no see you don't get it.

it doesn't matter who wrote it, who plagiarized it, or whatever.

what counts is that it resonates so strongly. it is all too true, 1984 and animal farm both.

they could have been written by lady gaga... it wouldn't matter. they are really really effective criticisms. i couldn't care less what kind of guy orwell was or where he got his ideas from.

Like I said, someone could write (or plagarize?) "communism iz bad" in crayon and you would think it was more influential than the Bible.

Everything is plagarized. After all, 'there is nothing new under the sun'. everybody, every writer, every artist, every musician, all borrow ideas from those who came before. Just because someone is influened bu another, even heavily, does not mean they are a thief. Anyway, intellectual property is a ridiculous concept, How an someone own an idea? They in turn must have been influenced by others in coming up with the idea in the first place.

Ideas are catching. Thats what influenza is. I'm sorry, influence

The total lack of concern for plagiarism, academic dishonesty, and passing off other people's work as your own is truly astonishing. I'm guessing wherever some people here went to school they didn't investigate whether you actually did your own work, and just let you leech off of other people's work.

You really don't think it's a tragedy, Sicarius, that a genius like Tesla, who invented the radio, never got credit for it during his lifetime, and instead credit was given to Marconi simply because he had the resources?

I think that's fundamentally unfair, but anarchists have a bizarre inverted sense of justice.

The very assump­tions behind the concept of “intel­lec­tual prop­erty” require more atten­tion than we have given them. The factors that affect the words and deeds of an indi­vidual are many and var­ied, not the least of them being her social-cultural cli­mate and the input of other indi­vidu­als. To say that any idea has its sole ori­gins in the being of one indi­vidual man or woman is to grossly over­sim­plify. But we are so accus­tomed to claim­ing items and objects for ourselves, and to being forced to accept sim­ilar claims from oth­ers, in the cut­throat com­pet­i­tion to acquire and dom­in­ate (before we are acquired and dom­in­ated) that is life in a mar­ket eco­nomy, that it seems nat­ural to do the same with ideas. Cer­tainly there must be other ways of think­ing about the ori­gins and own­er­ship of ideas that war­rant con­sid­er­a­tion — for our present approach does more than merely dis­tract from the ideas.
Another incid­ental draw­back of our asso­ci­ation of ideas with spe­cific indi­vidu­als is that it pro­motes the accept­ance of these ideas in their ori­ginal form. The stu­dents who learn the philo­sophy of Descartes are encour­aged to learn it in its ortho­dox form, rather than learn­ing the parts which they find rel­ev­ant to their own lives and interests and com­bin­ing these parts with ideas from other sources. Out of defer­ence to the ori­ginal thinker, dei­fied as he is in our tra­di­tion, his texts and the­or­ies are to be pre­served as-is, without ever being put into new forms or con­texts which might reveal new insights. Mum­mi­fied as they are, many the­or­ies become com­pletely irrel­ev­ant to mod­ern exist­ence, when they could have been given a new lease on life by being treated with a little less reverence.
After all, a good idea should be avail­able to every­one — should belong to every­one — if it really is a good idea. In a soci­ety organ­ised with human hap­pi­ness as the object­ive, copy­right infringe­ment laws and sim­ilar restric­tions would not hinder the dis­tri­bu­tion and recom­bin­a­tion of ideas. These imped­i­ments only make it more dif­fi­cult for indi­vidu­als who are look­ing for chal­len­ging and inspir­ing mater­ial to come upon it and share it with others.
Pla­gi­ar­ism focuses atten­tion on con­tent and away from incid­ental issues, by mak­ing the genu­ine ori­gins of the mater­ial impossible to ascer­tain. It could be argued that the genu­ine ori­gins of the con­tents of most inspir­a­tions and pro­pos­i­tions are impossible to determ­ine any­way. By sign­ing a new name, or no name at all, to a text, the pla­gi­ar­iser puts the mater­ial in an entirely new con­text, and this may gen­er­ate new per­spect­ives and new think­ing about the sub­ject that have not appeared before.

How hard is it to give credit to other people's research? If someone spent months and months tabulating original source data, organizing it into tables, and doing the tedious data analysis, how is it far that some lazy schmuck can come around and take that work and publish it as if it is his own? What does giving credit to people who did work have anything to do with "mummified theories"? You can cite and work and then add your own ideas. Adding your ideas and stealing other people's work are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently anarchists believe in leeching off the labor of others. The more they speak the more it is evident that they're really not different from the bourgeoisie.

