5 ms·

Right, if it was anything more than a comment on a message board, I agree, but just as borrowing a piece of paper or pencil during class without returning it is

by andreyf 17y ago

Right, if it was anything more than a comment on a message board, I agree, but just as borrowing a piece of paper or pencil during class without returning it is technically "theft", this is similarly justified.

jacquesm 17y ago
You really don't get it do you? How do I go about explaining this in a way that the coin will drop... Borrowing a pencil or a piece of (blank) paper during class concerns the use of raw materials. There is no personal investment in to that piece of paper or pencil, they are the equal of any other piece of paper or pencil, which is why you can 'return' a piece of paper, you simply take another one that looks sufficiently like the original and you return it. To take someone else's words with attribution is one thing, even when done without permission. To take someone else's words and to pass them off as your own is the essence of plagiarism. You basically pretended to have come up with those words on your own. That's 'not done', not because you can't but simply because if everybody would be doing that we'd be having a cut and paste discussion instead of a real one. If you use a link to underscore a point you make (or even a cut-and-paste quote with a source) that's perfectly fine, but to simply copy someones words and make them your own is well over the line. 'Just a comment on a message board' has nothing to do with it, that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Accepting (and using) your confounding between copyright violation, plagiarism, and theft, most moral and legal system make exception to very minor infringements. The oldest I know of is the Babylonian Talmud, which grants exception to "injury less than a perutah in value" [1]. I challenge you to show any value in this "theft". that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's Precisely! That's what I meant by "borrow a pencil" without returning it: I'm saying it's OK to steal a piece of paper (or copy a comment), but not a dollar (or copy his blog post), and not a 100 (or copy a chapter from his book), especially if it serves another purpose (comparing replies to a popular comment in two communities). 1. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I give up. Someone else want to give it a shot?
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Someone else want to give it a shot? Sure. Assuming we have the same innate moral sense as the authors of the Talmud, you value the damages of my copyright infringement as greater or equal than a perutah in value. I do not. As a matter of fact, the reason I cross-posted is that I don't think the comment in question deserved the top spot, and would frankly be ashamed if such writing/logic were ever seriously attributed to me.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Right... do you know what 'adding insult to injury' means ?
      - boundlessdreamz 17y ago
        Wow dude.. You are one of a kind.
    - tel 17y ago
      Here's a good example: http://waxy.org/2009/04/all_things_digital_and_transparency_in_online_journalism/ http://waxy.org/2009/04/all_things_digital_and_transparency_... The short of it being that identity is paramount online. Stealing content can be a copyright issue, but stepping into someone else's voice and holding someone else's creative content as your own is simply evil. With proper, comprehensive attribution there's some flex to go around, but even then it's generally something done with consent and grace. Cross-posting someone else's comment might just be borrowing their pencil for an argument, but since it's kind of an amazing pencil and now you're showing it off to your friends like it's your own, you should expect cold stares when you give it back.
      - andreyf 17y ago
        Again, it depends on the value you attribute to a news.YC comment, and a reddit "identity". I agree with and understand the immorality of plagiarism, I'm just saying it only applies to work one puts more than a couple of minutes of effort into.

by andreyf 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

You really don't get it do you? How do I go about explaining this in a way that the coin will drop... Borrowing a pencil or a piece of (blank) paper during class concerns the use of raw materials. There is no personal investment in to that piece of paper or pencil, they are the equal of any other piece of paper or pencil, which is why you can 'return' a piece of paper, you simply take another one that looks sufficiently like the original and you return it. To take someone else's words with attribution is one thing, even when done without permission. To take someone else's words and to pass them off as your own is the essence of plagiarism. You basically pretended to have come up with those words on your own. That's 'not done', not because you can't but simply because if everybody would be doing that we'd be having a cut and paste discussion instead of a real one. If you use a link to underscore a point you make (or even a cut-and-paste quote with a source) that's perfectly fine, but to simply copy someones words and make them your own is well over the line. 'Just a comment on a message board' has nothing to do with it, that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's.

andreyf 17y ago
Accepting (and using) your confounding between copyright violation, plagiarism, and theft, most moral and legal system make exception to very minor infringements. The oldest I know of is the Babylonian Talmud, which grants exception to "injury less than a perutah in value" [1]. I challenge you to show any value in this "theft". that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's Precisely! That's what I meant by "borrow a pencil" without returning it: I'm saying it's OK to steal a piece of paper (or copy a comment), but not a dollar (or copy his blog post), and not a 100 (or copy a chapter from his book), especially if it serves another purpose (comparing replies to a popular comment in two communities). 1. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I give up. Someone else want to give it a shot?
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Someone else want to give it a shot? Sure. Assuming we have the same innate moral sense as the authors of the Talmud, you value the damages of my copyright infringement as greater or equal than a perutah in value. I do not. As a matter of fact, the reason I cross-posted is that I don't think the comment in question deserved the top spot, and would frankly be ashamed if such writing/logic were ever seriously attributed to me.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Right... do you know what 'adding insult to injury' means ?
    - boundlessdreamz 17y ago
      Wow dude.. You are one of a kind.
  - tel 17y ago
    Here's a good example: http://waxy.org/2009/04/all_things_digital_and_transparency_in_online_journalism/ http://waxy.org/2009/04/all_things_digital_and_transparency_... The short of it being that identity is paramount online. Stealing content can be a copyright issue, but stepping into someone else's voice and holding someone else's creative content as your own is simply evil. With proper, comprehensive attribution there's some flex to go around, but even then it's generally something done with consent and grace. Cross-posting someone else's comment might just be borrowing their pencil for an argument, but since it's kind of an amazing pencil and now you're showing it off to your friends like it's your own, you should expect cold stares when you give it back.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Again, it depends on the value you attribute to a news.YC comment, and a reddit "identity". I agree with and understand the immorality of plagiarism, I'm just saying it only applies to work one puts more than a couple of minutes of effort into.