 |
 |
On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: > i might indeed take a somewhat radical position in regard to > plagiarism, > mainly i wish to protect public goods: parks, the use of words, > democratic > freedoms, including designs that are made publicly available. i > believe > nobody should own public goods and this includes the forms of > industrial > products. can you imagine copyrighting a mathematical curve or the > use of a > common word? Klaus, Again, the problems of copyright are not the problems of anti-plagiarism. Borrowing freely from others is not plagiarism. It is only the hiding of that borrowing or the failure to reveal the borrowing when appropriate that is plagiarism. I can see no way that your stance supports plagiarism. It only attacks IP or overzealous demands for originality. In US law one could not copyright a curve or a word but US patent law has been pushed to absurd limits, famously including granting a patent for "one click" buying. > gunnar, you are right in saying that plagiarism entails an intent to > deceive. but deception makes sense only if illegitimate advantages > can be > taken. for example, producing fake rolex watches. rolex is a brand = > name > of an author. This is forgery--just the opposite of plagiarism. Plagiarists pretend that they did the work of others. Forgers pretend that their work was done by others. Both may have dishonesty at their core but they are very dissimilar in both the nature of the bad act and its effects. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 536 South Catalina Street Ventura California 93001-3625 USA +1 805 667-2200 [log in to unmask] http://www.gunnarswanson.com