begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:08:03PM -0800: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:23PM -0800, Stewart Stremler wrote: > > How /would/ plagiarism work in a world > > without copyright? You could quote something, but not attribute it, > > while still disclaiming 'creation' yourself? You could derive a work > > that shares substantial portions with the parent work, and claim that > > this new work was indeed "your work", and no reference to the original? > > That would be *lying* which would still be unethical if not illegal.
No. You're not claiming you created what you quoted, you only failed to attribute it. For works in the public domain, attribution is not required. You can write a story about Robin Hood, or lift a plot from Shakespeare, and you don't have to give any sort of attribution or acknowledgement. > My only point is that copyright is not preventing plagarism now and > situation *may* not necessarily improve or deteriorate much w/o copyright. Indeed. > > Artists do this all the time. When they do, we say that they "cover" a > > song. It's not stealing, because the copyright system arranges for > > payment to be made to the appropriate (legally speaking) copyright > > holders. > > So? Honesty and protecting one's reputation would still encourage artists to > attribute cover songs correctly w/o copyright. I'm just providing data as to how, now, we have a group of people that routinely associate their own name with a work. It happens that they do it legally, rather than illegally, but it's still being done. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
