Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers are the New Plagiarism
mjeppsen writes "PlagiarismToday offers a thought-provoking article that frankly discusses concerns with plagiarism and rote content theft among bloggers. In the section entitled "Block quotes by the Dozen" the author mentions the so-called "gray area". That is PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed."
even when the source is attributed.
Its not plagiarism then is it?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I've seen the results of this study before somewhere...
The opposite of progress is congress
I hope somebody has quickly plagiarised their article because their server appears to be already slashdotted.
I agree, it is easy to copy and paste, and with the proliferation of blogs, on-line stories, etc., realizing and detecting inversely proportionately becomes harder.
What makes this issue so difficult to address, and so difficult to write about, is that it's not so much about gray blogs, but rather, various shades of grey blogs. The difference between someone simply quoting blogs and someone trying to tweak the system is not a clear cut matter, but a separation of degrees.
Quoting, even liberal quoting, is expected by blogs. It's a part of researching a story and covering ongoing stories as well as sharing information. If done properly, it can not only be used to create a new work, but also drive valuable traffic to the original site. In the blogging world, being the source is often a badge of honor.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Not that it's Slashdotted or anything, I just thought it'd be funny.
---
The Investor Relations Web Report calls it "the new plagiarism". Dan Zarella from Puritan City call those who engage in it "the best plagiarists". Others simply call them bloggers or, as Zarella also put it, "Human Aggregators".
They're a new breed of content users that walk a gray area between that which is clearly fair use and what is obviously content theft. Their blogs are marked with large swaths of block quotes and heavy content reuse, but also proper attribution and at least some original content.
These sites, as they've grown in number, have created a great deal of controversy among bloggers who are left to wonder if they are nothing more than content thieves in disguise.
Block quotes by the Dozen
These sites, which for this article I'll simply call "gray", are generally identified by a large number of very short posts, with much of it in block quotes or otherwise directly lifted content. Though they meticulously credit their sources, bowing to more traditional rules for blog attribution, and work to add at least some original content, usually over half of their material comes from other sources.
This has caused many bloggers to worry that these grey blogs might be trying to get away with content theft under the guise of legitimate attribution. The idea being that they can create a much larger volume of content if they only have to write a small portion of it. Users will simply visit the gray blogs since they are able to provide so much more information and, due to the use of liberal quoting, the user will then have no reason to visit the original source. After all, they already have most of the critical information.
While certainly grey blogs don't pose the same threat or raise the same concerns as spam blogs and other content scrapers, the cause for concern is clear. Even though blogging is about sharing and reusing information, excessive sharing threatens the authors penning the original content. The tale of the goose laying the golden egg springs to mind as, quite simply, greed can be the blogging world's biggest enemy.
A Separation of Degrees
What makes this issue so difficult to address, and so difficult to write about, is that it's not so much about gray blogs, but rather, various shades of grey blogs. The difference between someone simply quoting blogs and someone trying to tweak the system is not a clear cut matter, but a separation of degrees.
Quoting, even liberal quoting, is expected by blogs. It's a part of researching a story and covering ongoing stories as well as sharing information. If done properly, it can not only be used to create a new work, but also drive valuable traffic to the original site. In the blogging world, being the source is often a badge of honor.
However, basing your entire site, or even a larger percentage of it, on quoted content is viewed differently. Being a source in a larger article is one thing, but having your content be the majority of the article on another site another. What distinguishes one from the other is unclear at best. There are no math formulas or systems for determining what is right or what is too much.
More confusing still, everyone has a different idea of what constitutes content theft. With Creative Commons Licenses being very common, it's obvious some feel that copying an entire work is acceptable so long as attribution is affixed. Others would place the boundary well within what is usually considered fair use.
The challenge becomes to strike a balance and set some kind of guideline that is compatible with copyright law, acceptable under the current code of blogging ethics but also able to appease the concerns many bloggers share over grey sites.
A Proposed Solution
When I first looked at the problem, I was tempted to set guidelines by which a blogger should not get more than X percent of their overall content from other sites or use more than Y lines from another entry.
Because they're totally gonna return it later.
steampunk web design
Hey, the site is slashdotted. Will someone please post the text of the article here?
Thanks!
Creationists are the new plagiarizers
Nobody can read the whole internet. Nobody. So what people do is they rely on others to pick the interesting pieces worth reading and go from there.
But there are 2 ways to do it: Summing up the content and providing a link, or ripping a few lines out of context and then mentioning in the fine print where they're from.
While the first is something I do agree with, the second stinks of "I don't have content but I want visitors, but if I hand out my sources my visitors might go there instead of to me."
So while I'm all for gathering info and making it available to your readers, I'm also very much against the "Readers Digest" approach: Snipping out what I deem valuable, copying it to my page and giving half-hearted credit to the real author. Linking is cool. Copy-paste-blogging is just lame.
And I'd really wish this message could be sent to those who do it just that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So? What's the problem?
This could be a good thing, like this slashdotter here, who's mirrored the entire Mark Klein statement from Wired.com.
Granted, each example may not be that of mirroring, or even a fisking, but if the source is attributed properly..
SO WHAT????
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
You forgot to link the original source! You... you... PLAGIARIST! *GASP*
For example:
Sometimes the block of text is preceeded by "from the article:", but half the time, it is presented as comments from the story submitter, and the Story Approvers (I refuse to call them editors) do absolutely squat to correct it.
Please help metamoderate.
Given the volatile nature of the web today, there's an excellent chance that the page you link to today will be gone 6 months from now. If you want your post to have any value in the future, it needs to be more than just "Hey, look here!" (Although except in the case of the shortest source articles, copy+pasting the entire page is bad form.)
Of course, for your post to have any value today, just quoting isn't enough. At that point, it may as well be a link. You have to provide some commentary, maybe your opinion, maybe additional information, or maybe you're just using the quote as a springboard to go off on your own topic.
It comes down to a balance: are the quotes there to support and/or provide context for your own words? Are they there as a summary so that someone wandering by a year from now knows what people are talking about? Or is it little more than an unauthorized mirror?
