Nothing is Original - Plagiarism is not steemits greatest enemy

in #plagiarism8 years ago

I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty, or ten, or even five years before, I would have failed. So it is with every new thing. Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable. To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense.

Henry Ford

Nothing within this post is original.

All of this has been said before and all of this will be said again.

If you have concerns about plagiarism or abuse on steemit please find a quiet time to watch this. It’s 35 minutes long. Watch it to the end.


Part 1 of the above video tells the story of Led Zeppelin in the 60s being labelled “ripoffs” for copying a lot of material. They didn’t give credit but as the documentary suggests this is not unusual within the music industry.

Part 2 discusses movies and how “most box office hits rely heavily on existing material”.

Part 3 demonstrates Kill Bill as Hollywoods greatest “mash up” incorporating copied scenes and frames from so many different films I would be here all day listing them.

Part 4 discusses how we create new works through transformation of what already exists and making variations of currently existing ideas. It takes us through the history of copyright and patent laws and brings us to what we have today - Sample trolls, patent trolls and opportunistic litigation

Originals cost more to create than copies. Therefore originals cannot compete with the price of copies on the market. Hence the need for copyrights and patents. Copyrights cover media, patents cover inventions. “Both aimed to encourage the creation and proliferation of new ideas by providing a brief and limiting period of exclusivity, a period where no one else could copy your work. This gave creators a window in which to cover their investments and earn a profit. After that there work entered the public domain where it could spread far and wide and be freely built upon."

Copyright is the right to copy and publish a particular work. Copyright infringement is a criminal act based on the law created to give legal rights to the use and distribution of an original work to the creator. Copying, distributing or sharing of copyright works such as music, videos and digital copies of textbooks is considered copyright infringement, piracy, or illegal file sharing if permission was not given by the copyright owner.

Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as their own. Plagiarism is not in itself a crime, but can constitute copyright infringement.

From the moment you create something you have copyright protection. However, different countries have different laws around how this “protection” works. There is no such thing as an international copyright law. Copyright duration varies from country to country. In recognition of the limitations of copyrights, many countries have their own individual "Fair Use Act". But there are 180 countries in agreement of the basic standards of the protection of copyrights around the world under the Berne Convention Treaty signed in 1886. In 1996, the The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Treaty were signed to include computer programs and databases and defined “intellectual property” as law.

The main goals of copyright are

  • To encourage the development of culture, science and innovation
  • To provide a financial benefit to copyright holders for their works
  • To facilitate access to knowledge and entertainment for the public.

“The core belief was in the common good - what would benefit everyone.”

The core principles of steemit are
  1. when posting, aim to contribute
  2. upvote material that contributes value
  3. only flag material that is abusive

“But over time the influence of the market transformed this principle beyond recognition. Influential thinkers proposed that ideas were a form of property. Loss aversion lead to intellectual property. Intellectual property swelled beyond its original scope with broader interpretations of existing laws, new legislation, new realms of coverage and alluring rewards.”

Over time the principles of steemit have become foggy. There are posts of accusatory nature. There are whales who upvote said posts. Flags have become a form of abuse instead of policing abuse.

The basic elements of Creativity

  • Copy
  • Transform
  • Combine

These techniques - collecting material, combining and transforming - are the same ones you use at any level of creation. Our new ideas evolved from the old ones

THIS IS SOCIAL EVOLUTION

“The act of creation is surrounded by a fog of myths. Myths that creativity comes via inspiration, that original creations break the mould, that they are the products of geniuses and appear as quickly as electricity can heat a filament. But creativity isn’t magic. It happens by applying ordinary tools of thought to existing materials and the soil from which we grow our creations is something we scorn and misunderstand even though it gives us so much.”

The perceived abuse on steemit are subjective. Based on what we believe will cause users and potential investors to turn their backs on the platform. But fire doesn’t beat fire and the abuse that’s being policed is getting reflected back onto the community as another form of abuse. It’s becoming chaotic on the platform and people are (in my opinion understandably) confused about what it is they’re allowed to do here.

“Copying is how we learn. We can’t introduce anything new until we are fluent in the language of our domain. And we do that through emulation. [...] Nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding."

