A Word from RobOp on Plagiarism/Copyrights Please

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D

Depleted

Guest
#1
#1
Would RobOp please do an article explaining the legal and moral application of copyright laws? I realize most people don't understand that even attributing an article or book to the author doesn't make it morally right to take all of it and post it, but that really still doesn't help the author when his/her hard work is deluded across the Internet.

To take someone else's writing and post it without the author's permission is plagiarism. It is theft. I know the Communications Act allows social media site owners the luxury of not having to worry about legal ramifications of what their users say on their sites, but even after that, most social media sites still clamp down on accepting plagiarism. It's not something that gets users immediately banned, (nor should it be), but when copyrighted material is used without permission, the mods do remove it and let the user understand why.

As someone who owns a social media site, RobOp, I would hope you understand how much your copyrights matter. I'm asking for an article that explains it to the users so people start realizing articles and books do belong to the author. And then, the concerted effort to remove plagiarism from common use on here.

Thank you.
 
jsr1221

jsr1221

Senior Member
#2
Jul 7, 2013
4,265
77
48
#2
I never understood how people could just get away copying long articles when trying to make a point. Nobody knows all of this information. They had to get it from somewhere. It'd be be nice if they started attributing that information properly.
 
blue_ladybug

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
#3
Feb 21, 2014
70,869
9,601
113
#3
Sometimes even just mentioning the source is enough. Such as "article taken from webmd.com"..
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#4
#4
jsr1221 said:
I never understood how people could just get away copying long articles when trying to make a point. Nobody knows all of this information. They had to get it from somewhere. It'd be be nice if they started attributing that information properly.
Click to expand...
Even attributing a full article or book before or after posting it isn't legal or moral. It's equivalent to taking Joe Schmoe's car, putting a sign on the top that says "This is Joe Schmoe's car" and taking it wherever you want. Joe doesn't care if you feel better because you attribute. He cares that you took his car without his permission.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#5
#5
blue_ladybug said:
Sometimes even just mentioning the source is enough. Such as "article taken from webmd.com"..
Click to expand...
That's the point. No, it really isn't then okay. Here are WebMD's permission guidelines. CC is a profit making venture so we need personal permission even to copy/paste something from WedMD.

And I get very few know the rules or understand the moral implications, but that's why it would be helpful for RobOp to post an explanation as part of the articles that teach us how to use this site.
 
AbigailZeke

AbigailZeke

Beloved
#6
Mar 11, 2016
3,055
241
63
Singapore
abigail.pro
#6
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't almost all blogs and articles (unless, otherwise stated on the website) on the internet under the creative commons license? That is, if I'm not mistaken, they're free to distribute (again, unless otherwise stated) for non-commercial purposes (in most cases, there must be a reference to the author, or the website).
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#8
#8
AbigailZeke said:
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't almost all blogs and articles (unless, otherwise stated on the website) on the internet under the creative commons license? That is, if I'm not mistaken, they're free to distribute (again, unless otherwise stated) for non-commercial purposes (in most cases, there must be a reference to the author, or the website).
Click to expand...
A. No. The vast majority are copyrighted. Matter of fact, assume copyrighted when there is no copyrighted symbol.
B. Does it matter? If we post it on here, this is a commercial site, so, by very nature, we wouldn't be keeping the intent of the law even if it was true.

I once asked permission from the Red Cross to use one of their articles for a mercy-ministry newsletter. Five weeks later, the Red Cross turned me down.

There are even copyright permissions that need to be asked to copy X number of verses from the KJV. (If memory serves me right, which it doesn't always, no more then 2,000 verses without permission.
) Even the KJV is owned by someone. (In that case, The Royal Family.)
 
AbigailZeke

AbigailZeke

Beloved
#10
Mar 11, 2016
3,055
241
63
Singapore
abigail.pro
#10
Depleted said:
A. No. The vast majority are copyrighted. Matter of fact, assume copyrighted when there is no copyrighted symbol.
B. Does it matter? If we post it on here, this is a commercial site, so, by very nature, we wouldn't be keeping the intent of the law even if it was true.

I once asked permission from the Red Cross to use one of their articles for a mercy-ministry newsletter. Five weeks later, the Red Cross turned me down.

There are even copyright permissions that need to be asked to copy X number of verses from the KJV. (If memory serves me right, which it doesn't always, no more then 2,000 verses without permission.
) Even the KJV is owned by someone. (In that case, The Royal Family.)
Click to expand...

Well, part of the reason I asked is because I didn't think CC is a commercial website. And yes, I imagine it's entirely different if we're using articles for newsletter. Because CC forums depend on user-content.

Also, actually, I just remembered something. When we signed up, there was a user-agreement, right? I suppose CC won't be liable for anything in the event that an author or a website files for theft. It is also the author/website's responsibility to make known to the reader, their material copyrights.