I agree, it is easy to copy and paste, and with the proliferation of blogs, on-line stories, etc., realizing and detecting inversely proportionately becomes harder.
What makes this issue so difficult to address, and so difficult to write about, is that it's not so much about gray blogs, but rather, various shades of grey blogs. The difference between someone simply quoting blogs and someone trying to tweak the system is not a clear cut matter, but a separation of degrees.
Quoting, even liberal quoting, is expected by blogs. It's a part of researching a story and covering ongoing stories as well as sharing information. If done properly, it can not only be used to create a new work, but also drive valuable traffic to the original site. In the blogging world, being the source is often a badge of honor.
come'on. It's funny.
I thought the proposed "solution" in the article was just stupid. The idea that somehow the law should police millions of blogs by applying some kind of complex formula to determine if they are in the wrong is just not feasable. Even if blogs are the worst source of plagerism there is really nothing that can be done about it, except raise public awareness.
Philosophy.
Considering how much "professional" reporters rip off bloggers without even citing sources, I won't be losing much sleep over this. e.g.: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_200 6_04_02.php#008130
Parent is correct - plagiarism is claiming as your original work, someone else's work. If you attribute the work, it is clearly not plagiarism, and not a 'gray area'. The only 'gray area', I would say, would be copyright violation. It is fair use to quote someone else. But, at what point of copying large blocks of someone else's copyrighted material do you cross the line from fair use to copyright infringement?
Personally, I would err on the side of fair use - particularly if the bloggers are adding significant amounts of criticism/commentary (for example, Groklaw recently commented on the blog of some ZDNet analyst, and PJ included almost the entire text of the blog entry - but that is because she was doing a point by point rebuttal of his tripe - that should be considered fair use, because it's almost impossible to rebut in entirety, if you cannot quote in entirety). If they copy 5 pages of article text and add a 3 line summary/critique at the top, that, to me, would not be fair use.
even when the source is attributed.
Its not plagiarism then is it?
- Whiney Mac Fanboy
(If you get the joke, you'll mod this up)
Oh no... it's the future.
We see this on a many of sites where users or editors submit stories for the readers to look through and decide on what is worth reading. Slashdot does it every single day.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Especially if the source is attributed, I have no problem with block quoting the predecessor source.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
So I don't know why a website would be devoted to doing it.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author.
For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too.
I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc.
Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas.
I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution.
In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say.
My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
If you give any given group of teen boys a box of firecrackers, someone is going to get hurt. If you give the great unwashed masses access to tools to publish their thoughts online, someone is going to get plagiarised. Most are too lazy to type out full words; as in "u r 2 kul". What in the world ever made anyone think they would type out complete sentences of their own making? Its much easier to cut and paste someone else's words and then simply point at it and say "wut he sed!."
Blogging tools don't come complete with a copy-editor in a box.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
No, it's not plagiarism if you attribute the source. However, there is the larger issue of TEXT PIRACY. Where you steal some other author's ideas and promulgate them while not giving the advertisers' their revenue. This is such a bad problem that I predict that within six months the entire internet will be shutthefuckdown, and THEN who will the bloggers steal their ideas from? Books?
We need a way to stop these text pirates. How about replacing the easily copy-pasted HTML currently used by most sites with images of text rendered by Flash applet? Run sufficient Javascript on the site to deter any would-be thieves from having the usual theft tools functioning, like the notorious Cmd-C and the diabolical View->Source.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I usually only quote large chunks of somebody else when I'm responding, criticizing, or adding onto the existing body of work. I always include links to the original article, and clearly indicate the quoted section. None of this is out of any duty to academic rigor, I just think it's helpful to my reader (or readers, if anybody besides me reads it), to have the original to view in context. In fact, I get a little miffed when sites to which I link later re-organize or archive the material. Or, even worse, stick it behind a subscription service. That practice may be why so many people cut'n'paste the whole thing.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
First off, if they're attributing their source, it is not plagarism.
It seems like the media might get pissed off that bloggers will extract the most important information from articles and post that with some (maybe-not-so-) insightful commentary, rendering the rest of their article impotent. For instance, when I read the newspaper in the morning, I've noticed that I can get most of the details I want without ever having to turn the newspaper page--it's always in front (and they designed it this way). Sure, occasionally there are some details I want further in the article, and if it's a good article on a good subject, I'll keep reading. Anyway, in a sense, these bloggers are becoming competition for journalists using the journalist's material. I feel that if this is the case, journalists need to improve so that most or all of their articles are relevant instead of puffing up their word count.
But, I personally don't see bloggers as competition, even if journalists do. In general, journalists provide fact, and the blogger provides opinion based around the fact. Sure, there are many OpEd pieces in newspapers, but the blogger is merely presenting their point of view on the original text (even if they can't assemble enough coherent thought to "outquote" the original article).
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author.
For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too.
I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc.
Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas.
I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution.
In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say.
My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
--
If you take content from an article and credit it, that's not plagiarism. Dictionary.com (from WordNet) describes plagiarism as: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own". If you stick someone else's name on it, it's clearly not your own! (Of course, the web is Content + Markup, so depending upon how the citation is visible or not is a whole other discussion...)
Small excerpts of text are usually considered "fair use". Large excerpts or wholesale copying is usually considered "copyright infringement". If you profit by taking someone else's content, properly citing it, and putting it on your blog, you will be guilty of copyright infringement[1], not plagiarism.
All of the profs in college said the same thing: If you cite your references, you'll never get in trouble with the Honor Code (i.e. College's plagiarism/cheating policy). You [the student] may get no credit if you use JUST other people's work, but you'll never get in trouble for plagiarism.
-- Qubit
[1] Assuming that the person retains full copyright and doesn't use a Creative Commons license or similar...
I hate Republican hate blogs that are out there and focus on half of one side of a story to make it look as bad as possible for anyone other than themselves.
The worst part, is that they link to themselves over and over and over and over and over and over worse than a hick family tree were all the grandmas grandpas, children and grand children descended fromt he same 2 people.
Take a recent look on google for "iran dress code" and you will see hundreds of Republican blogs on the subject, all citing other republican blogs as the definitive and truthful source, when in the end the story was put up as a sensational tabloid article with no truth behind it at all.