We learn not just from our mistakes, but also from the mistakes of others and from what we are warned of. Given the chance to witness what is considered abuse on the platform noobs can take some to find their respect for the platform. If they feel disrespected on arrival, why should we expect them to respect steemit? Nobody comes here with “online ettiquette” or certified steemit training. We need to allow some leeway for the platform abusers so that their initial experiences don’t scar their first impressions and they can build an understanding of our ecosystem and how it works.

“The interdependence of our creativity has been obscured by powerful cultural ideas. But technology is now exposing this connectedness. We’re struggling legally, ethically, and artistically to deal with these implications. Creation Requires Influence - everything we make is a remix of existing creations, our lives and the lives of others.”

Every post you upvote is unoriginal. Every post has uncited material. My posts didn’t cite the college university where I developed my understanding for cultural theories such as feminism and intercontextuality, nor the fitness trainers and training school from which I shared my education with you. Nor did I reference any of the people who coined the phrases and words I use.

“Our system of law doesn’t acknowledge the derivative nature of creativity. Instead, ideas are regarded as property, as unique and original lots with distinct boundaries. But ideas aren’t so tidy. They’re layered, they’re interwoven, they’re tangled. And when the system conflicts with reality the system starts to fail.”

Our current understanding of abuse is flawed. The reality is nothing is original and everything is subjectively a lie. As a community we are just at the beginning of a journey. Where that journey takes us is up to all of us. The current system of policing plagiarism as a means to combat abuse is self-contradictory. If our understanding of abuse is only projected onto the plagiarist and we refuse to see the reflection of abuse on ourselves then we run the risk of running burning steemit out.

"The belief in intellectual property has grown so dominant it’s pushed the original intent of copyrights and patents out of the public consciousness. [...] The Copyright Act of 1790 is entitled “An Act for the encouragement of Learning”. The Patent Act is to “Promote the progress of useful arts”. [...] The intent was to better the lives of everyone by incentivising creativity and producing a rich public domain - a shared pool of knowledge open to all. But exclusive rights themselves came to be considered the point so they were strengthened and expanded. The result hasn’t been more progress or more learning, it’s been more squabbling and more abuse.

Stop and pretend you’re an outsider for a moment. Clear your mind and memory of all the drama we’ve gone through over the past few weeks. When you come to the front page of steemit and see what’s trending, what is more likely to put you off…
  • The sock puppet accusations?
  • Questions for the purpose of entrapment when plagiarism couldn’t be proven?
  • Harassment for verifications?
  • The personal interactions turned to slander of “he said she said”?
  • An article post about abortion written by a @msgivings you’ve never heard of?

Ladies and gentlemen, plagiarism is not your greatest enemy.

And policing plagiarism should not be at the cost of the platform as it has been.

Consider carefully what you consider abuse.

  • Lies?
  • Deception?
  • Uncited material?
  • Miscommunications?
  • Plagiarism?

Any or all of these could be considered abuse. But before you take out your stone to throw it, consider another way to address the abuse. Because the constant stone throwing is the culprit that is putting a bad taste in the mouths of both newbies and oldies!

The only real abuse steemit advocates need to take care of right now is the witch hunting and the stone throwing!
Sort:  

We should not hunt for witches or throw stones, and always try to solve any issue by talking (or writing, more precisely).

Now, taking his or her inspiration by copy pasting entire paragraphs from other sources and getting rewarded for this should be pointed out! This is a fraud, in my opinion. On the other hand, getting inspired by some websites or sources, rewriting or emphasizing a few points ones liked, possibly even adding extracts from the sources, is fine. Provided citations are there. And the community is there to advise and ask for completing the original post with proper sources.

To make it short, one should concentrate really on the fraudish issues, and try to solve them gently first. The flags should come later (for repetitions, deception, etc).

I did watch the video and read the post and I could say so much more, but I wanna keep it short.

Plagiarism is accepted, everyone starts to do it, people start cashing out, no one is willing to buy steem because there is no point in doing so, the platform dies out. The end.

