Well, Ajinia, I have always been nice to you, and I have never attacked you, so I must wonder why you have questioned my legal credentials in the midst of all of this insanity. I am entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else, and with all of you holier-than-thou folks on this particular blog crying about the injustices of plagiarism and our rights as authors, shouldn’t my freedom of expression be one of the rights to which we all so desperately cling?
Jade has made a big deal out of this situation, and only spurned the numbers guy on to more goading. I merely wished to point out that there are better ways to deal with someone of his caliber, and constantly responding and playing his game is not the correct course of action to put a stop to him.
As for the validity of my claims of being a lawyer, they are true. I have been practicing law for over a year (yes, I am still new to the profession, but I am only in my mid-twenties). From your comment, I am clear that you are not a lawyer, because unfortunately, there is no actual law against plagiarism. There may be an actionable tort if the plagiarism of another’s work equates to copyright infringement or fraud; however, plagiarism standing alone is not a crime. Furthermore, one does not have standing in a court of law in the United States (where I live, and practice) if one does not have sufficient damages or an injury. Damages are the quintessential element of a cause of action.
Let’s make a hypothetical, so that you can understand my point here: A is driving an SUV. It is huge, shiny, and very expensive. B is driving a Yugo, which we can assume has the opposite features of A’s SUV. B is not paying attention and smacks into the back of A, who is waiting at a red traffic light. B’s Yugo is totaled as a result of the collision; however, A’s SUV is pristine, and does not even have a scratch on it. A is not injured physically, and her SUV, as mentioned, is not damaged. A does not have a cause of action against B for the accident. Even though B broke the law by driving negligently (breaching a duty of care to A), there were no damages. A would not prevail in a court of law if she brought a cause of action in tort against B because damages (an injury proximally caused by the breach of the duty) cannot be proven.
Now, I understand that copyright law is more complex than a tort for a fender-bender, but I am trying to illustrate a point about damages. I do not claim to be an expert in copyright law; in fact, I practice in a different field of law entirely. Your logic, however, remains flawed to my legal mind (albeit not an expert copyright lawyer’s mind) that the numbers guy has broken any laws. He took Jade’s post, posted it on his blog, got yelled at, and took it down from his blog. Unless he broke the bank with AdSense clicks from that exercise, he has not really legally deprived Jade of anything. Plagiarism is morally wrong. I do not debate that issue; however, don’t put me on blast, questioning my credentials, because I have stated an accurate legal opinion on this matter. Consult with a copyright attorney, and I am sure he or she will tell you the same thing. Because Jade is not due any royalties from the infringement on her copyrighted work (we will assume, arguendo, that posting writing on a blog is commensurate with publishing the work to satisfy the provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code (see 17 U.S.C. §101, et seq.)), there are no damages.
Your analogy to Disney taking a child’s blanket is not on point, either (and I don’t know of this case, but I sense a bit of hyperbolizing). If you actually read my comment, you’ll see that I said the cause of action would ensue if the numbers guy profited from his stealing, or if he deprived Jade of a profit from the theft, or if he somehow damaged Jade’s reputation. When Disney took the blanket and sued, it was because grandma took a trademarked image and by doing so deprived Disney of the profit it would have earned by selling a similar blanket to little Jimmy. They sued for lost profits, not the fact that grandma could have profited. I have a sinking suspicion that Disney did not take grandma to the cleaners merely for giving little Jimmy a Winnie the Pooh blanket she knitted; they would have been legally aggressive, however, if grandma set up shop and was selling those blankets to all of little Jimmy’s friends in Duluth.
I hope I have cleared up some of the legal points of this issue for you Ajinia. In the future, when you are unsure, or you don’t understand, don’t attack me… ask me. I am not a bullshitter here; I am just trying to blog in peace, and share my opinion on matters. When I do not address you, I do not expect attacks from you in defense of your cyber friends. Jade is a big girl, and I’m sure she could handle me if she so desired.
InterplanetJanet posted on Aug 17, 2006
| views: 451
Comments
-
silverwhisper said on Aug 17, 2006....
thanks for the summary re: law, IPJ. personally, i think ajinia's anger and frustration over that situation is spilling over here. btw, whatever the impetus, it's nice to see you blogging again. :> ed -
Ajinia said on Aug 17, 2006....