Bloggers are not the new news media, they are just a bunch of people who have found out a place were people will read their opinions, nod their heads, and help them mentally wack themselves off at how awsome they are and how many people they can get to agree.
Plagarism isnt even the half of it, these people cite sources that cite sources to the point were it would be difficult to find out were the original story came from, its like a horrible game of telephone gone awry, or the before mentioned incestuous family forgetting whose kid little jenny is.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
It's just monkey's clanking away on the keyboard. Use it for opinions or thoughts, but not much else...
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
If it is a good item, then both items should be acknowledged. Although some blogs have made an interesting practical joke on this....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
First site:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/19/cuba_switchin g_to_gn.html
Which leads me to: http://linux.slashdot.org/ And the only link out of those that's still up is http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23300, which contains only: So all this plagiarised summarisation bullshit leads me only to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050517/tc_afp/cubacAnd before I know it, 15 minutes are gone and all I've learned is that 1500 computers have been switched. Thank you plagiarism. And the beatiful irony of it all is that I'm contributing to it with this post!
you people who modded this insightful surely recognized that it's funny, yea? block quotes from the original post? am i alone?
Plagiarism or dissemination? There are complaints that North Americans are not as aware, but if blogs spark interest in topics that are important and disseminate the information thusly, is it a bad thing? One shouldn't take the information on blogs (or any one source, really,) as proven fact, but if it interests them in the topic and then they go and seek out the fact, something that they otherwise wouldn't have done, then it is beneficial. People need to stop looking at things in terms of legal/illegal, and start looking at them in terms of what's good/bad for us. Let's think for ourselves.
Twinstiq, game news
"How Opal Mehta Plagarised, Got Busted, and Got Kicked out of Harvard"
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author. For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too. I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc. Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas. I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution. In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say. My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
When a news story breaks, and you see a report raw from a wire service feed, watch as practically every news outlet copies and pastes that report verbatim.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
When do we step back and think, "This information will benefit a greater number of people if I don't go litigate everyone that thinks it needs to be spread." By that I mean, if you copy the information from the page and provide a link to the source, you obviously thought that information needed to be shared. Are we to the point in this world where we care more about protecting our ideas than trying to share and expand upon them? Isn't this the basis for open sourcing, think tanks, and such?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Im an ante-copywright advoc8 who sees MORE POWER in releasing my information for free to the either of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts e-books and funky music I openly request other sto copy it and even put their own name on it lol. Ive realized that once I put something into easlly copied form it will be copied :) :) :) It might be parshally(sp?) used fully mimicked or complately turned upside down...... yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am DA ORIGINAL GANGSTA!!1!
Every day. All day long, here you are, acting as though people give a fuck about your opinion. Aren't you tired of having no life?
Notice how I didn't attribute the source?
Wonder if the site promotes plagiarism, like Psychology Today and Christianity Today promote their topical namesakes?
That's your definition of plagiarism only. Show me a reputable news source, professional journal, or educational institution which does not include the overuse of the source material as plagiarism. Yes, a blogger can probably get away with it, because people like you don't consider it plagiarism, but a professional newswriter, scholar, or researcher would be summarily drummed out of their field for plagarism for even using half as much of the source material as many bloggers use.
"When a news story breaks, and you see a report raw from a wire service feed, watch as practically every news outlet copies and pastes that report verbatim."
They've purchased the right to do that. Plagerism and copyright violations have one defining quality. Without permission.
aren't bloggers the new plagiarists?
It's my understanding that news reporting, whether sanctioned by the big 4 networks or not, has broad protection from plagairism and copyright infringement claims under fair use. Oh! Pardon my ignorance; I was asleep for the last 10 years. Fair use is a criminal act now. Woo hoo! Gotta love that Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
In this case, while the citation may be there, enough of the text is taken that there's no point in consulting the original article ...The blogger adds no additional content, and effectively profits (whether in "community kudos" or adsense) from unauthorized reproduction of someone else's content.
Plagerism and copyright infringment are congruent, but not equivalent. I think what you're describing there is copyright infringement, not plagerism. I always thought of plagerism as passing somebody else's unattribuated work as your own (which may also be copyright infringement). In your description, with the attribution, it is straight up copyright infringment.
The problem at that point is drawing the line between fair use quotation and out-and-out copying.
Actually, what's really ironic about that is that it's under the section "Your Rights Online".
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You can even steal from yourself, although it is more like unethical publication.
2 0plagiarism.html
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Self%
Even if you are the author, you may not own the copyright. This is true for journals and major publishers, so you are not supposed to recycle text.
First, although unethical, do you really care anymore? And, c'mon, their bloggers - jeez - whadda expect? If bloggers really cared all that much, they'd just PDF their stuff or use gifs.
That said, by-and-large, folks that care are saavy enough to filter sites that have original and interesting content versus ones that consolidate (or even steal) news or ideas. (And they often choose the latter for convenience and they don't care).
Besides, if I'm reading a blog on one site and they quote another one extensively, I'm far more likely to visit the original site (if it had a reference) than if they only had a snippet. With a snippet, I assume they're just posting to divert traffic to their site.
That said, I think it's part of a larger cultural phenomena of on-demand, immediate news and mass distribution. Content copyrights for trivially duplicated material has increasingly less meaning. I know several teachers who say it's quite obvious and commonplace that students steal significant amounts of content from the web - and, when confronted, they really don't understand the big deal. And it's pervasive across good and bad students and reflects a significant change in the public's attitude towards copyrights on freely available material.
Moving forward, we're likely to see everything published on the web massively copied and instantly disseminated and most folks really won't know or care about the original sources. Ideally, most disseminators (as opposed to publishers) will keep a link to the source, but I wouldn't count on it.
Welcome to the information age.
You plagiarised that!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
If somebody was mirroring an entire site and skimming off the advertising clicks, I'd agree that the source has reason to complain.
But the real reason why people go to aggregator sites is because they are often more interesting than the sites they quote. I almost always at least check out the sites referenced by interesting articles on aggregator sites. If the aggregated article is representative of the content, then I end up reading more, and often the blog ends up on my regular list of bookmarks, and I start reading it directly.
