Mantex

Tutorials, Study Guides & More

>> Home / Archives for Copyright

Content: Copyright and DRM

by

Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future

Cory Doctorow is a young Canadian freelance writer and web entrepreneur who lives in London. He’s an editor of Boing-Boing and former director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; he writes science fiction novels, and he gives his work away free of charge – yet makes a living from his writing. How can it be done? That’s one of the things he explains here. Content: Copyright and DRM is a collection of speeches, essays, and articles he has produced in the last few years, proselytising in favour of open source software, against digital rights management (DRM) systems, against censorship, on copyright, and in favour of the free exchange of information, unhindered by state controls or commercial prohibitions.

Content: Copyright and DRMAt their most fervent, his arguments come across like those of a students’ union activist – but he’s brave. He speaks against Digital Rights Management (DRM) to an audience at Microsoft. The reason he’s a successful journalist is that he understands new media technology, and he has a gift for wrapping up his arguments in a vivid and succinct manner:

Books are good at being paperwhite, high-resolution, low-infrastructure, cheap and disposable. Ebooks are good at being everywhere in the world at the same time for free in a form that is so malleable that you can just pastebomb it into your IM session or turn it into a page-a-day mailing list.

He has a racy and amusing journalistic style. He writes in short, almost epigrammatic statements with a no-holds-barred attitude to any potential opposition.

As Paris Hilton, the Church of Scientology, and the King of Thailand have discovered, taking a piece of [embarrassing] information off the Internet is like getting food colouring out of a swimming pool. Good luck with that.

Some of the items are quite short – quick reprints of web pages from the Guardian technology section – but they are all pertinent to the issues of creativity and new media. Why for example does the best eCommerce site in the world (Amazon) want to control what you do with your Kindle downloads? Doctorow argues that these are short-sighted policies which prevent the spread of information and the creation of new developments.

He’s gung-ho about the business of eBooks and eCommerce. He makes his books available free as downloads on the Internet, confident that this will result in more sales of the printed book. There’s no actual proof that it results in more sales – but he’s happy with the results, and so is his publisher, and the publicity gives him income from other sources, such as journalism and speaking engagements.

Having said that, more than 300,000 copies of his first novel were downloaded for free, resulting in 10,000 printed books sold. As he argues, that’s like thirty people picking up the book and looking at it in a bookstore for every one who made a purchase. But the thirty pickups cost almost nothing, and I think many authors would be very happy with sales of ten thousand.

[It should be remembered that the average full time writer makes approximately £3,000-5,000 a year – and if you look at that in terms of a forty hour week, it’s less than £2.50 per hour.]

The sheer range of his subjects is truly impressive. There’s a chilling insider report from a committee discussing DRM, an essay on a sub-genre of science fiction writing called fanfic, and even a satirical piece calling into question the limitations of meta-data.

He’s at his strongest on the subject of copyright – and that includes the rights of the person who buys the book, the film, or the MP3 music file. The author has the right to be paid for selling it to you, but you have the right to do with it (almost) whatever you wish.

He has any number of interesting things to say about the nature of eBooks – from their apparent problems, their multiple formats, and their malleability, to the issues surrounding copyright. And the encouraging thing is that he writes not just in theory but as a working writer who is exploring the eBook business and what it can do – for both authors and readers.

If you want to know what’s happening at the sharp end of digital publication and new ideas about the relationships between authors and their readers – do yourself a favour and listen to what he has to say. You might not agree with it all, but it will give you plenty to be thinking about.

copyright   Buy the book at Amazon UK

copyright   Buy the book at Amazon US

© Roy Johnson 2009

Cory Doctorow, Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future, San Francisco: Tachyon Publications, 2008, pp.213, ISBN: 1892391813

More on eCommerce
More on media
More on publishing
More on technology

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights

by

guide for businesses, innovative and creative individuals

Anybody involved in a creative project – particularly where a number of people are involved – knows that an early question will always be raised: “Who owns the intellectual property rights?” Or you could be selling widgets, only to find that another company has started doing the same thing. Can you sue them – or are they more likely to sue you? The product can be a manufactured object, it could be a service, or an ‘intellectual asset’. It could be designing a company web site, running a training course, writing a product guidance manual, devising a manufacturing process, or putting on a television programme.

Enforcing Intellectual Property RightsHistory is littered with cases of people who assumed that they had the rights to something they had written or produced – only to find the profits from their labours taken by somebody else. This book is a straightforward guide to all the information and legal advice you will need to guard your rights to intellectual property. It’s written by a practising barrister who specialises in giving advice to individuals and small businesses. Jane Lambert is obviously committed to helping people in the creative industries, and this is even reflected in the fact that she takes the trouble to write a book on legal matters in a style which is readily understandable – and quite entertaining.

She starts with two useful glossaries of intellectual property terms – moral rights, passing off, intellectual assets, and the differences between copyright and patent. These are followed by quite an engaging scenario in which someone seeks legal advice on the copyright to household decorations which are being made in China and imported.

The explanations being given illustrate how an apparently simple case is fraught with all sorts of legal complexities. It’s amazing to learn how different laws and conventions apply to different types of product. Copyright for imaginative fiction is seventy years after the author’s death for instance, whereas for industrial design it’s twenty-five years, and a patent only lasts for twenty.

Jane Lambert is a big fan of the Internet, and full web addresses are given for all her sources of information. She explains the common cases of protecting brands and domain names, as well as trademark infringement – against which the UK legal system offers quite strong protection. However, it’s important to realise that the law may differ in countries outside Europe and the USA, and that in some places copying somebody else’s work may not be regarded as illegal.

