[ SECRET POST #4938 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4938 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #707.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

IA. But that's a separate issue from the fact that so many people don't understand copyright law.

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, with regards to copyright law, there's no intrinsic value in knowing about copyright law because as previously mentioned copyright law is bad. It's only important to know about it to the extent that it could have an actual practical effect on you.

Second, OP's example isn't even about copyright law in the first place. OP is talking about plagiarism, which isn't a legal concept anyway. So even for someone like OP, who is castigating others for copyright law ignorance, the moral arguments about things like plagiarism get mixed up with the legal status of things like intellectual property rights and copyright infringement.

So my point is, let's make that separation even more explicit. Don't even bother talking about copyright law like it isn't a transparent excuse for large corporations to retain a stranglehold over things that should be in the public domain. Don't dignify it by confusing the moral rights that creators ought to have with the bullshit legal structure of copyright.

[(Anonymous)]

1) LOL, what. Your reasoning makes no sense. It doesn't matter whether or not you think laws are "bad", they still apply to you. Knowing what they are is indeed useful, so you don't mistakenly break the law. If the laws are "bad" then it stands to reason that people ought to know the ins and outs and not make assumptions that might be incorrect, seeing as how the law is "bad".

2) That's the point. People confuse plagiarism with breaking copyright law. If you break copyright law but don't make any money off the deal, then you've still broken the law but the chances of you actually being charged and prosecuted for it are fairly slim. Plagiarism isn't about money being made or not made, if you steal someone's work and pass it off as your own, it's plagiarism.

[(Anonymous)]

Breaking the law doesn't matter. Breaking the law in such a way that you are likely to get punished for it matters, for pragmatic reasons. So one should be aware of what things are likely to get you sued - which appears to be the case in this instance. And one should care about the moral rights of people and individuals to their creations, which apparently people are aware of in this instance, and which in any case are wholly unrelated to copyright law and so are not the kind of thing that OP was talking about in the first place. So I don't care about the rest of it.