, and even scriptural.

This is an example of being selective to support your position.

If you wish to give credit where credit is due, that's your business. But forcing people to give credit where credit is due has no Biblical basis. The Scriptures greatly frown on pride, envy and greed. We should not be forced to give credit where credit is due to satisfy people's pride. We should not be forced to do so to give more attention to authors that will lead to envy to each other. We should not be forced to do so just to satisfy the authors' greed for attention, power, and money.

Honesty and integrity do not depend on the number of attributions that are provided. Many attributions do not necessarily mean that author is honest. Few or no attributions does not necessarily mean that author is dishonest.

If an author claims that his book comes from him alone and not from other sources, he is lying. If an author is brave to tell the truth that he copies some words and ideas from different sources but does not provide attribution, he does right thing.

> Didn't Jesus usually give credit when
> he quoted the prophets?

You need to do a bit of research. More often than not, he did not give names of prophets. He merely said "it is written" without giving the names.

Also, you confuse citation with attribution. He quoted the words from the prophets (and law as well) not for the sake of attribution but to invoke the authority that came from the prophets. It is like court decisions where judges need to provide citations to show where the power or legality flows from.

If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to submit their books as theses at their colleges, they would be branded as plagiarist and be expelled from the colleges and the colleges would try to excise their books from the Bible.

> Wow! This is not true in my experience.

I am not referring to verses that appear all over the religious works. I am referring to the ideas and words that come from outside
the Scriptures. Pick any sermon and cross out the verses. Do you see any attribution for ideas within remaining portions? Pick any song and cross out the words that come from the Scriptures. Do you see any attribution for pieces of tunes that come from other sources? Pick any religious brochure and cross out the verses. Do you see any attribution for ideas within the remaining portions?

> Well, academics have had an impact on the development of copyright so
> what they think may indeed have some relevance. But I assume you are
> highlighting the distinction between plagiarism and copyright here.

Without doubt, the academia has a lot of influence on the copyright law. But, not all of it is good or positive. It is pretty obvious that the academia would love to see the copyright law expanded to force people to provide attribution with no regard for the freedom of speech and press. As long as their concept of plagiarism stops at their door, they absolutely have no effect on people in the real world that choose not to provide attribution.

> Note that the law also frowns upon fraud and passing off and reverse
> passing off, even if not a matter for copyright.

These are very limited to situations where actual harm happens such as buying a book that the seller claimed to be written by J. K. Rowling but it turned out not true. If there is no harm such as finding a forged book in landfill, there is no basis for bringing case to court.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,486

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Wed Sep 20 2006 - 21:05:30 GMT