Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
love is magical
Proud Member
Good night bumpy. It's late. You need some zzz's.Hey, it's a good convo. I find the latest discussion worthwhile and interesting,Sweet dreams. :huggy:
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
Edit.
Chamife
Proud Member
Bumper, I appreciate your exploration to find if maybe someone has dropped some stitches, because the sweater is full of holes...:cheeky:
Dissect, dissect...;D, who knows what you'll find.
Dissect, dissect...;D, who knows what you'll find.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
love is magical;3596818 said:
I've found the answer to your question with more details regarding the law:
The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation.
Plagiarism is theft of another person's writings or ideas. Generally, it occurs when someone steals expressions from another author's composition and makes them appear to be his own work. Plagiarism is not a legal term; however, it is often used in lawsuits. Courts recognize acts of plagiarism as violations of Copyright law, specifically as the theft of another person's Intellectual Property. Because copyright law allows a variety of creative works to be registered as the property of their owners, lawsuits alleging plagiarism can be based on the appropriation of any form of writing, music, and visual images.
Plagiarism can take a broad range of forms. At its simplest and most extreme, plagiarism involves putting one's own name on someoneelse's work; this is commonly seen in schools when a student submits a paper that someone else has written. Schools, colleges, and universities usually have explicit guidelines for reviewing and punishing plagiarism by students and faculty members. In copyright lawsuits, however, allegations of plagiarism are more often based on partial theft. It is not necessary to exactly duplicate another's work in order to infringe a copyright: it is sufficient to take a substantial portion of the copyrighted material. Thus, for example, plagiarism can include copying language or ideas from another novelist, basing a new song in large part on another's musical composition, or copying another artist's drawing or photograph.
Courts and juries have a difficult time determining when unlawful copying has occurred. One thing the plaintiff must show is that the alleged plagiarist had access to the copyrighted work. Such evidence might include a showing that the plaintiff sent the work to the defendant in an attempt to sell it or that the work was publicly available and widely disseminated.
Once access is proven, the plaintiff must show that the alleged plagiarism is based on a substantial similarity between the two works. In Abkco Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F.2d 988 (2d Cir 1983), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found "unconscious" infringement by the musician George Harrison, whose song "My Sweet Lord"was, by his own admission, strikingly similar to the plaintiff's song, "He's So Fine." Establishing a substantial similarity can be quite difficult as it is essentially a subjective process.
Not every unauthorized taking of another's work constitutes plagiarism. Exceptions are made under copyright law for so-called fair use, as in the case of quoting a limited portion of a published work or mimicking it closely for purposes of Parody and satire. Furthermore, similarity alone is not proof of plagiarism. Courts recognize that similar creative inspiration may occur simultaneously in two or more people. In Hollywood, for example, where well-established conventions govern filmmaking, this conventionality often leads to similar work. As early as 1942, in O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, 44 F. Supp. 480, the Massachusetts District Court ruled against a screenwriter who alleged that a movie studio had stolen parts of his unproduced screenplay Girls' Reformatory for its film Condemned Women. The court noted that the similar plot details in both stories—prison riots, escapes, and love affairs between inmates and officials—might easily be coincidental.
Sometimes the question is one of proper attribution. In January 2002, two highly regarded historians, Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, were accused of plagiarism in The Weekly Standard. The magazine revealed that Ambrose (who died in October 2002) took passages from another author's work and used them in his 2001 book The Wild Blue, while Goodwin used passages from several authors in her 1987 book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. Both authors apologized, acknowledging that they had erred and adding that their failure to provide proper attribution was completely inadvertent. Goodwin went so far as to address her mistakes in an essay in Time magazine. They agreed to correct the problem in future editions of the books in question. While some of their colleagues accepted the explanation, others questioned whether authors of such talent and prominence were in fact being disingenuous considering that both had borrowed numerous passages, not just one or two.