Janet, Unfortunately, I am not hyperbolising about Disney. It has actually happened to a woman I know who did not sell any of these items. Disney is very aggressive when it comes to this matter and they went after not only her embroidery machine & computer but also her house because that is where she did her sewing. From what I understand of copyright law, any time an author writes anything (or an artist draws something) it is now considered to be under copyright to that author regardless of the filing status. Therefore plagarism is copyright infringement regardless of profit or loss thereof. That is why a student can be expelled from school for plagarism even though there is no sense of profit or loss of profit involved. -
yeahbutnobut said on Aug 17, 2006....
IPJ, all in all you seem like a cool person, and I like your nick. Moreover, I'm sure you are a well clever woman. But one diff I see between Jade's reaction to the 332 fellow, and your response to her, is that hers was provoked, even if you think her reaction was out of proportion to the stimulus, a point I would side with you on. Your reaction was not provoked, and it struck me as attacking her, as judgmental, and as holier than thou. I'm not angling to start something with you. Please note that. I'm only saying that we have various angles. And your effort may have been more effective/appreciated if you had said something like , I can see how it is off-putting to have someone nick your words, but let's not overreact to this fellow. Proceed from there. Something in that vein. In short, I agree with you but not with how it was handled. Same as I agree with Jade, but not with how it was handled. Thass all. Big up yerself, and lay down the law. Great field to work in. -
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 18, 2006....
[b]ed[/b]: Thanks for the props. I understand that everone has that urge to rush to the defense of cyber-friends; however, I am entitled to defend myself when my credentials are questioned. Why in the name of God would anyone lie about being a lawyer? In my short time practicing, I have experienced that lawyers are despised merely for being lawyers, especially in online communities. I am back because I enjoy this (maybe I am a masochist), even without my six-figure AdSense income. [b]Ajinia[/b]: You are right about the fact that now something is copyrighted as soon as it is [i]published[/i], regardless of registering it or putting the (c) symbol on the page. The issue of whether or not writing posted on a blog is actually published has not been definitively legally determined. However, you put me on blast, claiming that there is a law against plagiarism. There is no such law, as I indicated above. I also expanded on my point that regardless of being wronged, there is no legal cause of action without damages, and Jade has not incurred any damages in this matter. As for the Disney situation, don't think for a minute that I support that evil empire. I do, however, agree that Disney would have a cause of action for [b]trademark[/b] infringement because grandma took an image owned by Disney and in doing so deprived Disney of the profit it would have made by selling that blanket with [i]Disney's[/i] image on it. From the few facts you have shared with me, it seems like grandma was making more than one blanket, and Disney felt sufficiently threatened to take action to put a stop to her deprivation of its profits. I'm not saying Disney is wrong or right in its decision to take legal action; I'm just saying that they had a legal basis with which to make a claim. [b]Yeahbutnobut[/b]: Okay, valid point. I am hopped up on all sorts of pain killers, and sometimes my mood swings make my evil twin emerge. I do think, however, that in this situation and others that Jade takes a whiny tone, which is not the most productive way to address and deal with problems. I am not holier-than-thou; just ask my girlfriend about what a major whiner/PITA I am. I was annoyed with the situation and I vented my annoyance. Perhaps it was poor judgment to vent [i]at[/i] Jade, but this sentiment has been growing in me for some time. -
silverwhisper said on Aug 18, 2006....
IPJ: if you have asked soulcast to nuke your account, i do hope you ask them to ignore that request before a very interesting discussion goes the way of the dodo. :> sorry about the pain meds. ed -
yeahbutnobut said on Aug 18, 2006....
I see what you are saying. It is somewhat a cumulative response. I can relate. That is certainly a reality. I just had to alienate someone who was sooo upset about the fighting, and "sad, sad," that she wants to quit. Gee, I'm thinking if you are one of those whose emotions are that out of proportion to the facts, goodbye then. Well, poop happens. And the river of time flows inexorably on. Resilience is a blessing. -
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 18, 2006....
Look, yeahbutnobut, my reasons for leaving this site are completely unrelated to the Jade/numbers guy episode. And frankly, it is none of your business if I stay or if I go. Furthermore, I do not think my emotional state is so easily evaluated, especially by one who does not know me. I have never had occasion to converse with you until this point, so I don't think it's very fair to be judgmental of me. I'm glad for you that you felt it necessary to alienate me for commenting on [i]Jade's[/i] blog; it tells me a lot about who you are (unveiling the curtain of anonymity a bit). You say you are not trying to start something with me, and yet, through your words, that is exactly what you are doing. Get a clue and go waft your sweet-smelling shit elsewhere, dude. -
yeahbutnobut said on Aug 18, 2006....
