Comments on: iParadigms Wins Turnitin Lawsuit http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:14:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: MatthewKamar http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-136310 MatthewKamar Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:32:37 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-136310 OK, let me break this down nice and easy for everybody. My school cannot, as a matter of law, require me to sign a contract to a third party. It is that simple. You see, contracts have terms. Nobody is required to agree to those terms. You can't force anybody to sign anything as a prerequisite to passing a college class. That is called extortion. The plaintiffs in this case were morons, and they would have won if they had made the proper argument. Turn It In is an excuse for professors to be lazy. And what is the legal recourse if their "service" falsely accuses a student of plagiarism? Exactly no recourse is available to most students. This is a corporate charade. It makes me ill. Wake up, kids, they are all screwing you. And you are not getting an education, either. Go to the library and teach yourself, I promise you will learn more, pay less, and totally not get laid... OK, let me break this down nice and easy for everybody. My school cannot, as a matter of law, require me to sign a contract to a third party. It is that simple. You see, contracts have terms. Nobody is required to agree to those terms. You can’t force anybody to sign anything as a prerequisite to passing a college class. That is called extortion. The plaintiffs in this case were morons, and they would have won if they had made the proper argument. Turn It In is an excuse for professors to be lazy. And what is the legal recourse if their “service” falsely accuses a student of plagiarism? Exactly no recourse is available to most students. This is a corporate charade. It makes me ill. Wake up, kids, they are all screwing you. And you are not getting an education, either. Go to the library and teach yourself, I promise you will learn more, pay less, and totally not get laid…

]]> By: Tatkins1943 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-132556 Tatkins1943 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:05:00 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-132556 Consider this... Turnitin is actually protecting the student's copyrighted works. It is keeping other individuals from using or copying it and turning it in as their own work. Was this brought out in the trial? Consider this… Turnitin is actually protecting the student's copyrighted works. It is keeping other individuals from using or copying it and turning it in as their own work. Was this brought out in the trial?

]]> By: greenman http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-132316 greenman Tue, 12 Oct 2010 04:59:00 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-132316 I found this article after google turnitin lawsuit to see if turnitin is legal or what not. I feel that the only difference between you guys and essay companies is that you don't pay or credit the original author for their work. You both gain money from the use of submitted papers and access them in definitely. Yes i am an upset student because I know you will have my work for the rest of eternity, but I feel like I should benefit some how from contributing to your business model. That is "Archiving papers for further access and comparison on an automated level". At least pay me or request permission to store my paper. That is all. I found this article after google turnitin lawsuit to see if turnitin is legal or what not. I feel that the only difference between you guys and essay companies is that you don't pay or credit the original author for their work. You both gain money from the use of submitted papers and access them in definitely. Yes i am an upset student because I know you will have my work for the rest of eternity, but I feel like I should benefit some how from contributing to your business model. That is "Archiving papers for further access and comparison on an automated level". At least pay me or request permission to store my paper. That is all.

]]> By: I Write Software http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-129273 I Write Software Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:28:38 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-129273 "I don't agree with the whole concept of "intellectual property." I think all IP law; patents, trademark, copyright, etc.; are fallacious concepts that impede creativity more than enhance it. Honestly ask yourself, does copyright inspire creativity? The answer is no, the creativity exists prior to the protection of the resultant works. People wish to profit from their creativity. This is where IP law comes in. The only problem is that people profit from their creativity in a relatively short time but IP rights can span decades."Obviously "Bailout Benny" has never created anything of value in his entire life (material or intellectual) and probably survives by stealing what he needs. "I don't agree with the whole concept of "intellectual property." I think all IP law; patents, trademark, copyright, etc.; are fallacious concepts that impede creativity more than enhance it. Honestly ask yourself, does copyright inspire creativity? The answer is no, the creativity exists prior to the protection of the resultant works. People wish to profit from their creativity. This is where IP law comes in. The only problem is that people profit from their creativity in a relatively short time but IP rights can span decades."Obviously "Bailout Benny" has never created anything of value in his entire life (material or intellectual) and probably survives by stealing what he needs.