Having explained the rights in IPR, she then goes on to cover the resolution of disputes which arise in the courts over issues of ownership. And even though she earns her living in a practise which specialises in such cases, she warns against using the system unless it is absolutely necessary – both because it is so expensive and because disputes can often be resolved outside it. She also explains how the whole system of civil procedures was reformed ten years ago (by Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

But if you really do want to prosecute a case she explains the procedure – which usually begins with a ‘cease and desist’ letter. It should not begin with any form of threats or bullying – because such actions can themselves result in prosecution.

The legal system now requires both claimant and defendant to show that they have done everything to seek resolution and not made matters worse. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, there are a number of forms of arbitration and adjudication which can be followed.

And if all else fails, and you end up in a court of law, she explains how court cases are conducted, who decides what, and how the best cases can be made. As she explains as an aside, many people falsely believe that the success of a case depends up some form of brilliant court room oratory (as in movies). But the truth is more prosaic: it depends largely upon a well-researched and carefully prepared case – which costs time, money, and skill.

But in the event that you might need them, she also offers some templates for standard letters used in making claims and defences – as well as tips on preparing your strongest case. This is a sane, humane, and very readable account of a very complex set of issues. Anyone contemplating an entry into this arena would do very well to prepare themselves by taking her advice.

© Roy Johnson 2009

Intellectual Property Rights   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Intellectual Property Rights   Buy the book at Amazon US

Jane Lambert, Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, London: Gower, 2009, pp.164, ISBN: 0566087146

More on eCommerce
More on media
More on publishing
More on technology

Essays on the History of Copyright

by

This is a collection of academic essays that seeks to establish legitimacy for a relatively new intellectual discipline – the study of the history of copyright. The editors in their introduction maintain that new academic disciplines arise when it generally becomes felt that there is need for them. It is certainly true that many of the technological advances of the last twenty years (in the digitization, reproduction, re-purposing, transmogrification, and distribution of various media) have brought issues of copyright, ownership, and intellectual property rights into sharp focus. And it’s important to realise that this does not only affect the printed word: films, photographs, music, paintings, even simple trademarks and branding logos have all been the subject of amazingly expensive legal disputes recently.

Power and Privilege: Essays on the History of CopyrightThe essays as you might expect take a long historical perspective. Issues of copyright (indeed, even of authorship itself) did not arise as a problem until the invention of the printing press made the mass production of an important cultural object (the book) available in the fifteenth century. So, the collection begins with the granting of the first patent in 1469 for a five year printing monopoly in Venice. It’s interesting to note that since many of the first books put into general circulation were versions of Greek and Roman classics, it was their formal appearance, font design, and physical shape that was protected, not their intellectual content or authorship.

It was only later, as the number of original published works started to rise, that individual authors began to apply for what we would now call copyright; and in their cases it was permission to print and sell a single edition of a work over a long enough time span (five years) to give them a chance to cover initial costs.

In 1644 Milton issued his Areopagitica as a protest against state censorship and in favour of freedom of the press. The important point to stress here is that he was explicitly championing the free circulation of ideas. The licence-free period that followed saw the establishment of English newspapers, with sales by 1711 of up to 70,000 per week.

Meanwhile, in America, the arrival of the first printing press in Massachusetts was greeted with prohibitions, censorship, licensing, and colonial control. It was only after the War of Independence that authors successfully applied for copyright to their work.

There are chapters tracing the slight variations in law that sprang up in France, Italy, and Germany. All sorts of different systems were tried, from temporary arrangements affecting only a single work, to ‘perpetual copyright’.

There are (understandably) quite a lot of legal and even philosophical issues at stake in some of these battles over rights and regulations. These become even more complex as the first attempts were made in the late nineteenth century to establish international agreements. It should be remembered that authors such as Dickens were forced to struggle to establish their rights in the USA.

Many of today’s commercial strategies were already in play in previous centuries – so long as the technological means to create copies and profit were available. The painter Benjamin West made £400 for his famous 1771 depiction of The Death of General Woolfe, but almost one hundred times more from the engravings that were made from it.

It is also worth noting that two other factors complicated the drafting of legislation on these matters. One was the fact that the law (in Britain) was also being framed to protect the interest of the owners or the public against possibly unscrupulous artists. The second was that the idea that a work of art should be ‘new and original’ was a surprisingly late consideration, introduced only to the 1862 Fine Arts Copyright Bill.

There was also separate legislation covering copyright in works of dramatic art and performance rights. Amazingly, the nineteenth century world of theatre was rife with stenographers in the audience recording the text of new plays as they were acted out on stage. These were then sold on to other theatre managers, who often claimed copyright, rather than the original author.

What this impressive collection of articles does not do is bring the arguments up into the digital age. That is understandable when its very objective is to establish a long history on which to build a new discipline. But anyone with the slightest interest in these issues of copyright and intellectual property rights will be keen to know how digitization and ease of reproduction are changing many of the traditional assumptions. Mashups, print-on-demand, open source software, file-sharing, and the new ‘hybrid economies’ of eCommerce are changing the face of copyright, ownership, and commercial rights. To keep up with these issues, you will need to look beyond the traditionalists to the work of Lawrence Lessig, Chris Anderson, and Cory Doctorow.

It’s an interesting book production in its own right. OpenBook Publishers are a new business supplying academic print on demand (PoD) titles. The books they publish are available, free to view on line as searchable PDFs – but a file can quickly be turned into a conventionally printed and bound book for those who wish to pay for it. This title, I must say, is a handsome volume you would be pleased to have on your shelves.

History of Copyright   Buy the book at Amazon UK
History of Copyright   Buy the book at Amazon US

© Roy Johnson 2010

Ronan Deazeley et al (eds), Power and Privilege: Essays on the History of Copyright, Cambridge: Open Book Publishing, 2010, pp.438, ISBN: 190692418X

Copyright links

Red button Content: Copyright and DRM

Red button Intellectual Property and Open Source

Red button Plagiarism, Copyright, and New Media

More on digital media
More on technology
More on theory

How to avoid plagiarism

by

how to understand plagiarism – and avoid it

Plagiarism – definition

1. Plagiarism is defined as “Passing off someone else’s work as your own”.

2. It happens if you copy somebody else’s work instead of doing your own.

3. It also happens in those cases where people actually buy essays instead of doing the work themselves.

4. Schools, colleges, and universities regard this as a serious offence – and they often have stiff penalties for anyone found guilty.