Hey, IPJ,
I think I think you misread my previous comment. Honestly.
I was sympathizing with your very reasonable reply to my earlier post. Did't you get that? Sorry if it was not clear. I'll happily own that.
I even went on to mention that I too did something that alienated another blogger on SC, meaning that I understand the cumulative thing. I think I messed up my second paragraph in that comment. I was paraphrasing my response to Pinkblush's hissy fit about "the fighting and quitting SC." That was not about you. I didn't make it clear enough, which is the risk with the hurried nature of this medium.
I was NOT judgmental of you. And I am NOT trying to start nothing. Matter of fact, I told ya I was in agreement with you about your take on the little bar brawl on the other blog.
This is all in the nature of friendly exchange/disagreement/clarification/etc.
-
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 18, 2006....
It's cool yeahbutnobut. I didn't see your interaction with pinkblush, so I assumed that your comments were referring to me (and we all know what happens when one assumes something...).
This just shows the importance of words, which is why I love being a lawyer. If you change one or two words in a sentence, you can change its entire meaning. That is so awesome.
-
yeahbutnobut said on Aug 18, 2006....
Indeed. Or if you say mean to say, "Darling, when I look into your eyes, time stands still," but it comes out, "Your face could stop a clock," oh the confusion.
Yep, words are tricky buggers, no doubt. And what about a president who sometimes is just plain unintelligible? I still believe that Laura's whole reading program is her indirect effort to get him up and running.
-
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 18, 2006....
LMAO. Have you heard "Bushspeak?" It is a collection of soundbytes from our fearless leader. Too funny.
-
yeahbutnobut said on Aug 18, 2006....
On slate.com, in the "bushism" pages I've read and/or linked to many of his on air gaffes, The total number of them is quite impressive. A record for a person of presidential stature. I admire Dubya for the fact that he can be so unselfconsious about his foot in mouth penchant. If it was me, I'd be soooo self-consious, I'd shun any kind of limelight. He definitely gets the gold for "brazen."
Did you catch the press corp dinner? Bush was outstanding. I mean it. Showed up with a lookalike and proceeded to lampoon himself. I was very impressed. Just the idea was brilliant, but the script was equally so.
-
paidinblood said on Aug 24, 2006....
I am thoroughly enjoying the posts as well as the comments.
Personally, I like your point of view on things and how you keep it straight to the point. That said, I would miss your writing if you were to leave.
-
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 24, 2006....
Thanks pib. I don't think I'm leaving. I was thoroughly pissed at life and everything in it, so I considered discontinuing everything that I was doing in my life and making a fresh start. I have mentioned elsewhere that this was probably prompted by the cocktail of pain meds I'm taking. I have since come to my senses and imagine I will stay in the SC universe. Plus, I am anxious to see what is up with the HBC drama. That man really touched me inside, and now I am wondering if the whole exercise is some sort of ruse. How annoying this cyber-world can be!
-
silverwhisper said on Aug 24, 2006....
IPJ: glad you're sticking around. :>
i think the idea of the huner thing being a ruse is nonsense. he's the most genuine person i've ever encountered online. you can't fake that kinda warmth, IMHO.
ed
-
InterplanetJanet said on Aug 24, 2006....
I like it here, after all. When I leave, I will just be gone... no more threatening.
I feel the same way about HBC, ed, kinda... My explanation is too long for a comment, check it out here.
-
silverwhisper said on Aug 24, 2006....
now that i've read it, i can understand your reasons. obviously we disagree but it would seem to me that we won't get very far if we actually want to try to discuss it. :>
OK, i gotta stop commenting to you so you can get more billables. :>
ed
Comment on "The Law of Copyright vis-à-vis Plagiarism"
Related Posts:
MsBradford07
posted 4 days ago
| views: 52
|
In my blog, I wrote about a good on paper guy. I like his personality and he is a nice guy, but like I said the chemistry is not there.... read entire post
MsBradford07
posted 6 days ago
| views: 90
|
I went to this chat line about 2 or 3 weeks ago. On there, I met this guy and we started talking on the phone. We met each other and I like hanging out with him. He's a nice guy. He has a decent job, a great personality, and very respectable, but I don't... read entire post
MsBradford07
posted 1 day ago
| views: 38
|
I was talking to a friend and she asked what is means to be in a relationship today. She had this same discussion with a male friend of hers. What he said in a nutshell was that today people get into relationships for selfish reasons. One may want a rela... read entire post