]]> By: Stephen Sharon http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-128991 Stephen Sharon Fri, 01 May 2009 02:04:02 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-128991 I’m going to disagree with the recent decision in this case. Aside from the fact that I think the fair use factors should have been decided differently there are major contracts issues as well as privacy issues that the court and iparadigm failed to properly address. I’ll summarize my argument based on an essay I wrote covering the lower court’s decision because it is basically the same as the more recent decision.Let’s start with the first factor, the purpose and character of the use which typically leads to a discussion as to whether the use was “transformative.” Turnitin’s use of student papers is hardly transformative. The papers are the same before and after Turnitin’s use. Compare this to two cases that also analyzed fair use. Campbell created a parody of a song which is inherently transformative and Google created thumbnails of Perfect 10 images. Turnitin on the other hand has created nothing.This same logic applies to the analysis explaining that fighting plagiarism provides a public benefit. Similar language was used in Campbell, but the court was clear to point out that the social benefit was in a new work being created. Again, Turnitin doesn’t create a new work. As for purpose and character of the use - Turnitin is a for profit commercial venture. This fact can be compared to Google which is also for profit, but one distinction sets these cases far apart. Google provides its search services for free whereas Turnitin charges schools thousands of dollars.Moving on to the nature of the copyrighted work we learn from Campbell that “some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection that others.” Campbell actually found this factor to be of little use, but iParadigms found this factor to either favor neither party or to favor Turnitin. Perfect 10 on the other hand found that it favored the content creator. The reason for this is because iParadigms followed the Blum decision and looked to see whether “the incentive for creativity ha[d] been diminished.” In my opinion this makes sense and all evidence suggests that the incentive of the students has not been diminished because of Turnitin. This is the only factor that should have been decided in favor of Turnitin (keeping in mind of course that all four factors must be taken into consideration together).The third factor calls into question the amount and substantiality of the portions used. The court in iParadigm again finds that this factor either favors neither party or favors Turnitin. This is despite the fact the Turnitin relied on Perfect 10 where the judge clearly said the factor favored neither party. With such similar facts this discrepancy is worth noting.The fourth factor is where I disagree the most with iParadigm. Here we look at “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The court only discusses the potential market of black market essay sales and ignores the much more obvious potential market. Turnitin makes millions of dollars a year by marketing its vast collection of student papers. The “potential” market is staring us right in the face it is called a competitor to Turnitin. With Turnitin taking the student papers for free it completely obliterates the value of the papers to a competing anti-plagiarism service. On top of this Perfect 10 also mentions the right of first publication. Given that Turnitin can send student papers to professors across the country - without the student’s knowledge - this severely limits the ability of a student to honestly say that their paper has never been released to the public.Needless to say I am disappointed with the decision of the appeals court. I don’t deny the existence of plagiarism or the need to detect it, but Turnitin is not the way to do it.If you want to discuss the privacy issues that Turnitin violates (such as COPPA and FERPA) I would be happy to. I