The Internet has added a new layer to the question of plagiarism, particularly among high school and college students. In the mid-1990s a number of Web sites cropped up that offered term papers, thesis papers, and dissertations for sale. These "paper mills" make it easy for students to purchase papers instead of writing their own. (The fact that many of the papers being sold are poorly written and minimally researched is apparently of little concern.) A similarly egregious problem results from the wide array of legitimate reports many Web sites make available on the Internet for research purposes. Unscrupulous students with a computer can easily copy large blocks of these reports and paste them into their own papers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that while the ease of copying information has not led to a dramatic increase in plagiarism among honest students, those who have already cheated are likely to make frequent use of electronic resources to continue cheating. Students who use the "copy-and-paste" writing method are being thwarted by instructors who simply type questionable phrases into search engines; if the passage exists in another paper, the search engine will probably find it.
Further readings
Keyt, Aaron. 1988. "An Improved Framework for Music Plagiarism Litigation." California Law Review 76 (March).
Lewis, Mark. 2002. "Doris Kearns Goodwin and the Credibility Gap." Forbes (February 27).
Mayfield, Kendra. 2001. "Cheating's Never Been Easier." Wired (September 4).
Cross-references
Copyright; Literary Property; Music Publishing; Publishing Law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
plagiarism n. taking the writings or literary concepts (a plot, characters, words) of another and selling and/or publishing them as one's own product. Quotes which are brief or are acknowledged as quotes do not constitute plagiarism. The actual author can bring a lawsuit for appropriation of his/her work and against the plagiarist, and recover the profits. Normally plagiarism is not a crime, but it can be used as the basis of a fraud charge or copyright infringement, if prior creation can be proved. (See: copyright, infringement)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
plagiarismnoun appropriation, appropriation of a littrary composition, copying, copyright infringement, forgery, imitation, imitation of an original, infringement, literary forgery, literary piracy, literary theft, pilfering, reproducing, reproduction, simulation, taking, thievery, unauthorized borrowing
Associated concepts: copyright
See also: counterfeitBurton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
Which brings you back to what ivy and I have already said: as long as there's no copyright infringement, it's not a crime because plagiarism itself isn't a crime...
Also "quoting" has nothing to do with album credits.
A fraud charge in this case however is limited to the copyright holder. Don't mix this up with a consumer fraud lawsuit!
Also "quoting" has nothing to do with album credits.
A fraud charge in this case however is limited to the copyright holder. Don't mix this up with a consumer fraud lawsuit!
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
[h=2]For those who ask what now, here are the legal options:
Consumers rights & protection
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices[/h]The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the largest federal agency that handles consumer complaints, regulates unfair or deceptive trade practices. Even local trade practices deemed unfair or deceptive may fall within the jurisdiction of FTC laws and regulations when they have an adverse effect on interstate commerce.
In addition, every state has enacted consumer protection statutes, which are modeled after the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1)). These acts allow state attorneys, along with general and private consumers, to commence lawsuits over false or deceptive advertisements, or other unfair and injurious consumer practices. Many of the state statutes explicitly provide that courts turn to the federal act and interpretations of the FTC for guidance in construing state laws.
The FTC standard for unfair consumer acts or practices has changed with time. In 1964, the agency instituted criteria for determining unfairness when it enacted its cigarette advertising and labeling rule. A practice was deemed unfair when it (1) offended public policy as defined by statutes, Common Law, or otherwise; (2) was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (3) substantially injured consumers. The FTC changed the standard in 1980. Now, substantial injury of consumers is the most heavily weighed element, and it alone may constitute an unfair practice. Such an unfair practice is illegal pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act unless the consumer injury is outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition, or consumers could not reasonably have avoided such injury. The FTC may still consider the public policy criterion, but only in determining whether substantial injury exists. Finally, the FTC no longer considers whether conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.
