Entry tags:
Questions on Lecture of 29082022
Read the lecture outline, comment on the questions that appear in the lecture outline in your blog posting for this lecture.
What is plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the act of taking somebody else's work and presenting it as if it was your own original work without citing or acknowledging the original creator.
Is plagiarism illegal?
Plagiarism is only illegal in the case that it infringes upon one's copyright, patent, or trademark. Additionally, it can be illegal if it breaches a contract that states that only original works' can be used.
How might plagiarism affect a typical professor?
A typical professor may steal study plans such as slides or homework from online without actually creating it themselves.
How might plagiarism affect a typical student?
A typical student may experience plagiarism in the form of copying homework from other students, online, or stealing information for a paper without properly citing it and taking somebody else's words as their own. Additionally, when writing a paper, a student may experience plagiarism by writing something without stealing from outside sources, but a plagiarism detector may have found another another students work that closely mirrors their own, mistaking their work as not original.
How many times did Paul McRory plagiarize his articles?
It appears as if occurred three times. The first known article he plagiarized was by Steve Haake in a publishing of Physics World on “Physics, technology and the Olympics”. Reportedly 50.7% of the words in that article were plagiarized by McRory, and although he has made a public apology and retracted the article, it is still considered plagiarism. An internet sleuth by the name of Nick Brown found two other cases of plagiarism by McRory, one in the publishing of Br J Sports Med in the journal "Definitions of the Purist", the other in the same journal but published a year later under the article name "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints...?". According to Brown 80-90% of these articles "has been copied verbatim from other sources". It is possible he plagiarized more but that is all that has been found for the moment.
What is AFL anyway?
AFL is the abbreviation for Australian Football League.
Is Curtis Brown's proposal for plagiarism ethical?
No, I don't believe it is. He proposes that a large array of PayPal accounts be setup for authors, and with every publication of every article, a bot will check for instances of plagiarism and for found violations it will credit the plagiarized author. He cites one scholar, Fawaz Gerges, who states that he was "delighted that he has borrowed heavily from [his] work", and although he is okay with it, Brown uses that as admission that many more would also be okay with plagiarism of their works. It is not 'good' for an author to use somebody else's work as their own without citations, acting as if they came up with it themselves and then paying off the original author is a selfish act, as they wish to seem as if they came up with these ideas and words on their own. Citations exist for a reason and to do away with them would be to introduce more 'bad' into the world.
Which of these cases is most interesting to you? Why?
The most interesting case to me is Jonah Lehrer's fabricated Bob Dylan quotes. This case fascinates me the most as it deals with a high profile publisher, the New Yorker, and how he was able to get away with fabrication in his articles for such a long period of time. As well as his continued fame and success in the book industry with him even reaching a rank of 105 on Amazon.com.
Is ghostwriting plagiarism?
No, in my opinion ghostwriting is not plagiarism. It is disingenuous but not plagiarism. Many popular music artists use ghostwriters, and although they have consent, they present themselves in a way as to make the public think that they are the ones writing the songs. I don't believe that it is right to do that and not publicize that fact, but that does not make it plagiarism.
Who cares about plagiarism?
Many people care, musicians, authors, publishers in academic journals. There are many different varieties of people who care.
What do you think of the Curtis Brown solution linked above (Zakaria case)?
I already responded to this earlier, but I don't approve. If the use of plagiarism was encouraged and allowed without repercussion, then I believe it will lead to a decrease in original ideas. If you are allowed to freely steal ideas from others word for word, what is the incentive for one to think for themself?