5. Most people at school level call this ‘cheating’ or ‘copying’ – and they know it is wrong.

6. The problem is that at college or university, you are expected to use and write about other people’s work – so the issue of plagiarism becomes more complex.

7. There are also different types and different degrees of plagiarism – and it is often difficult to know whether you are breaking the rules or not.

8. Let’s start off by making it clear that all the following can be counted as plagiarism.

  • Copying directly from a text, word-for-word
  • Using text downloaded from the Internet
  • Paraphrasing the words of a text very closely
  • Borrowing statistics from another source or person
  • Copying from the essays or the notes of another student
  • Downloading or copying pictures, photographs, or diagrams without acknowledging your sources
  • Using an attractive phrase or sentence you have found somewhere
Why is this so complex?

9. The answer is – because in your work at college or university level you are supposed to discuss other people’s ideas. These will be expressed in the articles and books they have written. But you have to follow certain conventions.

10. Plus – at the same time – you will be asked to express your own arguments and opinions. You therefore have two tasks – and it is sometimes hard to combine them in a way which does not break the rules. Many people are not sure how much of somebody else’s work they can use.

11. Sometimes plagiarism can happen by accident, because you use an extract from someone else’s work – but you forget to show that you are quoting.

12. This is the first thing you should learn about plagiarism – and how to avoid it. Always show that you are quoting somebody else’s work by enclosing the extract in [single] quotation marks.

In 1848 there was an outbreak of revolutionary risings throughout Europe, which Marx described as ‘the first stirrings of proletarian defiance‘ in a letter to his collaborator, Frederick Engels.

13. This also sometimes happens if you are stuck for ideas, and you quote a passage from a textbook. You might think the author expresses the idea so well, that you can’t improve on it.

14. This is plagiarism – unless you say and show that you are quoting someone else’s work. Here’s how to do it:

This painting is generally considered one of his finest achievements. As John Richardson suggests: ‘In Guernica, Picasso lifts the concept of art as political propaganda to its highest level in the twentieth century‘.

Academic conventions

15. Why do colleges and universities make such a big fuss about this issue? The answer to this is that they are trying to keep up important conventions in academic writing.

16. The conventions involve two things at the same time. They are the same as your two tasks:

  • You are developing your own ideas and arguments and learning to express them.
  • You are showing that you have learned about and can use other people’s work.

17. These conventions allow you to use other people’s work to illustrate and support your own arguments – but you must be honest about it. You must show which parts are your own work, and which parts belong to somebody else.

18. You also need to show where the information comes from. This is done by using a system of footnotes or endnotes where you list details of the source of your information.

19. The conventions of referencing and citation can become very complex. If you need guidance on this issue, have a look at our detailed guidance notes on the subject. What follows is the bare bones.

20. In an essay on a novel by D.H. Lawrence for example, you might argue that his work was influenced by Thomas Hardy. You could support this claim by quoting a literary critic:

Lawrence’s characters have a close relationship with their physical environment – showing possibly the influence of Hardy, who Walter Allen points out was ‘his fundamental precursor in the English tradition‘ (1)

21. Notice that you place a number in brackets immediately after the quotation. The source of this quotation is given as a footnote at the bottom of the page, or as an endnote on a separate sheet at the end of your essay.

22. The note gives full details of the source – as follows:

Notes

1. Walter Allen, The English Novel, London: Chatto and Windus, 1964, p.243

A bad case of plagiarism

This video clip features the case of Ann Coulter. She is a best-selling American writer and social critic who has extremely right-wing views.

The film raises several plagiarism issues:

  • failure to acknowledge sources
  • failure to quote accurately
  • changing the nature of a quotation
  • misleading references (citations)
  • definitions of plagiarism
  • plagiarism detection software
  • legitimate quotation

Do’s and Don’ts

23. You should avoid composing an essay by stringing together accounts of other people’s work. This occurs when an essay is written in this form:

Critic X says that this idea is ‘ … long quotation …‘, whereas Commentator Y’s opinion is that this idea is ‘ … long quotation …‘, and Critic Z disagrees completely, saying that the idea is ‘ … long quotation …‘.

24. This is very close to plagiarism, because even though you are naming the critics and showing that you are quoting them – there is nothing of your own argument being offered here.

25. If you are stuck for ideas, don’t be tempted to copy long passages from other people’s work. The reason is – it’s really easy to spot. Your tutor will notice the difference in style straight away.

Copyright and plagiarism

26. Copyright can be quite a complex issue – but basically it means the ‘right to copy’ a piece of work. This right belongs to the author of the work – the person who writes it – or a publisher.

27. When a piece of writing is published in a book or on the Web, you can read it as much as you wish – but the right to copy it belongs to the author or the author’s publisher.

28. Nobody will worry if you quote a few words, or a few lines. This is regarded as what is called ‘fair use’. People in the world of education realise that because quotation is so much a part of academic writing, it would be ridiculous to insist that you should seek permission to quote every few words.

29. In fact there is an unwritten convention that you can quote up to 5% of a work without seeking permission. If this was from a very long work however, you would still be wise to seek permission.

30. This permission is only for your own personal study purposes – as part of your course work or an assignment. If you wished to use the materials for any other purpose, you would need to seek permission.

31. Copyright also extends beyond writing to include diagrams, maps, drawings, photographs, and other forms of graphic presentation. In some cases it can even include the layout of a document.