So if you don't want to have aggregators bleeding off your readers, all you need to do is have so much interesting materials that nobody can possibly quote it all.
The law doesn't apply to emo kids now?
Yeah, but that's bad, because you top posted your comment.
Usually the bigger the blogger is, the less original content they produce. The same is also true for many of them on the lower ends. It's absurd to see the popularity of a lot of these bloggers who, in the words of Pajamas Media, "take on a subject" by quoting a lot of someone else's text and adding a little bit of extra stuff to it. That's called a few casual remarks, not really "taking on a subject."
The link in your post only displays a blank page for me. Here is the Google cache of the page in question.
This is terrible and it should be stopped. Clearly, blogging must be banned.
PlagiarismToday offers a thought-provoking article that frankly discusses concerns with plagiarism and rote content theft among bloggers. In the section entitled "Block quotes by the Dozen" the author mentions the so-called "gray area". That is PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed.
/. it's not plagiarism, it's called a dup)
-me
(on, here on
Full Tilt
Firstly, I think part of this trend is that people mistake copying and pasting for scholarship. It's not. Just because you copied the juicy parts of an article into a "blockquote" tag does not mean that you've helped your reader understand an issue. All you've done is shown them what someone else said. Their interpretation of it might be completely different from your own--in fact, by removing the quotation from the context, your readers might interpret the quotation in exactly the opposite fashion that you intended when you posted it.
In the lead up to the presidential elections on 2000, I tried to get my friends to start an on-line discussion group of issues heading into it. I found that for many of them, their notion of what a "discussion" was consisted of copying and pasting articles they agreed with into the forum, with no additional commentary. I gave up after 2 weeks, because no amount of explaining that I was looking for their input on the issues not what other people said verbatim sunk in.
In looking back, I attribute that to a lack of belief that their opinions were important. These folks, (most of them younger than me, I might add) have been robbed of the belief that their opinions mattered--that their writing on a subject of interest to them was just as valid as someone writing an Op-Ed for the New York Times.
[Please note, Eliel did say valid, not well-written, not well (or even cogently) presented, just valid--Ed.]
This seems to be a disturbing trend. More people are participating in on-line dialogs, but fewer are expressing their own thoughts: choosing instead to regurgitate what they heard from someone else.
It makes me sad.
Well, I don't forsee a rash of bloggers rushing out to crib chunks of Moby Dick. And clearly, when they correctly cite their sources, it's not plagarism.
On the other hand, with the internet cash flow model being built around page views, it is clearly dishonest for a blogger to simply copy-paste someone else's content on their own site.
Someone who is actually creating their own content would be satisfied with a hyperlink...for them to be pasting huge chunks of material, suggests to me that they have a simple (and intellectually dishonest) profit motive.
On the other hand, I do like the occasional full article text post, but I think that should only be in the comments, and only where there is a link in the top-level post, which is either restricted (i.e. WSJ, NYT, AJC, etc) or Slashdotted.
Either way I think a content provider could make a solid case for copyright infringement. If I printed my own copy of someone else's book with a citation at the beginning stating that all that follows comes from this other book, then I'm clearly ripping them off.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...and thought that my aversion to them was finally justified. *shrug*
Oh well, time for another cup of coffee.
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
The Cambridge Dictionary
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
So, it's not just "[My] definition of pagiarism only" - it appears that is the common dictionary definition of the word. There is a difference between plagiarize, and infringe copyright, and while they are both illegal, they aren't synonyms.
As for bloggers, it's a given that probably 90% of bloggers aren't very good, and aren't worth paying much attention to. If a blogger has to just copy other people's material in order to have content, I'm sure not gonna pay any attention to them - I'll go read the people they are copying *from*, instead. And if someone else think's that a particular blogger is violating their copyright, well, we already have laws about that, and they can try to enforce their copyright. Whether a blogger can get away with copying 'too much' material has nothing to do with "people like [me]", or what definition we use - that's between the person they infringed, the blogger, their lawyers, and the judge.
But that isn't the way copyright law works, whatever your view of how it *should* work.
If you quote a large enough section of any writing it can be considered infringment and not fair use.
A blog about stuff.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186334&cid=153 82685
Get a fucking life. Posting AC to defend yourself is so sad.
Take a day off and go outside. Get some fucking perspective you disgusting piece of trash.
God, I was only fucking around, but you really are here posting all the time. That's got to be some kind of addiction.
Sick man, you're fucking sick.
Why is this thought surprising or noteworthy? Only a tiny, tiny number of people have something genuinely fresh and interesting to say in any medium. For the rest - which must be 999 blogs out of a thousand - it is a matter of copycatting and churning other people's opinions, just as folks do in a million bars and coffee shops.
...
I don't think this is plagiarism in a classic sense, which implies a cunning plan with the intention of profiting by claiming another's work as your own. Plagiarism is what a few journalists or novelists get caught doing from time to time, long after they've received the accolades, accepted the prize or signed the lucrative publishing contract. It is quite different, imho.
What we are seeing with blogging is the outcome of the original BS much touted by Apple at one stage, namely all you have to do to "unleash your talent" and become the next Rembrandt or Shakespeare is buy a PC or Mac and spend a fortune on proprietary software. Sadly or not, the real world works rather differently
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
I've written a lot of stuff in various places, and virtually all of it has been plagarized. Some lift it whole, with notices, some strip out copyright notices and change fonts and colors, virtually all are commercial ventures, or at least have advertising.
This really burns me up. Want to quote me? Go right ahead. Blockquote me? No problem. Mirror it? Sure, and thank you. Literally steal my words, removing my name, and profit from them? Burn in hell, asshole.
My page of Quake console commands from 1998 (and explanations; MY WORDS) might possibly be the most plagarized thing on the internet. Google for "how to stop smoking cigarettes" and you'll find plagarized copies on commercial sites long before you run across the original K5 story from 2003.
NONE of this plagarism is in blogs, at least none I've found. Whoever wrote TFA is full of shit.
