INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Plagiarism

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
DougS
Posts: 737
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:48 am

Re: Plagiarism

#21 Post by DougS » January 17th, 2008, 10:44 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Fine words! I wonder where you stole 'em

Jonathan Swift
Good one, L. :thumbsup:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Plagiarism

#22 Post by Nick » January 18th, 2008, 12:21 pm

Oscar Wilde: "I wish I had said that."

Whistler: "You will, Oscar; you will."

User avatar
whitecraw
Banned
Posts: 233
Joined: July 10th, 2007, 12:18 am

Re: Plagiarism

#23 Post by whitecraw » January 18th, 2008, 12:46 pm

Nice quote, Lifelinking. Swift was, of course, himself an avid copycat, as was Laurence Sterne; and Shakespeare has already been mentioned. The literary mode is called ‘creative imitation’. There’s a passage in Plutarch, for example, of Cleopatra on her barge which has passed down through literary history almost untouched via Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot.

There was a high-profile case at the end of 2006, when Ian McEwan was accused of plagiarising part of his novel, Atonement. Passages from McEwan’s novel were found in No Time for Romance, the autobiography of romance novelist Lucilla Andrews. Margaret Atwood, Kazuo Ishiguro, John Updike, Zadie Smith, Martin Amis and Thomas Pynchon leapt to McEwan’s defence in a letter to the press, asserting that if he were guilty, they were all guilty too, as they’d all done it: ‘novels are a product of one’s reading mediated by an imaginative mind’, is a quote that sticks in my mind.

The most recent and perhaps most bizarre instance came last year, when it was revealed that numerous CDs by the late British pianist Joyce Hatto, a recluse who recorded work but didn't perform in public, were not made by Hatto but by other pianists. Music critics despaired: verifying Hatto's entire discography will take years. Meanwhile, it is possible that her career, as it is now perceived, never existed at all.

There’s a nice treatise of legal philosophy that appeared last year by Richard Posner, entitled The Little Book of Plagiarism. As a judge on the United State Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Posner is exceptionally qualified to explore the many legal and ethical nuances, and logical dead-ends, of plagiarism. It's a pleasure to read how one of the foremost legal minds in the US navigates this bumpy intellectual terrain, illuminating aspects of the issue in convincing and often surprising ways.

As Posner shows, what makes plagiarism such a fascinating subject is the ambiguity of the concept, its complex relations to other disapproved practices, the variety of its applications, its historical and cultural relativity, its contested normative significance, the mysterious motives and curious excuses of its practitioners, the means of detection, and the forms of punishment and absolution.

For instance, defining plagiarism. It's not as simple as you'd think. It's not merely ‘literary theft’. Copying, borrowing, alluding and stealing might adequately describe plagiarism; but then again, given enough scrutiny, they might be completely erroneous. And when it comes to copyright infringement, the water gets all the murkier: not all plagiarism is copyright infringement and not all copyright infringement is plagiarism. Plagiarism instead must be defined as a kind of fraud that causes harm to at least one party while inducing reliance by a reader who cares about being deceived. ‘Reliance’ means the reader does something because he believes the plagiarised work to be original, i.e., he relied on a falsehood.

Whatever the wisdom of the law in this respect, the whole notion of ‘plagiarism’ boils down to money. As the consumer-driven marketplace for art arose, the need to identify the maker of the art - by naming or ‘branding’ him - became more important. As the stakes grew, the interest in protecting the ‘brand name’ grew, which is why plagiarism has become such a ‘bad thing’. Moreover, as Walter Benjamin pointed out early last century, our anxiety over plagiarism is tied to how we’ve developed psychologically as a culture. As society has grown to accommodate ever-increasing individualism, a ‘cult of personality’ has emerged as a response to the possibility of mechanical or (in the parlance of the 21st century) ‘digital’ reproduction. Every day some 40,000 blogs are started, many of which are to the twisting of our moral knickers nothing more than cut-and-paste jobs which cannot be policed. There are hopes that the inability of commercial publishers to regulate the internet might undermine the ‘commodification’ of writing and return us to a situation similar to the one that prevailed in pre-modern times when ‘appropriative writing’ or ‘creative imitation’ was a legitimate literary form.

Each of us likes to think that our ideas and expressions are unique and so deserve public recognition, which thinking plagiarism challenges. Modernity has also created a marketplace out of the heterogeneity of our demands for expressive and intellectual products, the ‘genuineness’ or ‘authenticity’ of which becomes both commercially and psychologically important. No one wants to ‘own’ an unattributed copy of a work of genius; everyone wants to possess the fetish of genius itself.

Source
Last edited by Maria Mac on January 18th, 2008, 2:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Edited to add source.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Plagiarism

#24 Post by Lifelinking » January 18th, 2008, 2:13 pm

:sad2:

Whitecraw

I suspect that everybody here is well capable of understanding the points you have made about plagiarism, and has understood them right from the start.

Repeating them ad nauseam with a different set of quotes is a form of writing that I must say I find more than just a little supercilious.

I am sure the nature of creativity is a fascinating subject. I have no doubt the nuances and legal niceties of what plagiarism is or is not, have bought more than one lawyer a new BMW 7 series or similar.

In fact I am pretty sure that if folk went around ripping off quotes from Posner's 'The Little Book of Plagiarism', his publishers lawyers would be all over them like a particularly nasty rash.

But.

Wholesale cutting and pasting of text verbatim from other places without clear referencing is lazy, unnecessary, untrustworthy and dishonest.

I suspect that is why Maria made it a forum rule in the first place. I agree with that rule.


L
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9288
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Plagiarism

#25 Post by Maria Mac » January 18th, 2008, 2:56 pm

That is indeed why we have the rule.

Whitecraw has been reminded of the rule but has continued to disregard it. I am not prepared to spend my time seeking out the original sources for his posts so that they can be properly referenced and, as whitecraw is evidently not prepared to do this himself, I am - regretfully - banning him from this forum.

Post Reply