This is, indeed, a fundamental problem, and this is one of the very first issues we should be addressing. Where is this coming from, and how can we reverse it?

Again, I simply do not believe that the ease of copying is the *reason* for the epidemic of plagiarism and copyright theft. People do not steal simply because it’s easy, but because they either (1) do not see it as stealing, or (2) they do not think it’s a serious offense. This is what needs to change. Otherwise, legislation and business models are not going to make any difference (for the better, anyway).

Unfortunately, we are moving in all the wrong directions very quickly. On one hand, legislation is becoming insanely fascist and repressive, and the public is too ignorant/apathetic/powerless to do something about it. On the other hand, the same ignorant public has less respect than ever about other people’s intellectual property.

In academia, the plagiarism problem is almost exclusively about honesty, since financial gain is not even in the picture–not until much later. Students (1) are too careless/ignorant to attribute sources properly, or (2) they willingly cross that line, because the goal (passing a test) is becoming or has become more important than the process (learning).

This is, indeed, a fundamental problem, and this is one of the very first issues we should be addressing. Where is this coming from, and how can we reverse it?

Again, I simply do not believe that the ease of copying is the *reason* for the epidemic of plagiarism and copyright theft. People do not steal simply because it’s easy, but because they either (1) do not see it as stealing, or (2) they do not think it’s a serious offense. This is what needs to change. Otherwise, legislation and business models are not going to make any difference (for the better, anyway).

Unfortunately, we are moving in all the wrong directions very quickly. On one hand, legislation is becoming insanely fascist and repressive, and the public is too ignorant/apathetic/powerless to do something about it. On the other hand, the same ignorant public has less respect than ever about other people’s intellectual property.

In academia, the plagiarism problem is almost exclusively about honesty, since financial gain is not even in the picture–not until much later. Students (1) are too careless/ignorant to attribute sources properly, or (2) they willingly cross that line, because the goal (passing a test) is becoming or has become more important than the process (learning).

1. People who create things need to be rewarded and encouraged to continue to do so, particularly as we move increasingly away from commodity products as drivers for our economies towards service and information driven economies.

2. Copyright was originally designed in a world in which the duplication of existing objects was significantly more expensive than now possible in many cases. In response to increasingly global use of information the legal processes defined for copyright apply without the need to engage in a formal process of notification or registration – thus leading to the unobvious need to specify when you don’t want copyright protection.

3. In many cases the copying of material is far less important than the acknowledgement of the source, often irrespective of the amount actually copied directly. This is especially true in academic and artistic areas and is one of the moral rights (the right of attribution).

Information access and use traditionally has had ‘gatekeepers’ – printers, librarians, publishers, (academics?) who had a vested interest in the systems in place, particularly with regard to copyright. The ease of digital creation, publication and distribution has removed the need for most of these gatekeepers while also not providing a way of rewarding creators (1) or updating copyright laws (2) or tracking and acknowledging the act of creation (3). Addressing (3) effectively would remove many of the plagiarism “problems” that are now occuring (something academia is very concious of) while also possibly making (2) less of an issue if as well as providing attribution the solution included a means of communicating what uses were acceptable. As Lawrence Lessig has noted, the real problem with copyright as it now stands is that we can’t easily find who to ask permission to copy from – works are being orphaned almost as soon as they are being created in most cases.

If we really believe in (1) then a fundamental problem is the widespread perception that digital creations that can be copied easily are not ‘owned’ and can be reused or ’stolen’ without concern. This is a serious problem as it discourages creation of thoughtful, high quality content. It also provides an excuse for commercially driven creators and publishers who legitimately want to ensure that their ownership is respected. I firmly believe that the default position of established, successful, commercial publishers is to protect the status quo which has seen them be successful – this is why they are spending so much money on idiotic ideas like the Phillips ad protecting system for TVs and recorders.

We need examples of successful business models that enable people to purchase and/or use content conveniently while retaining a sense of control. We also need legislative protections that combine elements of copyright and elements of the moral rights rather than attempting to reuse antiquated systems by forcing the digital world to comply with physical constraints. I think the widespread evidence of ‘plagiarism’ and associated moral panics are merely a symptom of a loss of understanding of the value of attribution that has arisen from the focus on the purely commercial aspects of copying by publishers – most of whom have forgotten that society values (1) rather more than it does the business models they hold dear.

1. People who create things need to be rewarded and encouraged to continue to do so, particularly as we move increasingly away from commodity products as drivers for our economies towards service and information driven economies.

2. Copyright was originally designed in a world in which the duplication of existing objects was significantly more expensive than now possible in many cases. In response to increasingly global use of information the legal processes defined for copyright apply without the need to engage in a formal process of notification or registration – thus leading to the unobvious need to specify when you don’t want copyright protection.

3. In many cases the copying of material is far less important than the acknowledgement of the source, often irrespective of the amount actually copied directly. This is especially true in academic and artistic areas and is one of the moral rights (the right of attribution).

Information access and use traditionally has had ‘gatekeepers’ – printers, librarians, publishers, (academics?) who had a vested interest in the systems in place, particularly with regard to copyright. The ease of digital creation, publication and distribution has removed the need for most of these gatekeepers while also not providing a way of rewarding creators (1) or updating copyright laws (2) or tracking and acknowledging the act of creation (3). Addressing (3) effectively would remove many of the plagiarism “problems” that are now occuring (something academia is very concious of) while also possibly making (2) less of an issue if as well as providing attribution the solution included a means of communicating what uses were acceptable. As Lawrence Lessig has noted, the real problem with copyright as it now stands is that we can’t easily find who to ask permission to copy from – works are being orphaned almost as soon as they are being created in most cases.