-mcgrew
The general rule I apply is that it's fair use if you're making an argument and need to cite sources, i.e. an academic paper, etc. However, if you're posting "THIS IS COOL" and then you post the entire contents, that's copyright violation. In that case, just link to it!
stuff |
We ran into this problem on Houmidity [houmidity.com]. Some dude that saw a parody post I made copied the entire post, put it on his church blog and cited us at the very bottom, almost as an afterthought. We went after him and got about the same 50-50 kind of response. Half of our readers thought it was no problem to copy content, the other half thought it was wrong. I happen to side with the latter.
My blog network forum is based completely on the comments of others -- I even pay my readers who give me the best comments. Their input on my writings is what gives me MORE information to sell at a higher price to those willing to pay for my knowledge. Why should I stop others from using my works to create new opinions that I can learn from?
In the long run, trying to protect your creative works will be a losing process. I use my previous creations to gain new customers who appreciate the information that I don't share. That is the product/service I sell, and I use my years of writing to show a history of original opinion and beliefs. Anything I write for public consumption is merely a marketing tool to get people to hire me for real face-time -- I could care less if someone else found a better way to make money with my thoughts. Most of my thoughts are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking about what others say.
I love when people plagiarize me. In the long run it builds my credibility even if they don't reference me as the original writer. I'd rather find free market solutions (such as the one I outlined above) rather than find penalties for the copying. If someone discovers that the person they respect didn't write the content on their own, the market fixes this by making the reader not read the plagiariser anymore. Easy solution.
Plagiarism is "OK" is some circles -- do a Google News search and see how many big named media outlets just regurgitate each others' news. Boring. Bloggers do the same thing, but many put a unique spin on the original writer's ideas.
I believe the best way to "fix" plagiarism isn't to make it more illegal or immoral, but to work on a free market and open system where content creators can submit their creations to be cataloged as "the first." Let others copy it, but Google or another toolbar can easily flag a new creation as "very similar to another." Imagine if the Google toolbar had a "% of originality" for every site you visit (or every paragraph to highlight with your mouse). This could work for lyrics, guitar tabs, writings, opinion, news articles, etc.
For me as a writer, I love to know that people are reading me and replying to me -- that is my "profit" in the short term -- reader input. I tend to make up my own words that I write with, in order to see who might be copying me fully. I then look at what people say about their "writings", too. One such word I created was unanimocracy, but I've invented a few other phrases that are easily searched, too.
I'm an anti-copyright advocate who sees more power in releasing my information for free to the ether of the Internet. Not only do I not copyright my blog posts, e-books and music, I openly request others to copy it and even put their own name on it. I've realized that once I put something into easily copied form, it will be copied. It might be partially used, fully mimiced, or completely turned upside down, yet I've also found that the more I am copied, the more people tend to find out that I am the original author.
While it is probably impolite to do the "block-quote-most-of-another-article" approach. This isn't academia we are talking about. Most blogs are like diaries or conversation NOT scientific journals or historical biographies. The important thing would be to tell the difference between a new content, factual blog and a crappy plagarism blog (probably not hard). As far as I can tell this is basically a non-issue.
I'm in the habit of quoting large portions of articles, or even the entire article, for a purely practical reason: the mutability of Web pages. I've lost track of how often I've made a comment about something in an article, only to have a lot of people asking what I was talking about because the article said no such thing. On looking at the article again, the passage I was referring to had either been removed or altered to say something it hadn't said originally. The only way I have to combat this is to preserve a copy of the article as I originally read it in a place not subject to editing by the article's owner.
I'd note this after-the-fact rewriting tends to be most common where the original article contained egregiously and provably incorrect statements and the authors got called on the matter and now want to never have said that (as opposed to wanting to admit they mis-stated).
Blogging is the new hipster trend. To fit in and feel accepted, you have to have a blog that says the same things that everyone else is saying. Given that most bloggers are just regular people and not literary geniuses, I'm not surprised (and its not news to me at all) to hear that they are often copying each other or copying other people's thoughts.
There is this mad idea out there that blogging is removing the caste system that exists in publishing, somehow saying the common person the same as a creative and intuitive writer and that they can dethrone the literary elites.
The truth is that most people don't have what it takes to be good writers but blogs are created and judged by the same people (with exceptions, of course), therefore it is commonly felt that blogs are revolutionizing the world of writing when in reality blogs are really adding very little new in the way of meaningful information and often copying each other's thoughts/quotes (whether verbatim or simply repackaged in a similar statement).
Quantity != quality. I don't care if you feel that blogging is giving people voices where they didn't have them before, the problem is that these voices are immature ones. I don't have much good to say about the modern literary elite either, I feel that they just represent typical BS academic groupthink unlike the classicists of the past that are rightly revered.
In summary, good original content is hard to find and the kinds of people who write the insightful and timeless pieces are rare. I think blogs have their place but not amongst the likes of Plato or Aristotle.
If you've ever linked to an article, with the article being the most pertinent thing, and had the webpage error out on multiple browsers on multiple computers, you'll understand the usefulness of copying and pasting even an entire article, proper credits given. This article is currently not coming up for me. Had it been copied here, I could be reading it instead of using it against itself.
It's a girl!
I've got a site that has been around since '97. I've noticed all kinds of related issues, from outright ripping off of my articles to large chunks of articles being used with obscure links back to my original. The thing is, Google will penalize for this kind of behavior, and, I believe, helps my traffic in the long run. Once I realized this, the issue upset me less.
I spent a few minutes trying to call up the original article so I could respond with a thoughtful statement about how the original article says it's "the new plagiarism."
And then I read your bit and realized I didn't need to. It's amazing how many people don't seem to understand that the New Something shouldn't be the Old Something because then it would just be the Old Something. Maybe the article should try and coin a new phrase for the phenomena like "polypasting" or "prolificopy" or something. That way everyone would know it's something not quite plagiarism.
The original article isn't saying "to take someone's work is plagiarism" it's saying "there's a new wrinkle in plagiarism, one in which bloggers of all kinds are block quoting chunks of material and SOMETIMES attributing, sometimes not." (not an actual quote, but from what I managed to read it's the article's premise.)