would also be happy to discuss the contracts issues that pertain to this case in other forum. I’m going to disagree with the recent decision in this case. Aside from the fact that I think the fair use factors should have been decided differently there are major contracts issues as well as privacy issues that the court and iparadigm failed to properly address. I’ll summarize my argument based on an essay I wrote covering the lower court’s decision because it is basically the same as the more recent decision.Let’s start with the first factor, the purpose and character of the use which typically leads to a discussion as to whether the use was “transformative.” Turnitin’s use of student papers is hardly transformative. The papers are the same before and after Turnitin’s use. Compare this to two cases that also analyzed fair use. Campbell created a parody of a song which is inherently transformative and Google created thumbnails of Perfect 10 images. Turnitin on the other hand has created nothing.This same logic applies to the analysis explaining that fighting plagiarism provides a public benefit. Similar language was used in Campbell, but the court was clear to point out that the social benefit was in a new work being created. Again, Turnitin doesn’t create a new work. As for purpose and character of the use – Turnitin is a for profit commercial venture. This fact can be compared to Google which is also for profit, but one distinction sets these cases far apart. Google provides its search services for free whereas Turnitin charges schools thousands of dollars.Moving on to the nature of the copyrighted work we learn from Campbell that “some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection that others.” Campbell actually found this factor to be of little use, but iParadigms found this factor to either favor neither party or to favor Turnitin. Perfect 10 on the other hand found that it favored the content creator. The reason for this is because iParadigms followed the Blum decision and looked to see whether “the incentive for creativity ha[d] been diminished.” In my opinion this makes sense and all evidence suggests that the incentive of the students has not been diminished because of Turnitin. This is the only factor that should have been decided in favor of Turnitin (keeping in mind of course that all four factors must be taken into consideration together).The third factor calls into question the amount and substantiality of the portions used. The court in iParadigm again finds that this factor either favors neither party or favors Turnitin. This is despite the fact the Turnitin relied on Perfect 10 where the judge clearly said the factor favored neither party. With such similar facts this discrepancy is worth noting.The fourth factor is where I disagree the most with iParadigm. Here we look at “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The court only discusses the potential market of black market essay sales and ignores the much more obvious potential market. Turnitin makes millions of dollars a year by marketing its vast collection of student papers. The “potential” market is staring us right in the face it is called a competitor to Turnitin. With Turnitin taking the student papers for free it completely obliterates the value of the papers to a competing anti-plagiarism service. On top of this Perfect 10 also mentions the right of first publication. Given that Turnitin can send student papers to professors across the country – without the student’s knowledge – this severely limits the ability of a student to honestly say that their paper has never been released to the public.Needless to say I am disappointed with the decision of the appeals court. I don’t deny the existence of plagiarism or the need to detect it, but Turnitin is not the way to do it.If you want to discuss the privacy issues that Turnitin violates (such as COPPA and FERPA) I would be happy to. I would also be happy to discuss the contracts issues that pertain to this case in other forum.