  • Bonus lawsuits against members of Steemit who have plagiarized and to Steemit.inc (Everyone rages out of "happiness")

Note: I do agree that sometimes the response from the abuse channel can be "too aggressive".

I do agree there is a need to police plagiarism. I'm not disputing that. I just think with it now being incentivised we may have created a monster. It shouldn't be taken as seriously as it is and the attitude is spreading around the community to people who don't fully understand when copying material is not abuse. There is a fair use act people seem to completely forget.

I don't think the problem is plagiarism per se, but "fraud", in the sense that one seeks to be rewarded by presenting it as something they worked on. Naturally, those defrauded feel angered.

As for the generalization that everything is not original, personally, as far as my philosophical and psychological texts go, I try to not only create material that is original in its expression, but also in its content as well as its ability to expand the mind in ways that have not been approached before. This is exceedingly difficult (several orders of magnitude more difficult than repackaging and restating known things), but doable.

Whether I'm talking about gold being a "constant" in a virtual reality program, placed there by the virtual reality programmer to act as "money", or how the subconscious observer acts to enhance or limit our potential, or why the dollar collapse won't occur (backed by facts that are elusive to mainstream and alternative sources alike), I like to set the bar pretty high.

unless you were born with a compendium of philosophical and psychological texts stored in your brain, that knowledge came from someone else. You may express it in your own words but the concepts are not created by you. Thus the term 'there is nothing new under the sun' has a huge truth attached to it.

Psychology, at its most distilled level, is about understanding yourself to understand the world. If you don't understand yourself, how are you going to understand others?

The main tool is to observe and analyze your own thought process to gain new insights. It cannot be done by another for you, because nobody has access to your thoughts. Your thoughts and your observations on those thoughts, are -by necessity- your own.

you obtain that level in terms of knowledge you gain from external sources thus your insights may be unique to you but they are not new. Your level of obtuse ability is rather good though. :)

There is a problem but yes there could be better ways to handle it. I tend to get really mad at when I see someone shamelesly taking credit for someone elses work knowing that it isn't rewarded well in the first place. So can see myself going over the top in defense. Suppose there is a more constructive way to go about it. Thank you.

This is a more complete take on what I covered in my article Original Content Is Overrated which also covers the issue of being "original".

Thanks @beanz!

I would be "mad" you "copied" me, but then I would be missing both of our points.

So many cats..... You can't withold the rights to all of them....

I'm taking one!

:p

I haven't the time to watch the video this morning but will later.
I just want to add my thoughts to this discussion.
Yesterday afternoon I made a post that was just a StormCloudsGathering video from YouTube and the transcript for the video copied from SCG's website.
In the title of the post I clearly said that this was from one of my favorite YouTubers.
In the body of the post I also related the creator's wish and desire that his content be shared wherever and whenever it could be.

"The core principles of steemit are

  1. when posting, aim to contribute
  2. upvote material that contributes value
  3. only flag material that is abusive"

While I can't say that I knew what the core principles of Steemit are exactly. I only copied,(shared), that video and the transcript because I felt that it contributed value. And because I hadn't seen it on Steemit. Of course it's could be found in other places on the internet. But I thought that it would be a good thing to share it here.
Evidently, I was not correct in that assumption.
Here's the thing though. I am not interested in gaining anything from posting. Not that post or any other post I have made or will ever make. I'm not here to acquire gain anything other than the satisfaction of sharing, reading, viewing or listening to stuff that interests me and which I feel is important to the world in general.
I wish that there were some way to set up my account here that it couldn't be rewarded monetarily. (not that that has been an issue). At least that way my motives for posting something would not be questioned. And I wouldn't end up, after sharing something I felt would benefit others, feeling accused of being a selfish thief.

Thank you @stevesmith I agree sharing material is contributing value if you personally find it valuable. The only mistake you made with that post was not citing the article linked directly in your article. However you did nothing wrong technically as it was linked within the YouTube page. But @cheetah is a bot. It just couldn't detect what you had done. It only detects the copy paste and lack of linked source for copy paste.