Of course, now I'm going to add my take on the situation.
Yes, the majority of the news sites get information from their AP feed and paste it. It's what happens. Do we really need CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, BBC, and who knows who else each over at News Point A interviewing the same three guys involved in the same story or is it sometimes better to just have the AP or Reuters write the story, give them their cut and be done with it.
Justifying wholesale theft of copyrighted works as some people because "in two years" their link might go down is indistinguishable from the people who say it's "legal" to host their collection of roms because nobody makes the original Nintendo any more (I wonder how the rom-sites will change their justification now that virtually every major game company has some retrogaming solution available, whether it's those plug-n-play tv things, Xbox Live, Gametap, Nintendo's upcoming game-download thingie) or that it would be legal to download and torrent all of CNN's content (because after all, their logo indicates it's their content, right?) because they only air their articles for a day or so at most and after that it's gone.
Websites can go away, just like books go out of print, and movies and TV shows can go out of distribution. Whether you see copyright infingement of any of this as a good thing depends on what side of the coin you're on. For every "OMG! I can't believe I almost wasn't able to get this vital information because the original website was going to delete the article" person, there's another person saying "hey, I spent time reading, researching, maybe even interviewing the players for more perspective, all so that my readers would get content I created (and possibly click on my adsense), and Jimbo stole it all, slapped a quick *not my work* label on it (and possibly a click on his adsense) and I get bubkiss."
But back to my first point, I agree, New does not equal Old.
But breach of copyright or intellectual property rights (IPR) is illegal
What is "intellectual property rights"?
PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed.
If it's attributed it ain't plagiarism. It may be unauthorized copying. And if you show something as a quote it's not plagiarism either even if it's unattributed. Deliberately passing it off as your own work is. If you forget to attribute something and it appears to be your own work it is plagiarism, but is a sin of ommision. The vast majority of plagiarism is a sin of commission. It's much easier to plagiarize today, but it's much easier to get caught. And it is the biggest literary sin you can commit.
A slightly lesser sin is to write a misleading slashdot story badly. It's OK for us commenters to be lazy and write poorly. There's less of an excuse to write a retarded headline. It should be Bloggers are the New Plagiarists or more accurately Rampant Copying in Blogs, Duh!.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The interesting thing about this discussion to me is what it shows about what is taught in schools about ethics. We hear all sorts of reports of problems with cheating and copying in schools and how schools are trying to teach students not to do it. The discussion here shows that a large percentage of posters, who presumably are fairly well educated, do not understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. That shows that the schools are not doing a very good job. I don't find that surprising since not a single one of the school policy statements that I have seen has been correct. The teachers can't teach what they themselves don't understand.
That's not plagiarism, that's copyright infringement.
People seem to confuse these two concepts a lot. They occur together quite often, so I suppose it's understandable, but that doesn't make it correct.
Plagiarism is taking someone else's work for your own. Oftentimes this can be done without actually violating their copyright. For example, see the case of the recent Harvard student who got her book pulled because of passages that were very close to another book's. The passages aren't identical, and there's probably no grounds for a copyright violation suit, but that didn't help the author from getting her book deal pulled. If I copy something you wrote wholesale and say I wrote it, then it would be both a copyright violation and plagiarism, but I could rewrite it such that it's not a copyright violation, "forget" to attribute the source, and still be in trouble in terms of professional ethics.
I could violate your copyright without plagiarizing anything, as well. I could for example copy and redistribute something you wrote, with correct attributions, but without your permission. (One could argue that this is also unethical, but that's a separate can of worms.) Then you'd probably be able to go after me under the copyright laws.
This latter case is what happens in many blogs, and just generally on the internet, all the time. I think most of the time it's well-intentioned: a blogger wants to use some material, but knows that links are unstable, so just reposts it with attribution instead, thinking that this makes it OK. It's not, unless the original author has given permission. A certain amount of excerpting is allowed by fair-use rules, but this generally doesn't make a complete copy-and-paste repost of somebody else's article defensible.
In general, when people talk about plagiarism, they are talking about an issue of professional and personal ethics, particularly within academia, and which is independent of issues of copyright. Likewise, copyright violations are a legal issue, and can occur independently of ethical issues (assuming you don't blanket-assume that all violations of the law are inherently unethical). There are obviously grey areas and large exceptions to this generalization, but I think that's a fair starting point.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
August 06, 2005
What I've Learned About Blogging
On Wednesday, I purchased the domain name plagiarismtoday.com and pushed my test site live. For the first time that I know of, the Internet has a regularly-updated Web site dedicated to the issue of online plagiarism, content theft and copyright infringement.
I've spent the past few days trying to promote it and improve it. It's been a wild ride to say the least, but it's been a lot of fun and very exciting. I'm now more glad than ever that I took up this venture up and I am starting to see the potential for it to go very far.
My reason for starting to feel that way is that, shockingly enough, there's a lot of interest in this type of blog. Though it's not a subject people like to talk about, at least not until some gets caught doing it, it seems that almost everyone wants to know more about it. All of the feedback on the concept has been very positive and several have offered me their support via email.
However, since it is such an unseemly topic, I've had a real problem getting people to voluntarily link to it. It's one of those things that everyone wants to read, but no one wants to promote or connect themselves with. Right now the site has little traffic and most that it does get comes from trackbacks, a message board signature I use on a couple of copyright forums and some technorati searches. No one, so far, has expressed any interest in linking to it or supporting it publicly.
Also on the down side, I've been struggling with the gear shift. I've been in the creative writing world for so long that shifting back to a journalistic style is very hard. Though my writing has always had a slight reporter-like tone to it, I'm having to relearn how to work when you can't simply write what you want, when you want. There are rules that must be followed when writing news and I'm adjusting back to that, slowly.
One of the things that surprise me though was how quickly word travels with blogs. I put the site live and added a new counter to it and, within four hours, I was getting traffic from Newsweek's site. I had mentioned one of their columnists in a story as being a victim of plagiarism and Newsweek heard about it through Technorati or another ping service and then added a link to my story under the columnist's subsection of their site. It was all completely automatic and happened almost instantly.