]]> By: ssharon http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-125406 ssharon Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:04:02 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-125406 I’m going to disagree with the recent decision in this case. Aside from the fact that I think the fair use factors should have been decided differently there are major contracts issues as well as privacy issues that the court and iparadigm failed to properly address. I’ll summarize my argument based on an essay I wrote covering the lower court’s decision because it is basically the same as the more recent decision.Let’s start with the first factor, the purpose and character of the use which typically leads to a discussion as to whether the use was “transformative.” Turnitin’s use of student papers is hardly transformative. The papers are the same before and after Turnitin’s use. Compare this to two cases that also analyzed fair use. Campbell created a parody of a song which is inherently transformative and Google created thumbnails of Perfect 10 images. Turnitin on the other hand has created nothing.This same logic applies to the analysis explaining that fighting plagiarism provides a public benefit. Similar language was used in Campbell, but the court was clear to point out that the social benefit was in a new work being created. Again, Turnitin doesn’t create a new work. As for purpose and character of the use - Turnitin is a for profit commercial venture. This fact can be compared to Google which is also for profit, but one distinction sets these cases far apart. Google provides its search services for free whereas Turnitin charges schools thousands of dollars.Moving on to the nature of the copyrighted work we learn from Campbell that “some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection that others.” Campbell actually found this factor to be of little use, but iParadigms found this factor to either favor neither party or to favor Turnitin. Perfect 10 on the other hand found that it favored the content creator. The reason for this is because iParadigms followed the Blum decision and looked to see whether “the incentive for creativity ha[d] been diminished.” In my opinion this makes sense and all evidence suggests that the incentive of the students has not been diminished because of Turnitin. This is the only factor that should have been decided in favor of Turnitin (keeping in mind of course that all four factors must be taken into consideration together).The third factor calls into question the amount and substantiality of the portions used. The court in iParadigm again finds that this factor either favors neither party or favors Turnitin. This is despite the fact the Turnitin relied on Perfect 10 where the judge clearly said the factor favored neither party. With such similar facts this discrepancy is worth noting.The fourth factor is where I disagree the most with iParadigm. Here we look at “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The court only discusses the potential market of black market essay sales and ignores the much more obvious potential market. Turnitin makes millions of dollars a year by marketing its vast collection of student papers. The “potential” market is staring us right in the face it is called a competitor to Turnitin. With Turnitin taking the student papers for free it completely obliterates the value of the papers to a competing anti-plagiarism service. On top of this Perfect 10 also mentions the right of first publication. Given that Turnitin can send student papers to professors across the country - without the student’s knowledge - this severely limits the ability of a student to honestly say that their paper has never been released to the public.Needless to say I am disappointed with the decision of the appeals court. I don’t deny the existence of plagiarism or the need to detect it, but Turnitin is not the way to do it.If you want to discuss the privacy issues that Turnitin violates (such as COPPA and FERPA) I would be happy to. I would also be happy to discuss the contracts issues that pertain to this case in other forum. I’m going to disagree with the recent decision in this case. Aside from the fact that I think the fair use factors should have been decided differently there are major contracts issues as well as privacy issues that the court and iparadigm failed to properly address. I’ll summarize my argument based on an essay I wrote covering the lower court’s decision because it is basically the same as the more recent decision.Let’s start with the first factor, the purpose and character of the use which typically leads to a discussion as to whether the use was “transformative.” Turnitin’s use of student papers is hardly transformative. The papers are the same before and after Turnitin’s use. Compare this to two cases that also analyzed fair use. Campbell created a parody of a song which is inherently transformative and Google created thumbnails of Perfect 10 images. Turnitin on the other hand has created nothing.This same logic applies to the analysis explaining that fighting plagiarism provides a public benefit. Similar language was used in Campbell, but the court was clear to point out that the social benefit was in a new work being created. Again, Turnitin doesn’t create a new work. As for purpose and character of the use – Turnitin is a for profit commercial venture. This fact can be compared to Google which is also for profit, but one distinction sets these cases far apart. Google provides its search services for free whereas Turnitin charges schools thousands of dollars.Moving on to the nature of the copyrighted work we learn from Campbell that “some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection that others.” Campbell actually found this factor to be of little use, but iParadigms found this factor to either favor neither party or to favor Turnitin. Perfect 10 on the other hand found that it favored the content creator. The reason for this is because iParadigms followed the Blum decision and looked to see whether “the incentive for creativity ha[d] been diminished.” In my opinion this makes sense and all evidence suggests that the incentive of the students has not been diminished because of Turnitin. This is the only factor that should have been decided in favor of Turnitin (keeping in mind of course that all four factors must be taken into consideration together).The third factor calls into question the amount and substantiality of the portions used. The court in iParadigm again finds that this factor either favors neither party or favors Turnitin. This is despite the fact the Turnitin relied on Perfect 10 where the judge clearly said the factor favored neither party. With such similar facts this discrepancy is worth noting.The fourth factor is where I disagree the most with iParadigm. Here we look at “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The court only discusses the potential market of black market essay sales and ignores the much more obvious potential market. Turnitin makes millions of dollars a year by marketing its vast collection of student papers. The “potential” market is staring us right in the face it is called a competitor to Turnitin. With Turnitin taking the student papers for free it completely obliterates the value of the papers to a competing anti-plagiarism service. On top of this Perfect 10 also mentions the right of first publication. Given that Turnitin can send student papers to professors across the country – without the student’s knowledge – this severely limits the ability of a student to honestly say that their paper has never been released to the public.Needless to say I am disappointed with the decision of the appeals court. I don’t deny the existence of plagiarism or the need to detect it, but Turnitin is not the way to do it.If you want to discuss the privacy issues that Turnitin violates (such as COPPA and FERPA) I would be happy to. I would also be happy to discuss the contracts issues that pertain to this case in other forum.