How about vladimir putin? is he then, some kind of vanguard of the people revolution? The paragon of equality's champion?

Nice transition there. Tired of defending plagiarism, I guess?

Putin is no socialist. But he's fixing the mess Yeltsin and his criminal oligarch friends left the country in and has been vocal in opposing NATO machinations around the world. I picked his name more because I admire his personality than his politics, though. But again, what does this have to do with anything?

Just find it ironic that someone who chose "putin" as their namesake would rail against "leeching off of others" and being bourgeoisie. I cant think of anything that fits that description better than a politician.

And I'm not saying people should profit from 'stealing' other peoples ideas. I'm saying we shouldnt look at ideas as something that can be stolen in the first place.

"And I'm not saying people should profit from 'stealing' other peoples ideas. I'm saying we shouldnt look at ideas as something that can be stolen in the first place."

What doublespeak. "I'm not advocating stealing, because there's no such thing as stealing!"

So people can labor endlessly on an idea or project and you and your black hankerchiefed friends can come and take credit for it without lifting a finger for its production or development. Brilliant. But it's not "stealing", because shouldn't receive credit for their hard work anyway, right?

More proof that if your people ever got into power it'd be a nightmare for workers.

"Just find it ironic that someone who chose "putin" as their namesake would rail against "leeching off of others" and being bourgeoisie"

I fail to see the irony. What businesses does Putin own?

I'm saying ideas should not be seen as capital. I'm saying the concept of intellectual property is laughable. I'm saying you can't own an idea. Which I just explained, at some length six posts above.

I know you fail to see the irony. Obviously.

I also find it ironic that you spent probably two-thousand words decrying orwell as a hack, yet you use terms that he popularized.

hey dude for the record im not defending plagiarism. haven't looked up the orwell stuff but i'll take your word for it, it was a bad thing to do, maybe orwell was a dick in person, etc.

my point about the book being incredibly poignant stands.

"I'm saying ideas should not be seen as capital. I'm saying the concept of intellectual property is laughable. I'm saying you can't own an idea. Which I just explained, at some length six posts above. "

I'm aware of what you said. I'm trying to get at the fact that you don't see anything wrong with taking credit for other people's work. True or false. There is such a thing as plagiarism and it is wrong? True or false - Passing off ideas that other people developed as the product of your own labor is wrong?

Would it be wrong, according to you, to take an article or short story somebody else wrote and put your name on it, and get monetarily rewarded for putting your name on it?

"I also find it ironic that you spent probably two-thousand words decrying orwell as a hack, yet you use terms that he popularized."

Of course you'd find it ironic. Of course you couldn't explain how the two are remotely equivalent, but you can continue to repeat the word 'ironic' a couple dozen more times.

also yeah he does have a bit of a point about how putin is like.... rich.

$40 billion dollars. and he owns lots of shares in the russian energy industry.

Where is this number from? Putin claims to earn £100,000 and a small stake in a garage cooperative.

Would it be wrong, according to you, to take an article or short story somebody else wrote and put your name on it, and get monetarily rewarded for putting your name on it?

I try not to let myself think in black and white. Generalities are rarely either just right or wrong, there are always shades of gray. I would say in a situation where someone is making money, there is probably a lot of dishonesty involved. But I remain a staunch advocate of plagarism.
heres an example of what I mean

"In the piracy section respondents were asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 10, whether they thought unauthorized downloading for personal use is a socially acceptable act. The researchers found that 7 out of 10 of those questioned felt, to a greater or lesser degree, that it is socially acceptable. 15-20% of the total group believed that piracy is totally acceptable.

A minority of just over 30% of the respondents voted at the very bottom of the response scale, an indication that they feel piracy is completely unacceptable.

Interestingly, despite the never-ending anti-piracy campaigns of the last decade, the attitudes of the public don’t seem to have changed much. When questioned for a 1997 study on whether it was acceptable to use pirate software, the same proportion – 3 out of 10 – said the activity was unacceptable.