Thank you so much for sharing this though as I think it's important that @anyx sees this and realises there is an issue in how it's received because as you haven't caused any offense nobody should have caused you any stress. We really don't want users like yourself getting a bad impression from steemit over good intentional policing of plagiarists. And that was the whole point of me writing this post as personally, I have friends talking about coming on here, and I worry about how they will feel when they slip up, make a common error and end up getting possibly harrassed or interrogated (but hopefully just kindly educated) over their easily made mistake.

Thank you for that. I understand what I did wrong and feel somewhat better about things now.
I will certainly be much more careful about what I "share" from others in the future. Most likely though, I'll just stick to posting stuff of my very own creation.
I hope I haven't damaged my reputation too badly.

PS I edited this comment because I forgot an "and"

That idea of yours is a good one. I wonder if they are planning on giving the option to remove rewards. It would probably mean the post would only be shared with followers and if any of them reblog their followers.

That would be very useful though. It's a great suggestion. Perhaps check the github and if it's not there post it as a proposal.

hi @beanz, just stopping back to let you know your post was one of my favourite reads yesterday. You can read my comments here.

@beanz takes a hard look at the way ‘plagiarism’ is tackled on Steemit. While the people in the steemitabuse channels do a great job on finding and exposing people who straight take material from others and post it on Steemit claiming it to be theirs the introduction of incentives for those finding the posts raises a legitimate concern that some may go too far.
His concerns are not without validity. I watch the channel a lot, mainly to try to avoid sharing links that are copyright abuse. There are some individuals in there which really do seem to adopt an attitude of infallibility even on subjective issues of derivative works. Add monetary incentives and you have a recipe for trouble.

Thanks so much for writing this. It summarises what I wanted to get across perfectly.

I internally struggle with this. I understand that the stories I tell seem uniquely mine, but after decades of reading, have I been influenced by my favorite authors, musicians, and philosophers? Copying and pasting (unless allowed by the original author) is frustrating to those of us generating original content if it earns big payoffs, outside of that it really does not bother me. Guess I am inconsistent.

I don't know if you watched the documentary but in part 3 or 4 he talks about how we are all inconsistent with this. We feel the need to protect our "intellectual property" for fear of losing to somebody else, yet everything we create has somewhere been created before. The documentary shows a lot of cases where people were sued over subconsciously using material that they were influenced by growing up... And they won the case! This is where the laws have been taken too far. It's a fascinating documentary I really hope people will watch it.

I have my YouTube going now, I am sure I will get to it soon. I vividly remember the George Harrison My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine case (George lost) and I think to many of us it was obvious that George subconsciously took the song. How does that compare to the Led Zeppelin (who have been found to liberally borrow multiple times) v. Spirit (Randy California's estate in reality) concerning their borrowing from a Spirit song for Stairway to Heaven. It sounded the same, but maybe it was just different enough that the jury was not convinced.

I suppose I am just vehemently agreeing with you. :)

Well what Led Zeppellin did was different to many cases. They claimed the music to be their own by making no reference to the originals. The documentary is not biased it goes over examples of blatant plagiarism as well as remixes and unconscious influences. Interestingly Led Zeppelin were plagiarised many times since but they never sued anybody.

I think they did not sue because it would have opened up the whole can of worms about their "borrowing." I grew up in a musical household and was well aware of who Robert Johnson was and what he played. When I heard The Lemon Song I was stunned. I knew it was Travellin' Riverside Blues lyrically. Yet there was no credit. Good thing Robert was dead. But you are right, lots of 80s groups stole from Zep, thereby indirectly stealing from the old blues guys. BTW, I do like LZ, so I am not attacking them.

No, I'm attacking nobody. Just encouraging people to rethink the idea. I can't decide what anybody considers abuse. I just wanted to offer the view of the grey area, because when people think it's black and white well we end up calling everything under the sun plagiarism/abuse.

BRAVO! 👏👏👏👏👏😉

Steemit users that create content which incorporates the works of others without proper attribution ultimately hurts the platform and its future. I really want to see this amazing platform not slip to the level of a pinterest or something similar. Steemit genuinely gives everyone the chance to monitize their original ideas and add value to the world. Plagarism is theft plain and simple.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 53776.88
ETH 2232.91
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.30