]]> By: bailout benny http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-125336 bailout benny Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:50:20 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-125336 I don't agree with the whole concept of "intellectual property." I think all IP law; patents, trademark, copyright, etc.; are fallacious concepts that impede creativity more than enhance it. Honestly ask yourself, does copyright inspire creativity? The answer is no, the creativity exists prior to the protection of the resultant works. People wish to profit from their creativity. This is where IP law comes in. The only problem is that people profit from their creativity in a relatively short time but IP rights can span decades. The need for copyright to exist for 75+ years or patents to exist for 10+ years is absurd. Holding rights for so long stifles innovation because it grants the rights holder a monopoly on use, including derivative works. While I don't think IP law will ever disappear in the United States, I do think that the current time frames need to be drastically cut back to spur innovation again. Also, as far as patents go, I think derivative works should be free from legal constraint if they are marked improvements over the original concept.As far as these kids go I think the choices the kids had need to be laid out on the table. Saying the kids could be home schooled or receive private schooling is unacceptable. The parents might not have the financial means to stop working and homeschool a child, they have bills like everyone else. They also might not be able to afford private school, especially since they can't stop paying taxes for public school and divert those funds to private school. A few other issues come to mind. First, I'm sure the legal guardians were not informed of the necessity for the minors to enter into a legally binding contract if they are highschoolers. Secondly, saying the students' work didn't suffer any loss of market value is misleading and doesn't take into account possible problems down the road. What if the site is hacked? The website has a disclaimer that grants immunity from all liability but the students have no such protections and have no legal recourse if their work is exposed to parties not agreed upon. Since a student in a highschool class cannot just change instructors, and students in college might not be able to after certain deadlines expire, the students are forced into an agreement that is most certainly favorable to iParadigms. The student gains the benefit of being able to pass the class, but loses the benefit of choosing who gets to see their work. Trying to withdraw from the class to avoid the contract may not be possible in the case of minors or may be financially punitive to a college student who has to take classes in a certain order to be able to finish in a timeframe requisite for scholarships/grants or for their budget.All in all I think this judgement was not right. On the face of it the contract is null and void since the students were minors and any contract entered into by a minor does not have any legal standing. Secondly the company is profiting off of agreements that may have been made because of circumstances beyond the control of the contractee. Contracts that are the result of coercion or fraud usually have no legal standing either. I don't agree with the whole concept of "intellectual property." I think all IP law; patents, trademark, copyright, etc.; are fallacious concepts that impede creativity more than enhance it. Honestly ask yourself, does copyright inspire creativity? The answer is no, the creativity exists prior to the protection of the resultant works. People wish to profit from their creativity. This is where IP law comes in. The only problem is that people profit from their creativity in a relatively short time but IP rights can span decades. The need for copyright to exist for 75+ years or patents to exist for 10+ years is absurd. Holding rights for so long stifles innovation because it grants the rights holder a monopoly on use, including derivative works. While I don't think IP law will ever disappear in the United States, I do think that the current time frames need to be drastically cut back to spur innovation again. Also, as far as patents go, I think derivative works should be free from legal constraint if they are marked improvements over the original concept.As far as these kids go I think the choices the kids had need to be laid out on the table. Saying the kids could be home schooled or receive private schooling is unacceptable. The parents might not have the financial means to stop working and homeschool a child, they have bills like everyone else. They also might not be able to afford private school, especially since they can't stop paying taxes for public school and divert those funds to private school. A few other issues come to mind. First, I'm sure the legal guardians were not informed of the necessity for the minors to enter into a legally binding contract if they are highschoolers. Secondly, saying the students' work didn't suffer any loss of market value is misleading and doesn't take into account possible problems down the road. What if the site is hacked? The website has a disclaimer that grants immunity from all liability but the students have no such protections and have no legal recourse if their work is exposed to parties not agreed upon. Since a student in a highschool class cannot just change instructors, and students in college might not be able to after certain deadlines expire, the students are forced into an agreement that is most certainly favorable to iParadigms. The student gains the benefit of being able to pass the class, but loses the benefit of choosing who gets to see their work. Trying to withdraw from the class to avoid the contract may not be possible in the case of minors or may be financially punitive to a college student who has to take classes in a certain order to be able to finish in a timeframe requisite for scholarships/grants or for their budget.All in all I think this judgement was not right. On the face of it the contract is null and void since the students were minors and any contract entered into by a minor does not have any legal standing. Secondly the company is profiting off of agreements that may have been made because of circumstances beyond the control of the contractee. Contracts that are the result of coercion or fraud usually have no legal standing either.

