------------------------------------------------------------------------ **** http://www.GOANET.org **** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's Goanet operations sponsored by an Anonymous Donor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know how it underlines Frederick's point. I > think it underlines the opposite point - that of > Basilio, Jose, Bosco, Cecil, Sunith, George and me - > that proper acknowledgment does not preclude free > sharing of creative content. That simple attribution > can be completely dissociated from copyright and > copyright law. How can you disassociate the two? Copyright law is based on proof of plagiarism. On a medical research level it is like ignoring the side effects of a "miracle" drug. [Side jab: Oh, I forgot, medical researchers conveniently forget to do this part of their homework, anyway :-] I am not defending plagiarism. Its perpetrators needs to be fittingly rebuked with punishment that fits the crime. However, I contend that plagiarism is not a chronic problem because it is easily moderated by peer review. For someone to succeed they have to make original contributions. Plagiarism can only take them that far before they crumble under their own weight (food they have eaten but not digested, so to speak). It's evil counterpart, copyright law, however, is sinister and could have long lasting effects because it has the backing of law enforcement. Moreover, as there is so much evidence, this "law" can so easily be abused by the rich and powerful to make them even more rich and more powerful. Lastly, and this is my most important point, I contend that plagiarism at an academic level has not stunted research and progress. It's perpetrators, not having made any original contribution, have at least not deterred others from doing so (unless they also try to illegitimately copyright the work, which then becomes exactly the problem of copyrighting). Copyright law, on the other hand, is exactly that -- a deterrent to progress. "No, you cannot use my MP3 algorithm in your code base without first letting me have your firstborn offspring". The point here is not whether or not they have the right, as per the law, to the firstborn offspring. The point is that it stunts research and progress because it is a deterrent to young companies, without financial or legal muscle, to even try. Imagine a world in the stone ages where the first people who discovered the first few rudimentary useful properties of the wheel copyrighted the concept and everyone who used this concept in any subsequent development had to pay them a cut. Similarly, if TCP/IP, arguably today's networking "wheel", was copyrighted you and I may not have been having this discussion via this medium. To summarize, you cannot talk about the problems of plagiarism without also talking about the problems of copyright law. I commend efforts to seek alternatives to copyrighting and make their usage more prevalent. Looks like there was a win-win between FN and Santosh with the photo CD. Here's to more of that. For those who wish to see the debate purely from the perspective of academic research, remember the words of the famous philosopher, Anonymous -- "The difference between theory and practice, in practice, is greater than the difference between theory and practice, in theory". Keep in touch. Allwyn.