The Johann Hari case

A recent case which has drawn attention to subtle forms of plagiarism is that of British journalist Johann Hari. He writes articles and conducts interviews for The Independent newspaper. It was revealed that in many articles (and particularly his interviews) he had inserted quotations from the previous writings of the interviewee, or from interviews written by other journalists. In both cases the quotations were unacknowledged. .

He was criticised in particular for creating the impression that the words had been used in his own face-to-face interviews by sewing together the quotations with apparently on-the-spot dramatic context – as in “puffing nervously on a cigarette, she admitted to me that …” and that sort of thing.

When it was revealed that his prime quotations were lifted from written sources up to five years old, Hari was forced to issue an apology. He claimed that interviewees were sometimes less articulate in speech writing than in writing, and that he merely wanted to present their arguments in the best light.

This feeble ‘explanation’ ignores three of the principal issues in plagiarism. He did not produce his own paraphrases of the interviewee’s ideas, but used their words from other sources. He went out of his way to conceal his sources and create the entirely bogus impression of a first-hand interview. (Some people have wondered if his interviews actually took place.) And he used the work of other journalist, from work they had published previously, without acknowledgement.

So how exactly was Hari guilty of plagiarism?

  • He quoted other people’s words as if they were his own.
  • He didn’t acknowledge his sources.
  • He concealed the cut and paste origins of his composition.

A number of his essays and interviews have been analysed, and he has been shown to be guilty of systematic plagiarism. The majority of Internet comments point to the fact that he acted unprofessionally. All his previous work was scrutinised, and it has been suggested that he return the 2008 George Orwell Prize that he was awarded for distinguished reporting.

He began to edit his personal Wikipedia entry, inserting flattering comments on his own work and abilities. But to make matters doubly worse, he then resorted to something even more underhand. Using a false identity (‘David Rose’) he began making pejorative edits to the Wikipedia entries of anybody who had criticised him. When challenged, he denied all this, but was eventually forced to admit the truth and apologise.

Guido Fawkes on the Hari issue and here

Detailed analysis of Hari’s plagiarism

Plagiarism and the Web

32. The World Wide Web has made millions and millions of pages of information available to anybody with access to the Internet. But even though this appears to be ‘free’ – copyright restrictions still apply. If someone writes and publishes a Web page, the copyright belongs to that person.

33. If you wish to use material you have located on the Web, you should acknowledge your sources in the same way that you would material quoted from a printed book.

34. Keep in mind too that information on a Web page might have been put there by someone who does not hold copyright to it.

What follows is the rather strictly-worded code on plagiarism from a typical university handbook.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the theft or appropriation of someone else’s work without proper acknowledgement, presenting the materials as if they were one’s own. Plagiarism is a serious academic offence and the consequences are severe.

a) Course work, dissertations, and essays submitted for assessment must be the student’s own work, unless in the case of group projects a joint effort is expected and indicated as such.

b) Unacknowledged direct copying from the work of another person, or the unacknowledged close paraphrasing of somebody else’s work, is called plagiarism and is a serious offence, equated with cheating in examinations. This applies to copying both from other student’s work and from published sources such as books, reports or journal articles.

c) Use of quotations or data from the work of others is entirely acceptable, and is often very valuable provided that the source of the quotation or data is given. Failure to provide a source or put quotation marks around material that is taken from elsewhere gives the appearance that the comments are ostensibly one’s own. When quoting word-for-word from the work of another person quotation marks or indenting (setting the quotation in from the margin) must be used and the source of the quoted material must be acknowledged.

d) Paraphrasing when the original statement is still identifiable and has no acknowledgement, is plagiarism. A close paraphrase of another person’s work must have an acknowledgement to the source. It is not acceptable to put together unacknowledged passages from the same or from different sources link these together with a few words or sentences of your own and changing a few words from the original text: this is regarded as over-dependence on other sources, which is a form of plagiarism.

e) Direct quotation from an earlier piece of the student’s own work, if unattributed, suggests that the work is original, when in fact it is not. The direct copying of one’s own writings qualifies as plagiarism if the fact that the work has been or is to be presented elsewhere is not acknowledged.

f) Sources of quotations used should be listed in full in a bibliography at the end of the piece of work and in a style required by the student’s department.

g) Plagiarism is a serious offence and will always result in imposition of a penalty. In deciding upon the penalty the University will take into account factors such as the year of study, the extent and proportion of the work that has been plagiarised and the apparent intent of the student. the penalties that can be imposed range from a minimum of zero mark for the work (without allowing resubmission) through to downgrading of degree class, the award of a lesser qualification (eg a Pass degree rather than Honours, a certificate rather than a diploma) to disciplinary measures such as suspension or expulsion.

Quoted with the permission of Manchester University

© Roy Johnson 2004

More on How-To
More on literary studies
More on writing skills

Intellectual Property and Open Source

by

a practical guide to protecting code

The Open Source movement makes software available free for people to use or even to pass on to others. This flies in the face of normal commercial practice, where people jealously guard their intellectual property rights. Traditional laws support these rights – so when new open source projects come into being, often as a result of work done collectively, it can be difficult to disentangle issues of ownership and control. This is equally true for the written word as well as for digital code.

Intellectual Property and Open SourceVan Lindberg’s new book is an amazingly thorough guide to the whole business. He explains the legal niceties without resorting to too much jargon, and supplies practical support materials in the form of sample licences and agreements. The first part of the book has eight chapters giving an introduction to intellectual property law, then the second part is six chapters offering an intellectual property handbook for developers, particularly those working in the field of open sources.

He warns that it’s a book of general principles, not specific advice, for the very good reason that cases of copyright, patents, and intellectual property rights are very case specific. Nevertheless, he does discuss lots of instructive individual cases, and I imagine that anybody with a need to know in this complex field of legislation will find what he has to say both instructive and chastening.