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-121542 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-121542 Bernie,<br><br>For the most part, I agree with what you had to say. One minor point before jumping in to the meat though is that PDF is now an ISO standard so you can create PDFs from any number of applications, including OpenOffice, without agreeing to anything from Adobe. The point is there, but PDF might not have been the best example.<br><br>I agree with you about the contract portion of the ruling. It seems to me that the judge was kind of working backwards on this one, having formed an opinion about what was right and then making the law match. It seems that the logic was a bit twisted in places in a bid to get the ruling that felt right to the judge.<br><br>With the copyright portion of the ruling, I have to say that I am a bit confused, I don't see how TII could invalidate any legal protections for a work put into it. Even though it was ruled a fair use, the fact is the student still has copyright in the work and all TII stores is a fingerprint, which after talking with the CEO of iParadigms at a conference, I can say is indeed different than the article itself. <br><br>Nothing TII does should negatively impact the student's rights to their work elsewhere, the question is whether TII is an infringement unto itself.<br><br>I'd be interested in your thoughts and clarification on that issue, admittedly, I haven't looked at the ruling for quite some time. Bernie,

For the most part, I agree with what you had to say. One minor point before jumping in to the meat though is that PDF is now an ISO standard so you can create PDFs from any number of applications, including OpenOffice, without agreeing to anything from Adobe. The point is there, but PDF might not have been the best example.

I agree with you about the contract portion of the ruling. It seems to me that the judge was kind of working backwards on this one, having formed an opinion about what was right and then making the law match. It seems that the logic was a bit twisted in places in a bid to get the ruling that felt right to the judge.

With the copyright portion of the ruling, I have to say that I am a bit confused, I don’t see how TII could invalidate any legal protections for a work put into it. Even though it was ruled a fair use, the fact is the student still has copyright in the work and all TII stores is a fingerprint, which after talking with the CEO of iParadigms at a conference, I can say is indeed different than the article itself.

Nothing TII does should negatively impact the student’s rights to their work elsewhere, the question is whether TII is an infringement unto itself.

I’d be interested in your thoughts and clarification on that issue, admittedly, I haven’t looked at the ruling for quite some time.

]]> By: Jonathan Bailey http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-120695 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:58:48 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-120695 Bernie, For the most part, I agree with what you had to say. One minor point before jumping in to the meat though is that PDF is now an ISO standard so you can create PDFs from any number of applications, including OpenOffice, without agreeing to anything from Adobe. The point is there, but PDF might not have been the best example. I agree with you about the contract portion of the ruling. It seems to me that the judge was kind of working backwards on this one, having formed an opinion about what was right and then making the law match. It seems that the logic was a bit twisted in places in a bid to get the ruling that felt right to the judge. With the copyright portion of the ruling, I have to say that I am a bit confused, I don't see how TII could invalidate any legal protections for a work put into it. Even though it was ruled a fair use, the fact is the student still has copyright in the work and all TII stores is a fingerprint, which after talking with the CEO of iParadigms at a conference, I can say is indeed different than the article itself. Nothing TII does should negatively impact the student's rights to their work elsewhere, the question is whether TII is an infringement unto itself. I'd be interested in your thoughts and clarification on that issue, admittedly, I haven't looked at the ruling for quite some time. Bernie,

For the most part, I agree with what you had to say. One minor point before jumping in to the meat though is that PDF is now an ISO standard so you can create PDFs from any number of applications, including OpenOffice, without agreeing to anything from Adobe. The point is there, but PDF might not have been the best example.

I agree with you about the contract portion of the ruling. It seems to me that the judge was kind of working backwards on this one, having formed an opinion about what was right and then making the law match. It seems that the logic was a bit twisted in places in a bid to get the ruling that felt right to the judge.

