Read on Twitter
Skimming a book intended to teach 3rd graders that plagiarism is wrong. Off to a great start, a kid says "But I didn't steal anything. All I did was copy! How can it be wrong to copy something from a book or from the Web?"
It only says plagiarism is "like robbing them."
It only says plagiarism is "like robbing them."
So many people really think kids are idiots and then complete self-fulfilling prophesies by feeding kids close-minded patterns of thought. The writer's imaginary kid who noticed a distinction between stealing and copying is way more interesting than themself.
"Why is it so important to do original work? Your [work] is an expression of who you are. Only you could have created it. You are unique. Your hair color is probably different from your sister's. Your favorite food is probably different from your brother's."
We've lost the plot.
We've lost the plot.
"To unfairly use someone else's work and pretend it is your own is like pretending you are someone else. It is dishonest and unfair."
The thing of it is that plagiarists do not pretend. Plagiarists do not lie about who we are. We aim to express our ideas and spread our messages.
The thing of it is that plagiarists do not pretend. Plagiarists do not lie about who we are. We aim to express our ideas and spread our messages.
"In the old days, people told stories aloud. They didn't write them down. No one knew the name of the person who made it up. It didn't matter. There was no copyright."
So you agree? You think the Author is a construct and society is possible without them. We have done it.
So you agree? You think the Author is a construct and society is possible without them. We have done it.
Take a shot every time an anti-plagiarism tract introduces the Statute of Anne and mentions the United States adopted copyright laws later without revealing that that was plagiarism. The Copyright Act of 1790 literally plagiarized the Statute of Anne with few changes.
One of the biggest tells that citation norms are made-the-fuck-up is that we "must" list the publisher's name. i.e., not even the person who wrote the damn thing; the capitalist firm that funded the printing.
Yes, I realize the practical discovery concern here. It is overblown.
Yes, I realize the practical discovery concern here. It is overblown.
Literally, the plagiarism police. @brianlfrye
Very Official "Fair Use Guidelines for School Projects." (2008)
They did list the four Fair Use factors correctly elsewhere, with too-narrow explanations. This chart is interesting to me, tho. It shows how drastically copyright landlord norms escalated in just the last 12 years.
They did list the four Fair Use factors correctly elsewhere, with too-narrow explanations. This chart is interesting to me, tho. It shows how drastically copyright landlord norms escalated in just the last 12 years.
Serious question: this says that parents can give permission to use copyrighted works created by their children. It doesn't say "unilaterally," but that seems kind of implied. Is that true? Is it referring to kids not being able to enter contracts, maybe?
The book points out to http://www.copyrightkids.org , which is a c. 2001 website created by the @TheCSUSA. It is, um, hilarious.
Yes, because kids should be interested in the benefits of registering a work with the Copyright Office, including *checks notes* the ability to sue for damages.
That is throwing away $35 of Fortnite skins money these days.
That is throwing away $35 of Fortnite skins money these days.
The "Links" link goes to a page that points our intrepid youths to, uh, FIFTEEN copyright lobbying agencies, including RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, *and* BMI.
At the very bottom of the list, there is one link to the US Copyright Office's homepage and one link to USPTO's "Kids Page."
At the very bottom of the list, there is one link to the US Copyright Office's homepage and one link to USPTO's "Kids Page."
"If someone who is 15 in the year 2001 writes a story that year and dies when he is 85 in the year 2086, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after 2086 -- in the year 2156, which is 130 years away."
Bleak. So Unrelentingly Bleak.
Bleak. So Unrelentingly Bleak.