He explains the law on copyright, patents, and inventions by comparing it to computer programming, which it turns out to resemble remarkably closely. One new ruling (or code) is bolted on to that which already exists, and the whole statute grows by a process of accretion.

As a layman, it’s interesting to learn that you cannot patent an idea – no matter how original an invention it might be. You can only patent the proof that it can actually be realised and turned into something useful. And even the term ‘useful’ is coded – as his example of a patent dust cover for dogs illustrates. It can be used – even though the idea itself is quite barmy.

On Open Sources he explains that software is free as in ‘free speech’, not ‘free beer’ – but this distinction will mean little to everyday users who are happy to download a program that works well without having to pay for it.

The picture becomes clearer when he explains the success of various Open Source projects – FireFox, Linux, Apache – many of which have formed the basis for successful business ventures. The software itself is free to use and distribute, but companies have legitimately made money from offering services in support of its use.

He’s very good at explaining the complexities of rights developed whilst you are in somebody else’s employment. In brief, you’ve very little chance of succeeding, and he even includes some tragic cases of people who have lost lawsuits on works patented before and after they have been in somebody else’s employ. If there’s a barely-hidden message here, it’s ‘stay away from legal contests’.

As a rule, employees should assume that any intellectual output they produce whilst employed will be considered proprietary information and subject to the company’s proprietary information agreement (PIA). It doesn’t matter if the invention is in a completely different area of technology, or completely unconnected with your work; it still may be covered.

Even if you wish to make your work available free to the public, there are a number of different licenses to choose from, offering a sliding scale of ownership and control – such as public domain, open source, and reciprocal. The general advice he gives is not to attempt writing your own.

One thing is for certain. It’s potentially a very complex area both technically and legally. The law works on a basis of precedence, and you can bet that if a legal tangle emerges, it will be judged on similar occurrences in the past, even though your technology might be brand new.

All sorts of additional complications arise because of the special nature of software development. Does the author of a ‘patch] (a small-scale solution to a problem) have copyright over it when it is added to a big project? Can you combine two open source programs and claim copyright over the result? What about reverse engineering?

I would have welcomed a glossary and a webliography, but it’s to O’Reilly’s credit that they publish books like this – because although it might have a fairly limited readership, it raises lots of important issues and simultaneously makes available the information for dealing with them.

© Roy Johnson 2008

Intellectual Property and Open Source   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Intellectual Property and Open Source   Buy the book at Amazon US

Van Lindberg, Intellectual Property and Open Source, Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly, 2008, pp, 371, ISBN: 0596517963

More on eCommerce
More on media
More on publishing
More on technology

Plagiarism in essays

by

sample from HTML program and PDF book

1. Plagiarism in essays occurs when you take someone else’s ideas or words and try to pass them off as your own original work. In its worst form this happens when someone is stuck for ideas and lifts a passage from a textbook, hoping that the use of this ‘borrowed’ material will not be noticed. [It is usually very noticeable.]

2. Sometimes this can happen unintentionally, because the student uses a passage from someone else’s work – but forgets to put quote marks around it. These lifted passages are easily noticeable because of the sudden shift in tone in the writing.

3. You should always acknowledge the original source of any words or ideas which you use in your own work. Any attempt to pass off work which is not your own is regarded as cheating in academic circles, and is usually severely censured.

4. You can either acknowledge any idea you use in summary form:

This is what the critic Stanley Fish has called ‘interpretive communities’ (1) as a strategy in his argument that …

5. Alternatively, you can interrupt your own argument to briefly quote a passage from the original source. As Stanley Fish suggests:

Interpretive communities are made up of those who share interpretive strategies not for reading (in the conventional sense) but for writing texts, for constituting their properties and assigning their intentions. (1)

6. In both cases you must acknowledge that original source, either in a footnote or an endnote, which is shown as follows:

NOTES
1. Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in this Class, Harvard University Press, 1980, p.169.

7. Unless you have specifically been asked to discuss or summarise other people’s arguments, you should avoid composing an essay by stringing together accounts of other writers’ work.

8. More difficult instances occur when dealing with ideas that are in the public domain. For instance, you might not know who first thought of a concept you wish to bring into play. In such a case you should simply acknowledge the fact that the idea is not your own.

What follows is the rather stringently worded code on plagiarism from a typical university handbook.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the theft or appropriation of someone else’s work without proper acknowledgement, presenting the materials as if they were one’s own. Plagiarism is a serious academic offence and the consequences are severe.

a) Course work, dissertations, and essays submitted for assessment must be the student’s own work, unless in the case of group projects a joint effort is expected and indicated as such.

b) Unacknowledged direct copying from the work of another person, or the unacknowledged close paraphrasing of somebody else’s work, is called plagiarism and is a serious offence, equated with cheating in examinations. This applies to copying both from other student’s work and from published sources such as books, reports or journal articles.

c) Use of quotations or data from the work of others is entirely acceptable, and is often very valuable provided that the source of the quotation or data is given. Failure to provide a source or put quotation marks around material that is taken from elsewhere gives the appearance that the comments are ostensibly one’s own. When quoting word-for-word from the work of another person quotation marks or indenting (setting the quotation in from the margin) must be used and the source of the quoted material must be acknowledged.

d) Paraphrasing when the original statement is still identifiable and has no acknowledgement, is plagiarism. A close paraphrase of another person’s work must have an acknowledgement to the source. It is not acceptable to put together unacknowledged passages from the same or from different sources link these together with a few words or sentences of your own and changing a few words from the original text: this is regarded as over-dependence on other sources, which is a form of plagiarism.

e) Direct quotation from an earlier piece of the student’s own work, if unattributed, suggests that the work is original, when in fact it is not. The direct copying of one’s own writings qualifies as plagiarism if the fact that the work has been or is to be presented elsewhere is not acknowledged.

f) Sources of quotations used should be listed in full in a bibliography at the end of the piece of work and in a style required by the student’s department.

g) Plagiarism is a serious offence and will always result in imposition of a penalty. In deciding upon the penalty the University will take into account factors such as the year of study, the extent and proportion of the work that has been plagiarised and the apparent intent of the student. the penalties that can be imposed range from a minimum of zero mark for the work (without allowing resubmission) through to downgrading of degree class, the award of a lesser qualification (eg a Pass degree rather than Honours, a certificate rather than a diploma) to disciplinary measures such as suspension or expulsion.