If CC would go the extra mile of explaining all this copyright stuff, it would be beneficial. But not exactly their responsibility.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#12
#12
AbigailZeke said:
Well, part of the reason I asked is because I didn't think CC is a commercial website. And yes, I imagine it's entirely different if we're using articles for newsletter. Because CC forums depend on user-content.

Also, actually, I just remembered something. When we signed up, there was a user-agreement, right? I suppose CC won't be liable for anything in the event that an author or a website files for theft. It is also the author/website's responsibility to make known to the reader, their material copyrights.

If CC would go the extra mile of explaining all this copyright stuff, it would be beneficial. But not exactly their responsibility.
Click to expand...
This wasn't about CC's liability. This is about educating people. And I would think an easier group to educate than most, because we all do want to do the right thing. I have seen very little to no evidence that people are maliciously plagiarizing. No one's doing it out of sinfulness. They're doing it simply because they don't understand the rules and don't understand the purpose of the rules. If people knew why it is important to the writer, they would stop. And I don't even mean stop using the info they're giving. Linking to the info is legal and moral.

Most social media enforce the don't-plagiarize rules because the owners put in the effort to create their own intellectual properties that they know they don't want others to take willy-nilly. And they enforce it after explaining why to the users, which probably in itself cuts down on how often it happens.

I've had my articles taken without permission. I chose which sites I wanted them posted on for a reason. And in the end, I spent quite a few hours of my life to stop it with mixed results:
1. One blog was closed down for doing it.
2. One scam site was free and clear because I don't have the finances to sue someone in a foreign country.
3. One site accused me of being the plagurist without even listening to my proof that I WAS the original writer. And here's my proof -- it was an article written about how to use stuffed animals to help people. Who is more likely the author of that article -- someone who has a blog about stuffed animals or a chef with a blog consisting of three recipes and one article about how stuffed animals can help people? (The chef's blog was the blog closed, but the site I posted that article on stopped accepting my other articles and messed up my reputation because they just accepted someone saying they saw that article elsewhere.)

It really matters to authors where their writing goes.
 
PeterJens

PeterJens

Banned
#13
Feb 24, 2015
13,204
168
0
#13
[h=5]The saving grace: implied and express licenses
to use Internet materials[/h]Whenever an author posts anything on the Internet, he or she should reasonably expect that it will be read, downloaded, printed out, forwarded, and even used as the basis for other works to some degree. So, just by posting, an author impliedly grants a limited license to use her work in this manner. Think about the rights a newspaper editor has to publish a "letter to the editor." The author of the letter probably did not include a line in the letter giving the editor an express permission to publish the letter, but anyone who sends such a letter must be presumed to understand that this is what happens to letters to the editor.
On the other hand, most authors would not think that posting a work automatically gives consent to commercial use of it without permission. This is not part of what one reasonably expects, and so it's not part of the implied license.

https://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/useofweb.html

The problem with the internet, is the process of reading anything on the internet means making a copy and downloading it to your machine. So literally once you publish on the internet, it is probably public domain, unless commercial earnings are created on the back of your work, there is probably little point about redress. Look at the music industry and the use of youtube.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#14
#14
PeterJens said:
The saving grace: implied and express licenses
to use Internet materials

Whenever an author posts anything on the Internet, he or she should reasonably expect that it will be read, downloaded, printed out, forwarded, and even used as the basis for other works to some degree. So, just by posting, an author impliedly grants a limited license to use her work in this manner. Think about the rights a newspaper editor has to publish a "letter to the editor." The author of the letter probably did not include a line in the letter giving the editor an express permission to publish the letter, but anyone who sends such a letter must be presumed to understand that this is what happens to letters to the editor.
On the other hand, most authors would not think that posting a work automatically gives consent to commercial use of it without permission. This is not part of what one reasonably expects, and so it's not part of the implied license.

https://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/useofweb.html

The problem with the internet, is the process of reading anything on the internet means making a copy and downloading it to your machine. So literally once you publish on the internet, it is probably public domain, unless commercial earnings are created on the back of your work, there is probably little point about redress. Look at the music industry and the use of youtube.
Click to expand...
Um? You just took someone's copyrighted material! In that case, it actually says it's copyrighted on the bottom of the page which ought to tell you that you don't have the right to copy/paste it.

And worse yet, after copy/pasting what the law says, then you turned it around to "but everyone is doing it so why not?"

With that kind of logic exactly why aren't we just having sex with whoever we want whenever we want? "Everyone is doing it!"

No! Everyone is not copying whatever they want and downloading. And even if they are, it doesn't make it right, and really doesn't make it moral. IT AIN'T PUBLIC DOMAIN JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS! Read what you plagiarized!

I honestly thought Christians would understand this easier!
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#15
#15
AbigailZeke said:
An alternative solution would be, is to not allow paste. xD Actually, no. That won't work.
Click to expand...
Most copyrighted websites don't allow you to copy their content. I have run across that trying to copy pictures...if you post part of an article and a link to the website, that allows people to visit that website more often and may help the author. However posting a whole book is wrong unless you are the author.

Plus most people prefer reading short post and more discussion in forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.