With the copyright portion of the ruling, I have to say that I am a bit confused, I don't see how TII could invalidate any legal protections for a work put into it. Even though it was ruled a fair use, the fact is the student still has copyright in the work and all TII stores is a fingerprint, which after talking with the CEO of iParadigms at a conference, I can say is indeed different than the article itself.

Nothing TII does should negatively impact the student's rights to their work elsewhere, the question is whether TII is an infringement unto itself.

I'd be interested in your thoughts and clarification on that issue, admittedly, I haven't looked at the ruling for quite some time.

]]> By: Bernie http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-121541 Bernie Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:25:54 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/03/25/iparadigms-wins-turnitin-lawsuit/#comment-121541 Some thoughts on this from an IT professional's viewpoint-<br><br>Certainly plagiarism is bad and the TurnItIn services provides a useful service that minimizes it. The problems I see with this ruling is that it depends on situation-specific circumstances, which may not be interpreted quite so narrowly in other courts. <br><br>Examples include:<br><br>Enforceability of click-wrap licenses- this has always been an issue within computing and will remain so. The mere presence of options does not make them viable to the end user. Anyone care to try producing a PDF document without agreeing to Acrobat's licensing? If what you must have to meet someone's requirements is a PDF, you are pretty much stuck agreeing to all the options included in the license.<br><br>Application of laws to those not able to commit to legal agreements (minors)- the argument that someone benefits from an illegal agreement is not logically sound, although it certainly works here to meet the needs of the parties involved. I think this is a case of justice versus law and the ruling is a just one. From a logical viewpoint, it is troublesome that people are breaking a law with the understanding that a higher good is being served. I would argue that the law needs to be clarified and rewritten to address the specific situation.<br><br>Finally, the issue of copyright infringement- if a student chooses to exercise copyright over something, this case is essentially stating that under certain circumstances that copyright can be considered invalid. Again, a reasonable situation in some circumstances, but one that would best be clearly defined by the laws rather than depending on judges to issue rulings. <br><br>What if the homework in question is related to a science fair and your child comes up with an inventive new way of say, solving a common pollution problem? The teacher's submission to TurnItIn may invalidate any legal protections to the invention. Not a common occurrence, certainly, but if you interested in protecting ALL the children why not write a law that clarifies the situation and clear up any ambiguity?<br><br>My $0.02, deposited. Some thoughts on this from an IT professional’s viewpoint-

Certainly plagiarism is bad and the TurnItIn services provides a useful service that minimizes it. The problems I see with this ruling is that it depends on situation-specific circumstances, which may not be interpreted quite so narrowly in other courts.

Examples include:

Enforceability of click-wrap licenses- this has always been an issue within computing and will remain so. The mere presence of options does not make them viable to the end user. Anyone care to try producing a PDF document without agreeing to Acrobat’s licensing? If what you must have to meet someone’s requirements is a PDF, you are pretty much stuck agreeing to all the options included in the license.

Application of laws to those not able to commit to legal agreements (minors)- the argument that someone benefits from an illegal agreement is not logically sound, although it certainly works here to meet the needs of the parties involved. I think this is a case of justice versus law and the ruling is a just one. From a logical viewpoint, it is troublesome that people are breaking a law with the understanding that a higher good is being served. I would argue that the law needs to be clarified and rewritten to address the specific situation.

Finally, the issue of copyright infringement- if a student chooses to exercise copyright over something, this case is essentially stating that under certain circumstances that copyright can be considered invalid. Again, a reasonable situation in some circumstances, but one that would best be clearly defined by the laws rather than depending on judges to issue rulings.

What if the homework in question is related to a science fair and your child comes up with an inventive new way of say, solving a common pollution problem? The teacher’s submission to TurnItIn may invalidate any legal protections to the invention. Not a common occurrence, certainly, but if you interested in protecting ALL the children why not write a law that clarifies the situation and clear up any ambiguity?

My $0.02, deposited.

]]>