© Roy Johnson 2003

Buy Writing Essays — eBook in PDF format
Buy Writing Essays 3.0 — eBook in HTML format

More on writing essays
More on How-To
More on writing skills

Plagiarism, Copyright, and New Media

by

how digitization affects creative work

Plagiarism

Plagiarism Copyright New MediaStrange thought it may seem, it’s not possible to copyright the title of a creative work. There is nothing to stop you writing a novel called Where Angels Fear to Tread, making a film called Gone with the Wind, or composing a musical show called A Little Night Music. In fact all of these examples have taken their titles from works of art which preceded them. You might be criticised for lack of originality; you would certainly risk creating confusion, but nobody could stop you. Copying somebody else’s title is not the same thing as plagiarism. This isn’t particularly well known, but it’s a fact.

Ideas

It’s also not possible to copyright an idea. You can have the idea for inventing invisible steel, but you can’t copyright or patent the idea itself. Copyright and patent applications are required to be detailed descriptions for the manufacture and implementation of new ideas. That is, you can only copyright the process of actually making invisible steel.

In the creative arts, it’s not possible to copyright the idea for a new series of television programmes, the plot outline for a new opera, or the concept for a new video game or iPhone app. You only have copyable rights to such a product when the thing itself has been produced. That’s why proposals for new works such as these are kept under tight wraps by production companies. They don’t want their rivals to get in first.

Music

The issues of ownership in recorded sound are increasingly complex since the arrival of digitization. But there are two fundamental distinctions to be made which affect plagiarism and copyright:

  1. Melodies can be copyrighted
  2. Chord sequences can not be copyrighted

In 1970 the Beatles guitarist George Harrison published a song called My Sweet Lord which went on to become a big hit. The problem was that it was note-for-note identical to a song called He’s So Fine recorded by an all-girl black group called The Chiffons. Harrison claimed that it was a case of ‘subconsciously’ copying. A court case ensued in which just about everyone’s reputation was damaged and a lot of money changed hands.

Similar cases have arisen elsewhere, but now with less frequency, since it is relatively easy to prove the similarity between two melodies, even if they have different underlying harmonic sequences.

In the case of harmony and chord sequence, the case is quite different. Any number of tunes have been written based on an identical harmonic sequence. George Gershwin’s I Got Rhythm has a relatively simple chord progression which has been a great favourite of jazz musicians because it provides a comfortable sequence on which to improvise. New songs composed to fit on top of the original harmony include Ah-Leu-Cha, Allen’s Alley, Anthropology, Lemon Drop, Lester Leaps In, Red Cross, Salt Peanuts, and Squatty-Roo.

Sampling

PlagiarismSampling occurs when one part of a song or a musical performance is taken and re-used as part of a different composition or performance. This is often done using electronic equipment and software programs. The sampled portion can also be edited or played back continuously in a ‘loop’ to form the background for a new composition. This practice has been widespread in popular music for the last twenty years.

It’s currently a vexed area of copyright and plagiarism, and many successful court cases have been fought by artists claiming that their work was being used without recognition or payment. Some have been successful even though the original sample has been edited and changed almost beyond recognition.

The argument in favour of sampling invokes the concept of ‘fair use’ in copyright law. This recognises the right of one person to quote from the work of another when creating an original work. [This happens all the time in academic scholarship and research.]

Open Source supporters such as Laurence Lessig and Cory Doctorow argue that sampling and fair use should be tolerated in favour of creative expression. Detractors argue that if the newly composed work relies too heavily on the original sample for its effect (such as a recognisable guitar riff in pop music) it falls into the realm of plagiarism.

Mashups

A mashup is the fusion of two separate sources of digital information to form a new entity. The following example shows the combination of a geographic map with information on flights in and out of Schipol airport Holland to produce a real-time (and interactive) data presentation program.

In this case it’s likely that permission has been sought to use these sources of information. But thousands and thousands of mashups are created in the world of pop music where the lyrics from one song are overlaid on the instrumentals or the melody of another. These instances raise issues which the copyright laws have been unable to resolve.

Defenders of mashups claim ‘fair use’ arguments, and point to the fact that the new product is ‘original’ in that it did not exist before. Critics have pointed to unacknowledged use of material, but the court cases they have brought have rarely been successful, because the people being sued rarely have any money. Pop music mashups is a minority sub-culture in which people produce things just for the hell of it – or just because it can be done.

Film

In the realm of film, literal copying and even plagiarism are rare – for the simple reason that access to the original materials would be difficult and permission to quote expensive. Rare exceptions include Woody Allen’s Play it again, Sam which includes reconstructions and direct imitations of films featuring Humphrey Bogart and in particular Michael Curtiz’s 1942 film Casablanca.

Sometimes films include re-makes of an original story. For example, The Big Sleep was originally filmed by Howard Hawks in 1946, based on Raymond Chandler’s 1939 novel of the same name. It was re-made in 1978 by Michael Winner and the setting transferred to England. In both cases, these are ‘interpretations’; of Chandler’s original story.

In 1998 Luc Van Sant created a shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film Psycho, which was itself taken from Robert Bloch’s 1959 novel, based on a true-life Wisconsin serial killer. Although many of the camera angles and shots are very similar, the cast is different, the setting updated, and the theme music re-orchestrated. It was not particularly well-received, but nobody accused Van Sant of plagiarism: the film was seen as more of a hommage to the original.