The FTC has also developed, over time, its definition of deceptive acts or practices. Historically, an act was deceptive if it had the tendency or capacity to deceive, and the FTC considered the act's effect on the ignorant or credulous consumer. A formal policy statement made by the FTC in 1988 changed this definition: currently, a practice is deceptive if it will likely mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to that consumer's detriment.
False Advertising is often the cause of consumer complaints. At common law, a consumer had the right to bring an action against a false advertiser for Fraud, upon proving that the advertiser made false representations about the product, that these representations were made with the advertiser's knowledge of or negligent failure to discover the falsehoods, and that the consumer relied on the false advertisement and was harmed as a result. In 1911, an advertising trade journal called Printer's Ink proposed model legislation criminalizing false advertisements. Forty-four states enacted statutes based on this model statute. However, because of the difficulty in proving Beyond a Reasonable Doubt an advertiser's dishonesty, prosecutors seldom use these criminal laws. More frequently, the state attorneys general or the FTC regulates false advertising. For example, the FTC can issue a cease and desist order, forcing a manufacturer to stop advertising, or compelling the advertiser to make corrections or disclosures informing the public of the misrepresentations.
[h=2]Consumer Remedies[/h]Laws protecting consumers vary in the remedies they provide to consumers for violations. Many federal laws merely provide for public agencies to enforce consumer regulations by investigating and resolving consumer complaints. For example, in the case of a false advertisement, a common remedy is the FTC-ordered removal of the offensive advertisements from the media. In other circumstances, consumers may be entitled to money damages, costs, and attorneys' fees; these remedies can be effective in a case involving a breach of warranty.
Depending on the amount of damages alleged, consumers may bring such actions in small-claims courts, which tend to be speedier and less expensive than trial courts.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is another option for consumers. Some states pass consumer protection statutes that require some form of ADR—usually Arbitration or mediation—before a consumer can seek help from the courts. Finally, when a large number of consumers have been harmed in the same way as a result of the same practice, they may join in a Class Action, a single lawsuit in which one or more named representatives of the consumer group sue to redress the injuries sustained by all members of the group.
In response to public frustration over telephone solicitations, many states and the FTC began to set up systems to bar unwanted telephone sales calls. The FTC, in 2002, amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers the option of placing their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry. The registry was scheduled to go into operation in July 2003, but telephone marketing companies promised a lawsuit to contest the rules, arguing that they violated the First Amendment.
[h=3]Further readings[/h]Craft. 1991. "State Consumer Protection Enforcement: Recent Trends and Developments." Antitrust Law Journal 59.
Federal Trade Commission. "The 'Do Not Call' Registry." Available online at <www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html> (accessed June 3, 2003).
Marsh, Gene A. 1999. Consumer Protection Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, Minn.: West Wadsworth.
Pertschuk, Michael. 1984. Revolt Against Regulation: The Rise and Pause of the Consumer Movement. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
[h=3]Cross-references[/h]Consumer Fraud; Product Liability.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Consumers rights & protection
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices[/h]The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the largest federal agency that handles consumer complaints, regulates unfair or deceptive trade practices. Even local trade practices deemed unfair or deceptive may fall within the jurisdiction of FTC laws and regulations when they have an adverse effect on interstate commerce.
In addition, every state has enacted consumer protection statutes, which are modeled after the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1)). These acts allow state attorneys, along with general and private consumers, to commence lawsuits over false or deceptive advertisements, or other unfair and injurious consumer practices. Many of the state statutes explicitly provide that courts turn to the federal act and interpretations of the FTC for guidance in construing state laws.
The FTC standard for unfair consumer acts or practices has changed with time. In 1964, the agency instituted criteria for determining unfairness when it enacted its cigarette advertising and labeling rule. A practice was deemed unfair when it (1) offended public policy as defined by statutes, Common Law, or otherwise; (2) was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (3) substantially injured consumers. The FTC changed the standard in 1980. Now, substantial injury of consumers is the most heavily weighed element, and it alone may constitute an unfair practice. Such an unfair practice is illegal pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act unless the consumer injury is outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition, or consumers could not reasonably have avoided such injury. The FTC may still consider the public policy criterion, but only in determining whether substantial injury exists. Finally, the FTC no longer considers whether conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.