What do you think of that? Teaching computer ethics in an era of rampant plagiarism (https://old.reddit.com/r/ComputerEthics/comments/k7zbe7/teaching_computer_ethics_in_an_era_of_rampant/)
In that specific case, it seems as if the student's project was to make a website, and to them the content seemed like a secondary filler objective. Although I don't believe it is right to plagiarize, but if the website was not intended to be posted publicly, and the content is not what was emphasized as a part of the project that seemed essential, then I can understand why this event occurred. I believe that if the student was aware that the content of the website is what they were being graded on, then they did indeed commit egregious plagiarism and should be punished, but from the content of their response to the teacher it seems as if they were not aware. The student expressed remorse, was apologetic, and immediately offered to correct their mistake so in light of that I believe that the way that professor handled it was correct.
1. Encourage IP creation by giving the creators rights to their IP
2. Encourage society to benefit from IP by restricting creator rights
Why is this a tradeoff?
This is a tradeoff because on one hand the creators have the rights to their Intellectual Property, but on the other-hand the rights they have to enforce it are restricted. If the creator of the Intellectual Property doesn't allow their creation to be used in any way then society cannot use it for their betterment.
How might you encourage IP creation?
IP creation could be encouraged in a number of ways. In America, creation has a tendency to be stifled due to the law not being adequate enough to deal with the ways that big corporations are able to maneuver the system. There have been quite a number of cases where people have created their own original patents that are then stolen by large companies who use a process known as 'patent trolling' in which they use low qualities patents with a few correlations with an innovative company to litigate against them for patent infringement to either acquire their patent or make a quick buck by making them pay licensing fees. If the government were to crack down on this behavior then that is one way that IP creation might be encouraged.
How do copyright laws restrict society’s freedom to benefit from copyrighted IP?
Copyright laws currently restrict society's freedom to benefit from copyrighted IP by allowing patent creators to use their IP's well past their original end date. One high profile instance of this is Disney's copyright of 'Mickey Mouse'. Disney with their large amount of money have somehow managed to keep their copyright on Mickey Mouse for 95 years past its creation and 70 years after the death of the creator through copyright extension after copyright extension. Not to mention that they have managed to keep the trademark on Mickey Mouse by releasing poorly made games and shows to ensure that their copyright's continue indefinitely. If events like these were to be more highly policed then society could benefit more from copyrighted IP like the one mentioned.
What is plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the act of taking somebody else's work and presenting it as if it was your own original work without citing or acknowledging the original creator.
Is plagiarism illegal?
Plagiarism is only illegal in the case that it infringes upon one's copyright, patent, or trademark. Additionally, it can be illegal if it breaches a contract that states that only original works' can be used.
How might plagiarism affect a typical professor?
A typical professor may steal study plans such as slides or homework from online without actually creating it themselves.
How might plagiarism affect a typical student?
A typical student may experience plagiarism in the form of copying homework from other students, online, or stealing information for a paper without properly citing it and taking somebody else's words as their own. Additionally, when writing a paper, a student may experience plagiarism by writing something without stealing from outside sources, but a plagiarism detector may have found another another students work that closely mirrors their own, mistaking their work as not original.
How many times did Paul McRory plagiarize his articles?
It appears as if occurred three times. The first known article he plagiarized was by Steve Haake in a publishing of Physics World on “Physics, technology and the Olympics”. Reportedly 50.7% of the words in that article were plagiarized by McRory, and although he has made a public apology and retracted the article, it is still considered plagiarism. An internet sleuth by the name of Nick Brown found two other cases of plagiarism by McRory, one in the publishing of Br J Sports Med in the journal "Definitions of the Purist", the other in the same journal but published a year later under the article name "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints...?". According to Brown 80-90% of these articles "has been copied verbatim from other sources". It is possible he plagiarized more but that is all that has been found for the moment.
What is AFL anyway?
AFL is the abbreviation for Australian Football League.
Is Curtis Brown's proposal for plagiarism ethical?