Finally though, I've learned a great deal about the impact that such a blog can have. Even with so little traffic to the site, the reactions people have been giving have been incredible. Unlike Raven's Rants, which always struggled to be taken remotely seriously, PT has had little trouble doing so. Though I can only speculate what the difference is, I think the subject matter and the approach have a major role in it.
Anyway, I'm going to write more about this soon I'm certain. I'm excited about this site but I don't want anyone to think that I'm going to forget about Raven's Rants. Much about the site is making me appreciate RR all the more. It's quite freeing in many ways.
Still, I do have one final plea. I've been considering doing a different theme for the new site but really lack the Wordpress skinning knowledge to make it happen. I did some heavy modification to the theme I did use, but starting from scratch has left me intimidated and I don't like the thought of having even a semi-stock theme.
I'm an old-school HTML guy, not a PHP junkie. If anyone out there is in a position to help and old timer get along in the new age, I'd be very appreciative.
Regardless, it's late and I need to go to bed. I have a birthday party to go tomorrow.
Posted by Raven at 01:15 AM
"One of the things that surprise me though was how quickly word travels with blogs."
Yeah, hehe, me too! Not! But keep at it, I'm sure in a few years you'll notice a few more things about blogs.
Should we still care about this? I mean, if the text is a statement of fact, then the idea isn't really owned in any sense -- somebody just wants to take credit for it. So by honoring this idea of plagiarism, we're just feeding their narcissism.
And if the text is an opinion, and the author passes someone else's opinion off for their own... well, isn't that just a credit to the original author's ability to persuade?
Perhaps it is the string of words themselves -- something in the pure linguistic art that the author seeks protection for. But again, by allowing the author to claim credit, wouldn't we just breeding egotism?
I say forget this idea of "ownership" and just be glad you were able contribute to the conversation.
What is this, "Bloggers are the New Plagiarism"? This doesn't make any sense. How can people, bloggers, be an act or an inanimate object? Can't people write anymore?
Plagiarism means "an act or instance of plagiarizing" or "something plagiarized". The title of the article should be "Bloggers Are the New Plagiarizers" or "Blogs Are the New Plagiarism".
This mistake, to me, is right up there with the infamous quote from GW: "Is our children learning?"
OldSchool News-Literary-Media Culture, I'd like you to meet Remix Culture. Remix Culture, this is my friend Oldschool News-Literary-Media Culture. You guys probably didn't even realize you were related did you? I'm sure you have a lot to talk about, so if you'll excuse me I think I'll go get a drink. [sound of footsteps in hasty retreat]
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
I'm pretty sure it's a ripoff of someone elses article.
I was a little disappointed to see that it wasn't from our friend RC.
Google would be the biggest plagarist, as millions of web pages are cached already...
assuming that the mojority of the bloggers in question are american, which i'm almost sure they are, why should anyone have to do or say anything original when everything else in society is done for them?
take that anyway you want, but if you catch my cynicism, you know what i am talking about
what link?
my password really is 'stinkypants'
these two are not the same thing
obviously if you present smth as your own work, you don't credit the real author, but you could make it clear something is a quotation, eg using quote marks, blockquote tags or other formatting, w/o giving the original author due credit. this includes bothering to find out who the actual author is, not just referencing the source you cribbed it from.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Music, or software?
I'm curious about what those that have no problem with duplicating software (without the proper registration/purchase) or sharing/downloading/copying music as well.
Does plagerism* differ for these different mediums? How so?
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
So while I'm all for gathering info and making it available to your readers, I'm also very much against the "Readers Digest" approach: Snipping out what I deem valuable, copying it to my page and giving half-hearted credit to the real author. Linking is cool. Copy-paste-blogging is just lame.
While on the surface, I can sentiment this argument and nod my head, I have one example which really shows the value of snipping tidbits from different sources and really put it into one page: Silver Jubilee in Jakkur Airport February 2006
Now if you read the tidbits, you're left with an awesome impression about the event that happened. But if you try to read each of the articles, you're left with some tiny bits of facts and uninteresting details, and the rest fluffy and partly information about the event. The problem is describing something so multi-faceted and huge.
Now, this might not be blogging, but nothing of value has been added here, and no copyright breached, since the tidbits are so short. But together they make an impressive picture about the biggest cultural event in 2006. It couldn't be written better than using the journalists' own words really..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I quote extensively (or used to, when I was actually updating my blog), rather than just link, because the MSM and .gov sites would alter or delete content. I even blogged specifically about that activity a couple of times. thememoryhole.org is a site devoted to such behavior.
This is how my usual Google trail goes, using a research session for my university course as an example.
n g_to_gn.html [boingboing.net]
o mputersitlinux [yahoo.com]
First site:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/19/cuba_switchi
Cuba switching to GNU/Linux
Cuba is switching away from Windows to GNU/Linux. I have to say that I was a little surprised when I was last in Cuba and saw many of the PCs running Windows.
Cuba's director of information technology, Roberto del Puerto, says that Cuba already has approximately 1500 computers running on Linux, and is working towards replacing Windows on all state owned computers.
Link [slashdot.org]
Which leads me to: http://linux.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Tony Montana writes "According to several [yahoo.com] news [cio-today.com] sites [theinquirer.net] the government of Cuba is dumping Windows in favour of Linux. Cuba's director of information technology, Roberto del Puerto, says that Cuba already has approximately 1500 computers running on Linux, and is working towards replacing Windows on all state owned computers."
And the only link out of those that's still up is http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23300 [theinquirer.net], which contains only:
ONE OF the last bastions of revolutionary socialism, Cuba is to switch all its computers over to Linux to counter the influence of the Evil Capitalistic American lackey Microsoft.
According to the government daily, Juventud Rebelde, Roberto del Puerto, director of the state office of information technology, said his office was working on a legal framework that would allow the replacement of Windows through-out Cuba. Cuba already has 1,500 computers using Linux. Although what flavour is not clear.
More here [yahoo.com].