The FTC has also developed, over time, its definition of deceptive acts or practices. Historically, an act was deceptive if it had the tendency or capacity to deceive, and the FTC considered the act's effect on the ignorant or credulous consumer. A formal policy statement made by the FTC in 1988 changed this definition: currently, a practice is deceptive if it will likely mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to that consumer's detriment.
False Advertising is often the cause of consumer complaints. At common law, a consumer had the right to bring an action against a false advertiser for Fraud, upon proving that the advertiser made false representations about the product, that these representations were made with the advertiser's knowledge of or negligent failure to discover the falsehoods, and that the consumer relied on the false advertisement and was harmed as a result. In 1911, an advertising trade journal called Printer's Ink proposed model legislation criminalizing false advertisements. Forty-four states enacted statutes based on this model statute. However, because of the difficulty in proving Beyond a Reasonable Doubt an advertiser's dishonesty, prosecutors seldom use these criminal laws. More frequently, the state attorneys general or the FTC regulates false advertising. For example, the FTC can issue a cease and desist order, forcing a manufacturer to stop advertising, or compelling the advertiser to make corrections or disclosures informing the public of the misrepresentations.
[h=2]Consumer Remedies[/h]Laws protecting consumers vary in the remedies they provide to consumers for violations. Many federal laws merely provide for public agencies to enforce consumer regulations by investigating and resolving consumer complaints. For example, in the case of a false advertisement, a common remedy is the FTC-ordered removal of the offensive advertisements from the media. In other circumstances, consumers may be entitled to money damages, costs, and attorneys' fees; these remedies can be effective in a case involving a breach of warranty.
Depending on the amount of damages alleged, consumers may bring such actions in small-claims courts, which tend to be speedier and less expensive than trial courts.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is another option for consumers. Some states pass consumer protection statutes that require some form of ADR—usually Arbitration or mediation—before a consumer can seek help from the courts. Finally, when a large number of consumers have been harmed in the same way as a result of the same practice, they may join in a Class Action, a single lawsuit in which one or more named representatives of the consumer group sue to redress the injuries sustained by all members of the group.
In response to public frustration over telephone solicitations, many states and the FTC began to set up systems to bar unwanted telephone sales calls. The FTC, in 2002, amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers the option of placing their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry. The registry was scheduled to go into operation in July 2003, but telephone marketing companies promised a lawsuit to contest the rules, arguing that they violated the First Amendment.
[h=3]Further readings[/h]Craft. 1991. "State Consumer Protection Enforcement: Recent Trends and Developments." Antitrust Law Journal 59.
Federal Trade Commission. "The 'Do Not Call' Registry." Available online at <www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html> (accessed June 3, 2003).
Marsh, Gene A. 1999. Consumer Protection Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, Minn.: West Wadsworth.
Pertschuk, Michael. 1984. Revolt Against Regulation: The Rise and Pause of the Consumer Movement. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
[h=3]Cross-references[/h]Consumer Fraud; Product Liability.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
Anyway: As already said, Bumper, you can file a consumer fraud lawsuit. But this one has nothing to do with plagiarism. You would have to argue that you have been intentionally(!) misled. I know you would now say "but to me it's plagiarism". That's not the issue in a consumer fraud lawsuit though. Your issues would be consumer protection and pre-contractual duty of utmost good faith / duties to inform.
Finally, you got the point. Because you've just quoted what I was going to write.
Good luck, Bumper!
Finally, you got the point. Because you've just quoted what I was going to write.
Good luck, Bumper!
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Which brings you back to what ivy and I have already said: as long as there's no copyright infringement, it's not a crime because plagiarism itself isn't a crime...