No, I don't believe it is. He proposes that a large array of PayPal accounts be setup for authors, and with every publication of every article, a bot will check for instances of plagiarism and for found violations it will credit the plagiarized author. He cites one scholar, Fawaz Gerges, who states that he was "delighted that he has borrowed heavily from [his] work", and although he is okay with it, Brown uses that as admission that many more would also be okay with plagiarism of their works. It is not 'good' for an author to use somebody else's work as their own without citations, acting as if they came up with it themselves and then paying off the original author is a selfish act, as they wish to seem as if they came up with these ideas and words on their own. Citations exist for a reason and to do away with them would be to introduce more 'bad' into the world.
Which of these cases is most interesting to you? Why?
The most interesting case to me is Jonah Lehrer's fabricated Bob Dylan quotes. This case fascinates me the most as it deals with a high profile publisher, the New Yorker, and how he was able to get away with fabrication in his articles for such a long period of time. As well as his continued fame and success in the book industry with him even reaching a rank of 105 on Amazon.com.
Is ghostwriting plagiarism?
No, in my opinion ghostwriting is not plagiarism. It is disingenuous but not plagiarism. Many popular music artists use ghostwriters, and although they have consent, they present themselves in a way as to make the public think that they are the ones writing the songs. I don't believe that it is right to do that and not publicize that fact, but that does not make it plagiarism.
Who cares about plagiarism?
Many people care, musicians, authors, publishers in academic journals. There are many different varieties of people who care.
What do you think of the Curtis Brown solution linked above (Zakaria case)?
I already responded to this earlier, but I don't approve. If the use of plagiarism was encouraged and allowed without repercussion, then I believe it will lead to a decrease in original ideas. If you are allowed to freely steal ideas from others word for word, what is the incentive for one to think for themself?
What do you think of that? Teaching computer ethics in an era of rampant plagiarism (https://old.reddit.com/r/ComputerEthics/comments/k7zbe7/teaching_computer_ethics_in_an_era_of_rampant/)
In that specific case, it seems as if the student's project was to make a website, and to them the content seemed like a secondary filler objective. Although I don't believe it is right to plagiarize, but if the website was not intended to be posted publicly, and the content is not what was emphasized as a part of the project that seemed essential, then I can understand why this event occurred. I believe that if the student was aware that the content of the website is what they were being graded on, then they did indeed commit egregious plagiarism and should be punished, but from the content of their response to the teacher it seems as if they were not aware. The student expressed remorse, was apologetic, and immediately offered to correct their mistake so in light of that I believe that the way that professor handled it was correct.
1. Encourage IP creation by giving the creators rights to their IP
2. Encourage society to benefit from IP by restricting creator rights
Why is this a tradeoff?
This is a tradeoff because on one hand the creators have the rights to their Intellectual Property, but on the other-hand the rights they have to enforce it are restricted. If the creator of the Intellectual Property doesn't allow their creation to be used in any way then society cannot use it for their betterment.
How might you encourage IP creation?
IP creation could be encouraged in a number of ways. In America, creation has a tendency to be stifled due to the law not being adequate enough to deal with the ways that big corporations are able to maneuver the system. There have been quite a number of cases where people have created their own original patents that are then stolen by large companies who use a process known as 'patent trolling' in which they use low qualities patents with a few correlations with an innovative company to litigate against them for patent infringement to either acquire their patent or make a quick buck by making them pay licensing fees. If the government were to crack down on this behavior then that is one way that IP creation might be encouraged.
How do copyright laws restrict society’s freedom to benefit from copyrighted IP?
Copyright laws currently restrict society's freedom to benefit from copyrighted IP by allowing patent creators to use their IP's well past their original end date. One high profile instance of this is Disney's copyright of 'Mickey Mouse'. Disney with their large amount of money have somehow managed to keep their copyright on Mickey Mouse for 95 years past its creation and 70 years after the death of the creator through copyright extension after copyright extension. Not to mention that they have managed to keep the trademark on Mickey Mouse by releasing poorly made games and shows to ensure that their copyright's continue indefinitely. If events like these were to be more highly policed then society could benefit more from copyrighted IP like the one mentioned.