Video

Because much video is now digitised, it is much easier to copy and ‘quote’ than a film printed on a 35mm celluloid strip. Consequently, much video footage is now used in mashups. These are often created for comic effect – with visual materials from one source counterposed with audio tracks from something entirely different.

A popular case in point is the short sequence from Joachim Fest’s 2004 film Downfall about the last days of Adolf Hitler. This has been used as the basis of any number of satirical parodies. The original video footage and the sound track of Hitler’s furious rant about the war being lost is retained – but new sub-titles are inserted with reference to anything from English football managers being sacked, Hitler’s plans to invade Ireland, his rage at having been banned from Microsoft’s arcade game Xbox. and even rants about the frequency and quality of Downfall parodies themselves. In this example (ranting about the new iPad) he finishes his rant with a request not to put the video clip onto YouTube.

What makes these clips funny is the fact that the film remains the same, but the subtitles are re-written to provide ridiculous and completely inappropriate subjects for his rantings, often focussed on trivial contemporary events. Why is this not classed as plagiarism? For two important reasons. First – the people who make these parodies don’t suggest for one minute that they have made the original Downfall footage. Second – they are not attempting to profit from their re-use of the visual material. Their object is to create fun which is freely available to anybody.

Joachim Fest has endorsed the production of these parodies on the grounds that they reinforce his original message – that people who become too powerful should be exposed by revealing their megalomania, with mockery if necessary.

Blogs

Blogging is rather like the Wild West of the Internet. Anybody can write whatever they wish and publish it to a personal blog for the rest of the world to see and read. There is virtually no control over content, no censorship, and no monitoring of who says what.

Nevertheless, bloggers are on the whole respectful and they attribute the sources of any materials quoted, with web links to the original and hat-tips acknowledging the authors. Some people break these conventions and steal other people’s news items, but they are often found out and held up to ridicule. That’s because once something is put up onto the Internet it’s easy to check its origin and the time and date it was put there. Anyone claiming an ‘exclusive’ or lifting someone else’s copy can be found out if the same material exists in an earlier published version. Even a string of words less than a sentence long can be traced via a Google search in less than a second.

It was common only a few years ago for people to deride blogging as no more than a form of vanity publishing. Now, every self-respecting business (particularly news-related publications and broadcasters) have their own in-house bloggers.

Web sites

In their earliest manifestation, web sites were specialist repositories for scientific research papers and archives of academic materials. Since the democratisation of the Internet, the Web is also now big commercial business. Some online companies exist for the sole purpose of throwing up web pages which will attract the attention of Google searches.

As a consequence of this change, an enormous amount of copyright infringement and plagiarism occurs on web sites. That’s because some people will shamelessly copy existing web pages and take already-syndicated articles to give their own sites more ‘content’. There are even programs that will automate the process. (These are called ‘page scrapers’.) Shady business companies adopt this practice to attract visitors with a minimum of effort and make money from advertising on the site.

However, they do so at their peril, because Google ranks any ‘duplicate material’ as ‘redundant pages’ and demotes them in its page and site rankings.

A similar lack of original content occurs on web sites known as ‘link farms’ or ‘portal sites’. These are sites which merely provide lists of other web sites – usually in categories with multiple sub-menu options. That is, they are empty of any original content. These too are downgraded by Google in its rankings.

Newspapers

Most established newspapers now have their own web sites, and they employ journalists to write the news items and articles that they publish both in print and on line. Copyright and plagiarism is almost never in question. Even when a newspaper uses a photograph or a short report supplied by an independent news agency such as Reuters, the fact will usually be credited and the original source named.

However, a recent case shows that there are always possible exceptions. Johann Hari was a journalist writing for The Independent. He specialised in radical issues, and in particular he wrote in-depth interviews with controversial political figures. Recently, he has been accused of breaking the journalist’s code of ethics. By comparing the text of his articles to previously published work it has been possible to show three primary instances of plagiarism.

  1. He used quotations from other people’s work – without attribution.
  2. He re-wrote other people’s articles, using the structure, sequence, and the arguments of the original.
  3. He used quotations from other people’s interviews – as if the words had been addressed to him personally.

Hari at first strenuously denied these charges of plagiarism, but then it was discovered that he had adopted a false identity (‘David Rose’) and used it to maliciously edit other people’s Wikipedia entries, besmirching their reputations and boosting his own. He was suspended from the Independent, and then eventually admitted his guilt.

Magazines

The only time copyright issues occur in magazines is when one publication decides to re-print an article from another. But this is usually acknowledged, with a footnote along the lines of ‘This article first appeared in the July 2010 issue of Harper’s Bazaar‘.

However, the recent success of The Huffington Post has raised a number of copyright issues. Arianne Huffington created her online news service in 2005-2009. It offers a combination of a frequently updated digital news service with magazine-style articles written by specialists. It has been very successful, and now has versions covering Canada, America, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

But much of the content of the HuffPo is generated by bloggers who are not paid for their articles. They’re encouraged to contribute on any subject they wish; and their work is mingled with product placement articles and other junk journalism. There have also been recent accusations that armies of HuffPo staff are being employed to re-write other people’s original work to escape any accusations of plagiarism.

Copyright cases

Wikipedia has a useful list of copyright case law in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States. This takes account of historical rulings and recent cases involving digital works, trademarks, photographs, peer-to-peer file sharing, definitions of originality, distribution, and even ‘what is not a sculpture’.

© Roy Johnson 2011

More on technology
More on digital media
More on journalism
More on creative writing
More on writing skills
More on publishing

Remix: The Copyright Wars

by

Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid  Economy

Lawrence Lessig is a lecturer in law at Harvard University and a leading authority on copyright and intellectual property rights in the digital age. He helped to found the Creative Commons movement, and he’s a former member of the Electronic Freedom Foundation. His works are a passionate defence of the rights of the individual to the creativity of the past, and a crusade against those forces which try to limit the free exchange of information. Remix: The Copyright Wars is his manifesto on the topic.