Also "quoting" has nothing to do with album credits.
A fraud charge in this case however is limited to the copyright holder. Don't mix this up with a consumer fraud lawsuit!
Plagiarism itself is theft, hence crime. Read it again. All you have to do is to prove there has been theft.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
You only half-read or overlook what I post.
Fabricating a sentence and misleading the public to believe that it is a new sentence is false advertising. As a consumer I am entitled to know what I buy. And if I am said to have bought a new thing, it is illegal to sell me something recycled and wrapped as new.
p.s. You really don'tr read what I post, you keep on saying that I mix things. Read it again. I said for those who asked "what now?" All I did was giving legal options. What did you give as a reference when people asked you about the way you came up with conclusions?
p.p.s. I wonder who mixes things up here. Did I say that quoting has anything to do with album credits? Now answer me straightforwardly, when you quote someone without giving credit, how do you call that?
Last edited:
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
Plagiarism itself is NOT theft! The law does not penalize plagiarism. It becomes theft if it's copyright-infringement for example. When will you understand that?
No, I read it all. It's not as easy as you think. You have to prove that they wanted to mislead you. In the music industry this is very well accepted as fair use.
Bumper, you'll see that you won't achieve anything. But don't hesitate to build up a consumer fraud lawsuit with other fans. You can request legal aid if you don't have the money. It's really easy to try it.
You don't understand how "quoting" is meant in this context. It does NOT mean that it's made public for everyone. For texts it has been widely established that it needs to be made public but that's it. "Quoting" means that they acknowledge the original work. That can happen in the form of written or oral agreements or with copyright registrations...
You are claiming that they would not have acknowledged the copy-paste jobs. THEN it would be illegal, that's what you say. However you can be sure that they have approved it. And you're not satisfied because they have not told you, as someone from the general public, all these business details.
No, I read it all. It's not as easy as you think. You have to prove that they wanted to mislead you. In the music industry this is very well accepted as fair use.
Bumper, you'll see that you won't achieve anything. But don't hesitate to build up a consumer fraud lawsuit with other fans. You can request legal aid if you don't have the money. It's really easy to try it.
You don't understand how "quoting" is meant in this context. It does NOT mean that it's made public for everyone. For texts it has been widely established that it needs to be made public but that's it. "Quoting" means that they acknowledge the original work. That can happen in the form of written or oral agreements or with copyright registrations...
You are claiming that they would not have acknowledged the copy-paste jobs. THEN it would be illegal, that's what you say. However you can be sure that they have approved it. And you're not satisfied because they have not told you, as someone from the general public, all these business details.
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Let's do a simple exercise here, or else people twist around things as if everything was normal when in reality it's not:
2001: "I love chocolate" (credit: Bumper Snippet on MJJC, automatically copyrighted and sold as such to the consumer)
2007: "I hate butter" (credit: Bumper Snippet on MJJC, automatically copyrighted, but still not sold)
2009: Bumper Snippet dies, and legal successors continue Bumper Snippet's business.
2010: "I love butter" (credit: Bumper Snippet according to the legal successor, automatically copyrighted and sold as new to the consumer)
First, Bumper Snippet never said he loved butter, yet he is credited for that thanks to the theft (plagiarism) of what he said and sold in 2001.
Second, you as a consumer have been misled to believe that Bumper Snippet had said that in 2007, when it's not true. Hence you as a consumer have been misled with a forgery, fake sentence. Up to you to sit back as if nothing happened and enjoy it for being misled and misinformed or to complain for butchering the man's words and express your disatisfaction for being cheated by the false advertising of "new" or "unreleased material".
2001: "I love chocolate" (credit: Bumper Snippet on MJJC, automatically copyrighted and sold as such to the consumer)
2007: "I hate butter" (credit: Bumper Snippet on MJJC, automatically copyrighted, but still not sold)
2009: Bumper Snippet dies, and legal successors continue Bumper Snippet's business.