So all this plagiarised summarisation bullshit leads me only to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050517/tc_afp/cubac
Sorry, the page you requested was not found.
And before I know it, 15 minutes are gone and all I've learned is that 1500 computers have been switched. Thank you plagiarism. And the beatiful irony of it all is that I'm contributing to it with this post!
That reminds me back when ACLU bashing was at it's latest height, those guys where running around saying "The goal is communism." and attributing it to the founder of the ACLU about the ACLU. Go ahead, search: "The goal is communism" ACLU
I'll save you the circle jerk antics you described yourself and point you to the end of the trail: a single, unsourced quote from a novel written in the 1980s. The topic of the novel? Why the ACLU is evil. The author mearly prints the quote, attributes it to the ACLU guy, and nothing else. No context, no source, no reference as to what the setting is or when. Basically, the author wrote in such a way to make it impossible to find out if it was true or not.
Of course the blogger's didn't care, it fit what they assume to be true anyway, so it must be true! No facts necessary!
Does someone have a link to the .torrent of all these blog comments that are being plagiarized? I want to, umm, "evaluate" them.
I've recently come across Copyscape, an interesting site which searches for other pages that duplicate content from a page you direct it to, even just a portion of the page. Some of its services require payment, but the basic search appears to be free.
But they do both cover the same CONCEPT - as in as long as you properly cite your work the amount of content doesn't matter, which was my original point.
you could make it clear something is a quotation, eg using quote marks, blockquote tags or other formatting, w/o giving the original author due credit. this includes bothering to find out who the actual author is, not just referencing the source you cribbed it from.
True enough. This does bring up an interesting point. Most of the references I've found discuss plagarism in an academic setting, which is NOT what TFA refers too. The Internet is not a strictly instructional environment. Universities have pecific rules for citations in student's work, but how does this translate to the rest of the world. Are there laws about such things? Do the laws define how the citiations must be issued? Would these laws apply to someone wrting a blog?
Find coupons in Greeley
I'll give you fucking irony!
This is the most amusing story Ive encountered in ages. The content is crap, but the delicious irony of the subject and the method of delivery warms my cynical soul!
You guys raise good points although plagarism is to claim work that isn't yours, and copying something (under how many characters) without the concent of the author is copyright infringement. I'm not sure which one is worst, copyright infringement or plagarism? But apparently bloggers tend to infringe on copyrights for their own profit. Then again, if your sourcing out where you got that information, then you are actually promoting the other website so wouldn't it be a fair trade in many cases?
jappleng.com - News best served with breakfast.
i know this doesnt fall within the confines of defined "plagerism." but i believe in the academic definition, if i were to turn in a paper when i was in college with simply huge chunks of quotes and others' material, even properly cited, it would still be considered plagerism because i added no substance nor posed my own thesis.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's what they have to say for themselves: Many people are obsessed not with how to best disperse information and participate in this sharing revolution, but with how much they can get away with legally and ethically. In a parallel to the famous John F. Kennedy quote, we need to stop asking what others can do for us, and ask what we can do for them. Rather than simply wondering what we can get away with or how we can get the most for the least amount of work, we need to figure out how we can best participate in this world-wide discussion. If the ethics of the blogging world are constantly abused to promote the gain of others, high quality writers will have little motivation to post their works on-line and, as the well slowly dries up, there will be less and less work available for either reuse or for simply reading.
Wow, why don't you just come out and call every one a thief like the RIAA does?
These are the same attacks on fair use that Google is having to fight against to offer their excellent news aggregation service. Google was right and the above is wrong headed. No one is losing readers because of Google. The fact that the author could not come up with hard and fast rules proves that they are simply wrong. If you can't say this specific thing is wrong, you can't make a law about it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Looks like a blog site to me. Maybe they're trying to create a grey-area to fit themselves into. They need only two more times to mention the grey-area. It works for Bush.
n/t
It is not only the bloggers that are at fault. I read (daily) at least 3 newspapers in print (Arizona Republic - Phoenix), Arizona Daily Star (Tucson - morning), Tucson Citizen (Tucson - afternoon). I also read a number of newspapers online, and look at various news sites. Even though all attribute some of their stories to the Associated Press, when you compare stories in the various publications you find that each article is (sometimes slightly - sometimes significantly) different. I have seen whole paragraphs removed, which completely alter the content. Once, however, you take the author of the article to task, the answer is that "what you read is out of context". As the reader, if you do not follow up on those issues which interest you, you run a sigificant risk of knowing only what the writer (or publication) intended to present to you as NEWS.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Social values influence what happens in a social activity like blogging. Look around: society is full of followers, particularly in a conformist, consumerist, and anxiety-ridden age. A huge area of blogging is about grooming the pack and enforcing the borders of social membership, so there's a lot of repeating what others in the group say. That's strike two.
Publishing weeds out a lot of mediocrities. Today the web welcomes them to the world's largest vanity press. What to fill the blank html with? Well, helpfully enough, somebody else has already written all this nice text... Steeee-rike three!
Political blogs may be the laziest, but interestingly also the most frenzied in their borrowing. Lots of these sites strike me as groupthink orgies, where the bloggers are kind of desperate to get jiggy with as many of their fellow ideologues as they can. Miliblogger says... Patriotnuts says... Etc.
Copying of works is necessary for them to live on in perpetuity, it only becomes an issue worthy of prosecution when it eats into the copyright owners expected profits significantly. People who expect 100% of their copyrights are being both unreasonable and unfair to the greater population who deserve for these works of culture to be preserved for longer periods.
I do not dispute the value of copyright, just the attitude that anyone deserves 100% of the right
to produce copies, or that they are somehow hurt by a bunch of bloggers.
But I'd be wary of having it on my bookmarks if I was at college.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This article has been "reblogged", though at least properly attributed.
And here I thought the unattributed presentation of outdated "evidence" to the U.N. was the new plagiarism. I stand corrected.
-- thinkyhead software and media
The law defines intellectual property rights.
Where? The law defines copyright. The law defines patent. The law defines trademark. The law defines trade secret. The law defines right of publicity. As I understand it, the law does not lump them together, at least in the United States.
No willy, this is insulting.