Copyright warsThis is the latest in a long line of books he has written in support of such causes – explaining in non-legal language the way in which human rights have been eroded by the vested interests of big business. Whilst upholding the right of all content originators to make a living from what they create, he believes that the current copyright laws restrict the free exchange of information. He also argues that all creativity builds on the creativity of the past, and it is modern technology which has democratised and speeded up the process.

In the past, you could own the ‘source code’ to Shakespeare’s works, but only printing press owners could make copies. Now, as soon as something becomes digitised, any kid in his back bedroom can copy at will. This has given rise to a panic over copyright, which he explores in some depth.

First of all he examines the ‘war against piracy’ in the American courts by a close inspection of the terms in which it is commonly pursued:

In my view, the solution to an unwinnable war is not to wage war more vigorously. At least when the war is not about survival, the solution to an unwinnable war is to sue for peace, and then to find ways to achieve without war the ends that the war sought.

You would almost think he was talking about the Americans in Afghanistan – but no, this is the ‘copyright wars’.

He cites many examples where companies have paid out legal fees ten times greater than the lost revenue they were seeking to recoup.

He agrees with Chris Anderson and Cory Doctorow that the Nay-sayers and prophets of doom on all this are wrong. The future is not likely to be an either/or choice between prohibition and control versus unbridled anarchy. It’s much more likely to be a creative symbiosis of past and future technologies.

He then addresses the central theme of the book – how much is it possible to quote from someone else’s work in a new work for private or public consumption? The rules and general practice are quite different, depending on the medium. With printed text it is a perfectly normal, accepted practice to quote from someone else’s work. In fact academic writing specifically requires a knowledge and accurate quotation of previous works in the same subject.

But use the same approach with audio recordings and you’ll end up with a solicitor’s ‘cease and desist’ letter from Sony or Decca. And his argument is that this restriction is a brake on both creativity and freedom of information.

On mixed media he also makes the very good point that the sort of well-edited video clips with over-dubbed sound tracks shown in TV political satire (and now on blogs) are more effective than long-winded essays taking 10,000 words to make the same point.

Most people today don’t even have time to read long articles. They get their information in much shorter chunks. As he puts it, very pithily – “text is today’s Latin”. It’s an extreme view, but you can see his point.

A propos of which, he also practices what he preaches. He developed a style of presentation which uses rapid display of short, memorable phrases or pictures. Here’s an example which takes a while to load, but is well worth the wait. It’s quite old now, but it demonstrates a technique of presentation which will not date: sound and text being used together for maximum effect.

One thing about his writing I found quite inspiring is that for every bold proposition he makes, he looks at the possible objections to it. (In fact a whole section of his web site is devoted to criticisms of his work.)

He makes a profound distinction between what he calls read-only (RO) and read-write (RW) culture. Both are important, but they have the difference that RO encourages passive reception, whereas RW encourages a written, that is a creative response. This leads him to argue for the enhanced value of all ‘writing’ – by which he means not only text, but the manipulation of other media, such as the audio and video files which are the stock-in-trade of the mashup artists.

His point is that these collage-type works are definitely not examples of parasitic imitation, and that in almost all cases they reveal a skilled appreciation of the medium.

The second part of the book is an investigation of eCommerce – conducted at a level just as radical and profound. He looks Google, Amazon, and Netflix as examples of businesses that have become successful by defying the normal laws of commerce. They allow other companies to share their information, and in Amazon’s case they even allow competitors onto their site. By doing this they make more money, and they control more of the field.

For the sake of those people who didn’t catch it first time round, he explains Chris Anderson’s Long Tail Principle. He then looks at the ‘sharing economies’ to which the Internet has given birth – the Open Source projects and the Wikipedias which exist on the voluntary efforts of volunteers.

Next he passes on to what he calls the ‘hybrid economies’ – companies such as Slashdot and Last.fm who offer a community but make money by advertising revenues. The subtle distinctions between these different models have to be handled carefully – otherwise sensibilities (and revenue streams) might be affected.

He looks at the ethical and practical conflicts between Old and New economies – those based on greed and naked competition, and those based in the ‘hybrid’ sector of sharing and cooperation. Eventually this takes us back to the issue of copyright, where he has some radical proposals for reform.

The first is that basically all genuinely amateur use of copyrighted material should be exempt from prosecution. It is pointless issuing legal writs against some kid sampling and posting on YouTube. The second is a suggestion that copyright is returned to its original status – a fourteen year term which is renewable if the owner so wishes.

Next comes a suggestion called ‘clear title’ – which means that the item being copyrighted needs to be clearly defined. Then comes the de-criminalisation of P2P file sharing, and the end of prosecuting sampling and mashups. As he suggests, supported by people in the pop music business, there is no evidence to prove that a sample or mashup detracts from sales of the original. All of these seem perfectly reasonable – though I suspect vested corporate interests would think otherwise.

This is a passionate and thought-provoking book on the ethics of copyright and creativity in an age of rapid technological change. It is radical, free-thinking, and a challenge to anyone participating in the digital world right now. Lawrence Lessig is a voice to take note of. But you’ll have to move fast. He seems to be in a permanent state of rapid development, and by the time you’ve read this, his latest book, he’ll have moved on elsewhere. If you go to his official site at lessig.org you’ll see what I mean.

Remix: The Copyright Wars   Buy the book at Amazon UK

Remix: The Copyright Wars   Buy the book at Amazon US

© Roy Johnson 2010

Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, London: Penguin Books, 2008, pp.327, ISBN: 0143116134

More on eCommerce
More on media
More on publishing
More on technology

Get in touch

info@mantex.co.uk

Content © Mantex 2016