5 ms·

You make assumptions instead of reading what is written. He said it is plagiarism, then affirms again that t is stealing. This is the generally accepted defin

by fdhgzr 16y ago

You make assumptions instead of reading what is written. He said it is plagiarism, then affirms again that t is stealing. This is the generally accepted definition of plagarism. He doesn't accuse anyone of a crime, if he had maybe he would have used words like fraud or copyright infringement, or something along those lines, instead he said plagiarize; and as other have commented, plagiarism doesn't necessarily constitute copyright infringement and vice versa. And then you proceeded to take the insult to injury comment out of context, in context he meant that obviously this author who plagiarized didn't even care enough to find out if someone owned the image either, or further that it had apparently been edited by the blogger in question. No claims were made about copyright infringement whatsoever, but it showed a significant lack of due diligence even further so then simply plagiarizing the article. So now that I am done refering to myself in 3rd person. I would absolutely love to take a lesson out of your book and assume you are something based on what you write (or don't write) out of context and make myself feel 5 times better, but your not worth it. And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea. And if negative karma is the consequence of well worded opinion, then I haven't a clue why anyone would want positive karma.

chc 16y ago
> And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea. No, they get thrown out for doing something against the rules of the school. The fact that they get thrown out does not prove that an idea was meaningfully stolen (as opposed to the simpler explanation, in which the student experienced a lapse of integrity in following citation requirements). A thought experiment: If I believe that we have a duty to repay society for all that it has done for us, then in order not to be a thief, am I required to raise Immanuel Kant from the dead and ask him for permission every time I want to bring it up in conversation? Obviously, no. I'm allowed to believe the same thing as Immanuel Kant and it is not theft. If I got my ideas from Kant but tried to deny it, that would be dishonest, and he would still be the originator, but ideas aren't really property. This isn't defending what the Long Island Press did, but you're going too far in the other direction.
- 69696969urmom 16y ago
  Either a) you are suggesting that, if you thought experiment fails, it is acceptable for me to publish "Critique of Pure Reason" word for word except replace every string of "Immanuel Kant" with my own name, or b) you are trying to compare apples and oranges, plagiarism applies to written words; your thought experiment doesn't hold water. Ideas are not property, however the expression of them is (which is the very basis of copyright law as it applies to written works). If you assert in print that "that there are synthetic judgments such as the connection of cause and effect (e.g., "... Every effect has a cause.") where no analysis of the subject will produce the predicate," then went on reason that statements such as those found in Geometry and Newtonian physics are synthetic judgments. Using the classical example of 7 + 5 = 12. No amount of analysis will find 12 in either 7 or 5... So you present the aforementioned idea and the reasoning behind it (both of which are atributed to kant btw): do you think that if I came along and reworded my reasoning behind the idea but drew the exact same conclusions, that I am absolved from giving credit to the original source? Or perhaps you are claiming that because I reworded your idea it became my idea? Something as unique of an idea as Synthetic Judgment, which in it of itself is the creation of the author, what then? Anyone who has ever written a philosophy paper (myself included) has invariably had to cite (give credit) to some long dead source. Even were the source alive typically a citation is the accepted manner in which to give credit to the original author. I'm not sure what aspect of this situation somehow allows this author to be absolved of having to give credit where credit is due; Common Knowldge? Certainly not. The author wrote an article on the same subject matter and used the same analysis.

by fdhgzr 16y ago

chc 16y ago

> And yes you can steal an idea, people get thrown out of higher education everyday for stealing someone's idea. No, they get thrown out for doing something against the rules of the school. The fact that they get thrown out does not prove that an idea was meaningfully stolen (as opposed to the simpler explanation, in which the student experienced a lapse of integrity in following citation requirements). A thought experiment: If I believe that we have a duty to repay society for all that it has done for us, then in order not to be a thief, am I required to raise Immanuel Kant from the dead and ask him for permission every time I want to bring it up in conversation? Obviously, no. I'm allowed to believe the same thing as Immanuel Kant and it is not theft. If I got my ideas from Kant but tried to deny it, that would be dishonest, and he would still be the originator, but ideas aren't really property. This isn't defending what the Long Island Press did, but you're going too far in the other direction.

69696969urmom 16y ago
Either a) you are suggesting that, if you thought experiment fails, it is acceptable for me to publish "Critique of Pure Reason" word for word except replace every string of "Immanuel Kant" with my own name, or b) you are trying to compare apples and oranges, plagiarism applies to written words; your thought experiment doesn't hold water. Ideas are not property, however the expression of them is (which is the very basis of copyright law as it applies to written works). If you assert in print that "that there are synthetic judgments such as the connection of cause and effect (e.g., "... Every effect has a cause.") where no analysis of the subject will produce the predicate," then went on reason that statements such as those found in Geometry and Newtonian physics are synthetic judgments. Using the classical example of 7 + 5 = 12. No amount of analysis will find 12 in either 7 or 5... So you present the aforementioned idea and the reasoning behind it (both of which are atributed to kant btw): do you think that if I came along and reworded my reasoning behind the idea but drew the exact same conclusions, that I am absolved from giving credit to the original source? Or perhaps you are claiming that because I reworded your idea it became my idea? Something as unique of an idea as Synthetic Judgment, which in it of itself is the creation of the author, what then? Anyone who has ever written a philosophy paper (myself included) has invariably had to cite (give credit) to some long dead source. Even were the source alive typically a citation is the accepted manner in which to give credit to the original author. I'm not sure what aspect of this situation somehow allows this author to be absolved of having to give credit where credit is due; Common Knowldge? Certainly not. The author wrote an article on the same subject matter and used the same analysis.