2010: "I love butter" (credit: Bumper Snippet according to the legal successor, automatically copyrighted and sold as new to the consumer)
First, Bumper Snippet never said he loved butter, yet he is credited for that thanks to the theft (plagiarism) of what he said and sold in 2001.
Second, you as a consumer have been misled to believe that Bumper Snippet had said that in 2007, when it's not true. Hence you as a consumer have been misled with a forgery, fake sentence. Up to you to sit back as if nothing happened and enjoy it for being misled and misinformed or to complain for butchering the man's words and express your disatisfaction for being cheated by the false advertising of "new" or "unreleased material".
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Plagiarism itself is considered as appropriation of something that does not belong to you. You say it is not theft, so what is then? Define it.
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,593
- Points
- 48
I like how you explained it
dam2040
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Messages
- 6,406
- Points
- 113
love is magical
Proud Member
Thanks Bumper for your research!
Korgnex, no need to constantly remind people they have below average comprehension skill. Tone it down, would you?
No one is pretending to be an expert. Some are researching. Some are learning. Different people can interpret the same law differently.
Respect goes both!
If you borrow, you give credit.
Korgnex, no need to constantly remind people they have below average comprehension skill. Tone it down, would you?
No one is pretending to be an expert. Some are researching. Some are learning. Different people can interpret the same law differently.
Respect goes both!
Borrowing?
If you borrow, you give credit.
Last edited:
let's go over the legal definition you posted
writings and literary concepts - no mention of songs because art is quite unique
for example do you know Andy warhol's portrait of Michael which is done from a Thriller Picture is not theft, copyright infringement or plagiarism but acceptable art on his own?
ps: warhol is actually sued a lot for plagiarism in visual art known as appropriation. He won each lawsuit because his work classified as a unique expression then the pictures he copied.
should be from someone else. Self-plagiarism isn't defined or included.
brief quotes doesn't count. So how much is taken is important.
the only person to bring a plagaiarism lawsuit is the actual author - in this instance it will be Michael Jackson hence MJ Estate. and will they be recovering profits from themselves?
and this is what we have been saying for 2 days now. Plagiarism may be the explanation/ reason in fraud or copyright infringement cases. As MJ Estate will not bring copyright infringement charges as the legal copyright owner. You are left with fraud. And nothing has changed at all.
-----
to yourself?
writings and literary concepts - no mention of songs because art is quite unique
for example do you know Andy warhol's portrait of Michael which is done from a Thriller Picture is not theft, copyright infringement or plagiarism but acceptable art on his own?
ps: warhol is actually sued a lot for plagiarism in visual art known as appropriation. He won each lawsuit because his work classified as a unique expression then the pictures he copied.
should be from someone else. Self-plagiarism isn't defined or included.
brief quotes doesn't count. So how much is taken is important.
the only person to bring a plagaiarism lawsuit is the actual author - in this instance it will be Michael Jackson hence MJ Estate. and will they be recovering profits from themselves?
and this is what we have been saying for 2 days now. Plagiarism may be the explanation/ reason in fraud or copyright infringement cases. As MJ Estate will not bring copyright infringement charges as the legal copyright owner. You are left with fraud. And nothing has changed at all.
-----
to yourself?
Chamife
Proud Member
Didn't Lenny Kravitz also use sentences/words from earlier released work in Another Day? The 'c mon babe' from TWYMMF and at the end 'it's too much for me' from ....(can't remember)? It sounds a bit arkward, like they don't belong there originally.
Nothing in the booklet also.
Nothing in the booklet also.
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
Where have I done so in my last posting?
I asked Bumper when he will understand it. ivy and I have explained it on several occasions.
Laymen will always interpret the law differently. Only a forensic approach however is what makes you understand how the concept of the law works.