If we really believe in (1) then a fundamental problem is the widespread perception that digital creations that can be copied easily are not ‘owned’ and can be reused or ’stolen’ without concern. This is a serious problem as it discourages creation of thoughtful, high quality content. It also provides an excuse for commercially driven creators and publishers who legitimately want to ensure that their ownership is respected. I firmly believe that the default position of established, successful, commercial publishers is to protect the status quo which has seen them be successful – this is why they are spending so much money on idiotic ideas like the Phillips ad protecting system for TVs and recorders.

We need examples of successful business models that enable people to purchase and/or use content conveniently while retaining a sense of control. We also need legislative protections that combine elements of copyright and elements of the moral rights rather than attempting to reuse antiquated systems by forcing the digital world to comply with physical constraints. I think the widespread evidence of ‘plagiarism’ and associated moral panics are merely a symptom of a loss of understanding of the value of attribution that has arisen from the focus on the purely commercial aspects of copying by publishers – most of whom have forgotten that society values (1) rather more than it does the business models they hold dear.

Do they? At the risk of going to the obvious example, some people may say that depends on what the definition of “is,” is.

There is no question that stealing is wrong, and plagiarism is stealing. However, more people seem to be OK with it, which is what I find disturbing. How can it be wrong and OK at the same time?

As we’ve been discussing, copyright is a different issue. Copyright law exists for the specific purpose of promoting the creative arts by protecting an author’s work for a limited time…although this original purpose has been poisoned and perverted by current corporations.

“I think one of the problems we have is that the people who deal with copyright infringement issues, the RIAA and the MPAA are less popular than even Microsoft.”

Exactly, because their blind and heavy-handed approach is correctly perceived as purely greedy, not as an honest attempt to protect the artists they represent. Record companies (I forget which one[s]) have been found guilty of price fixing. In court. Which means they are criminals. Yet, the penalties they have to pay are insignificant compared to their income, so this is not even a setback. A regular consumer, on the other hand, would face crippling financial penalties, and maybe even prison.

These corporations have the full force of the law behind them when using these intimidation tactics, but no moral ground to stand on, so they should not expect any respect from the public, only fear.

Plagiarism, on the other hand, does not have time limitations, does not care about how famous or rich we are, and is not concerned with monetary matters. Using just one phrase from someone who lived hundreds of years ago, and trying to pass it as our own, is 100% wrong today, tomorrow, and 1000 years from now.

As you point out, plagiarism is about lying. It’s about dishonesty. It’s not about damages. When someone steals something I created and offer for free, and pass it as their own, they are not robbing me of any money, but they are still robbing me.

If plagiarism is ever codified into law, the damages will have to be arbitrary, like they are in cases of wrongful death. How much is a person’s life worth, in dollars? It can’t be measured. Those damages are simply punishment to deter further abuse, not the correct the damage already caused.

Do they? At the risk of going to the obvious example, some people may say that depends on what the definition of “is,” is.

There is no question that stealing is wrong, and plagiarism is stealing. However, more people seem to be OK with it, which is what I find disturbing. How can it be wrong and OK at the same time?

As we’ve been discussing, copyright is a different issue. Copyright law exists for the specific purpose of promoting the creative arts by protecting an author’s work for a limited time…although this original purpose has been poisoned and perverted by current corporations.

“I think one of the problems we have is that the people who deal with copyright infringement issues, the RIAA and the MPAA are less popular than even Microsoft.”

Exactly, because their blind and heavy-handed approach is correctly perceived as purely greedy, not as an honest attempt to protect the artists they represent. Record companies (I forget which one[s]) have been found guilty of price fixing. In court. Which means they are criminals. Yet, the penalties they have to pay are insignificant compared to their income, so this is not even a setback. A regular consumer, on the other hand, would face crippling financial penalties, and maybe even prison.

These corporations have the full force of the law behind them when using these intimidation tactics, but no moral ground to stand on, so they should not expect any respect from the public, only fear.

Plagiarism, on the other hand, does not have time limitations, does not care about how famous or rich we are, and is not concerned with monetary matters. Using just one phrase from someone who lived hundreds of years ago, and trying to pass it as our own, is 100% wrong today, tomorrow, and 1000 years from now.

As you point out, plagiarism is about lying. It’s about dishonesty. It’s not about damages. When someone steals something I created and offer for free, and pass it as their own, they are not robbing me of any money, but they are still robbing me.

If plagiarism is ever codified into law, the damages will have to be arbitrary, like they are in cases of wrongful death. How much is a person’s life worth, in dollars? It can’t be measured. Those damages are simply punishment to deter further abuse, not the correct the damage already caused.

The point you make is valid. One of the problems, and one of the reasons that I wrote this, is because plagiarists are becoming confused with file sharers. Just innocent kids that want to listen to music.

Copyright has become a dirty word.

Personally, when dealing with plagiarism, I’ve always focused on the fact that plagiarism is a lie. You lie by saying that a work is yours when you know full and well that it is not.

Everyone knows that lying is wrong, even children.

I support copying, the CC organization and the open source movement. I draw the line though when people try to own the whole of, not just a copy of, my work.

One of the first steps that we could take is advancing moral rights in the U.S. If that were to pass, plagiarism would become an independent crime. Of course, under the DMCA with Copyright Management Information being illegal to remove, it is technically one already.

That would free us up to distinguish between plagiarists and sharers.

I think one of the problems we have is that the people who deal with copyright infringement issues, the RIAA and the MPAA are less popular than even Microsoft. We have to show people that these matters don’t just affect billion dollar artists, but also common people trying to eek out a living.

But as Dennis Miller would say, “That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”