However, in the new 2010 study, there is an interesting common moral denominator among respondents. When questioned on whether it is acceptable to download something and then sell it to a friend for profit, 3 out of 4 said that would be completely unacceptable."

study by 'Rockwool Foundation Research Unit'
I will gladly email a pdf of the study to you. (its in danish)

@Putin - I have avoided answering your "academie" definition of plagiarism until now, but academia is worried about research papers and concepts and for that I applaud them. However, in legal terms, plagiarism (and in fictional literature, we are talking legalities, not research papers) is the literal copying of phrases over a certain length and whether or not those phrases are in the common vernacular as well as intent. I can write in a book something like '"The Force is strong with this one", James chuckled under his breath as the bass broke Frank's line, crushing Frank's dream of winning the trophy.' and it is perfectly acceptable even though the line is a direct quote attributed to the fictional Lord Darth Vader in Star Wars: A New Hope. This is not to say Orwell (who I actually think is a mediocre writer as well) shouldn't have attributed a special thanks to those whose ideas he heavily borrowed in a foreward.

I don't care about Danish studies about attitudes towards pirated music. You're changing the subject again. Pirated music is not the same as stealing someone's idea (which you said is impossible since ideas can't be owned) and making money off of it. Or stealing somebody's research paper and putting your name on it and getting an A off of it. By downloading music and not paying for it, you're engaging in what amounts to shoplifting, but by stealing music you're not necessarily claiming that you, in fact, made that music. You're stealing the product, not credit for the production.

Now if you could answer my question as to how YOU feel, and not a random Danish survey, about people making a profit by passing off someone else's labor as their own, then that'd be great. You say you're a staunch advocate of plagiarism, but yet you don't speak in black and whites, and then you go on a side rant about pirated music. It's all very jumbled together and I can't make heads or tails of what your position actually is.

If you could say, in plain English, what your position is on this matter, I would be overjoyed.

>Putin: "Would it be wrong, according to you, to take an article or short story somebody else wrote and put your name on it, and get monetarily rewarded for putting your name on it?"

>Sicarius: "I try not to let myself think in black and white. Generalities are rarely either just right or wrong, there are always shades of gray. I would say in a situation where someone is making money, there is probably a lot of dishonesty involved. But I remain a staunch advocate of plagarism."

Sicarius, while I agree that there are often grey areas, Putin's question is fair, and I think intended to help us understand what exactly you do believe. There is a difference between "plagiarism is always acceptable" and "plagiarism is sometimes acceptable". Putin, it would appear, takes a hardline on plagirism, both in terms of what actually it is (for example, categorizing Orwell as a plagiarist, whereas Draugnar has argued that technically Orwell is not a plagiarist) and in term of its acceptability (that is, it is never acceptable)
Since you have said that you believe in grey areas, I'll rephrase Putin's question: Is it sometimes acceptable to take another person article or short story and put your name on it and publish it as your own? (I'll leave the question of money out of this equation). And when I say publish, I mean that in a broad sense: it could be a book, magazine, in a blog, on a forum etc. And if so, why is it fair, and what value is there in claiming someone elses work as your own?

Plagiarism is not a legal term. In legal terms, plagiarism is looked at in terms of violations of copyright law. And while there are exceptions given - called 'fair use' - for ideas considered in the 'public domain', or for satire, you do not need to prove exact duplication in order to find a violation of copyright law. In fact, in the case of copyright, giving 'credit' is not sufficient. You need permission to reproduce someone else' work either in whole or in part.

http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/plagiarism.htm

A small quote, like the one you gave about Star Wars, would qualify under fair use. But the length exception for fair use is not as great as you make it sound.

As I said, intent also applies. For instance, if I wrote a term paper and used a thesourus to change a lot of it, but it essentisally conveyed all the same ideas without deviation or enhancing them, yes it is plagiarism. But it really is a moot point because, as I said, I think credit should be given for the conecpts even in fiction. If I was inspired by Stephen King's IT to write a story about an evil clown-like creature that terrorized people in a travelling carny (different in many ways from IT), I would still give credit for the Clown's inspiration to Mr. King.

*thesaurus. Typing sucks tonight.

putin has $40 billion staked in the russian energy industry, though it's not under his name.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3

Seems like speculation from people with an axe to grind. How did he manage to get all of these stakes on his KGB pension?

what an apologist

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Siccy!

You're back.

Way to straighten out these fake anarchists.

Where have you been?

Inside again?

still the most inflammatory bigot here maple?

Bigot?

You wound me, Siccy Baby.

I love and respect all kinds of low class people.