It may sound pretty impudent but that's why we have universities and science. You cannot understand complicated concepts created by humans that help us define what's right and what's wrong, if you don't spend a lot of your lifetime with studying it. Everything else is pseudo knowledge.
love is magical
Proud Member
</SPAN>Korgnex;3597140 said:
Did you ask Bumper? Or, you simply told Bumper that he doesn’t understand at all and he gets things mixed up. No, you didn’t ask. You blatantly put people down with you consistent superior attitude. Despite the fact that I keep politely asking you to stop being condescending, you keep going and going.</SPAN>
</SPAN>Korgnex;3597140 said:
Don’t give too much credit to yourself. You didn’t explain. Keep telling people the same thing without providing any support is not explanation. I keep asking you to provide a source to back up your argument. The only thing you said is “according to the law”… What law? Which code? What precedent? No, nothing. To tell you the truth, you are not good at explaining things. Stop assuming that all doubters are stubborn who refuse to be wrong. This is a discussion.</SPAN>
</SPAN>Korgnex;3597140 said:
Really? Only LAYMEN interpret the law differently.</SPAN>
If you have studied Social Studies 101, you will see one of the most important duties of the JUSTICES of the U.S. SUPREME COURT (the highest court in United States of America and the head of the judicial branch) is to INTERPRET the LAW according to the U.S. Constitution. Yeah right… I guess the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are laymen then. The justices always come up with different opinions. Don’t forget all nine of them are given the same case and the same evidence. They come up with different opinions? Why? Because they interpret the LAW differently. </SPAN>
</SPAN>Korgnex;3597140 said:
I do not disagree with you the importance of knowledge, which is what enlighten people and the cornerstone of human civilization. I advocate knowledge sharing. </SPAN>
I, however, strongly disagree with you that humans cannot define what’s right and what’s wrong without going to university/college. Don’t limit knowledge to just academia. </SPAN>
No one is saying the topic of our current discussion is an easy one. Is it “complicated concept?” No, not really. But, it definitely is up to different interpretations. There are many gray areas. For one, we still don’t have a clear determination of self-plagiarism. It’s up for discussion. </SPAN>
You are not the only one who spend your lifetime studying. I do too. Just so you know. </SPAN>
By the way, law shouldn’t be a complicated concept created by human. We have law so we have fairness. We have law so our basic rights are protected. Law affects everyday life. Law is not static. Law is prone to be revised and updated. What’s right now may be wrong 20 years from now. </SPAN>
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
love is magical;3597150 said:
As ivy has said: It is NOT possible because the law does NOT declare it. We can only show you things that the law declares, NOT what it doesn't.
And actually I have given an example of the forensic methods of interpretation. I cannot explain them with a single posting. You would need weeks to really understand their sense. You would need to practice them.
love is magical;3597150 said:
You keep on ignoring what ivy and I have said: We cannot SHOW you what does NOT exist. We can tell you it does NOT exist. If you don't believe it, then fine. We're not able to give you the knowledge that you can only get if you study the law. Not our issue.
love is magical;3597150 said:
This is absolutely NOT what I was talking about. The judges can come up with different interpretations but they have to make a forensic approach for each of their interpretations.
That is completely NOT what you guys are doing here. When I said different I meant "different" as to how any forensic approach could lead you to. Sphere of laymen vs. sphere of scholars.
With this example you have basically assumed that I would be stupid and not know such essential things. As if I wasn't aware that an essential task of a jurist is to interpret the law...
Why am I waisting my time here? Pfff...
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
love is magical
Proud Member
My goodness. You were the one who clearly said. ONLY LAYMEN INTERPRET LAW DIFEREENTLY. I was just telling you that statement can't be further away from the truth. May be you want to re-read your own posts. Have I refused to acknowledge the importance of forensic approach? Absolutely not.
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
You are twisting my words. I clearly said what I meant with "differently". I have NOT said that there would only be one way to interpret the law, I have said that "only laymen interpret the law differently" from how it CAN be interpreted if you stick to forensic approachs. The context in my posting is clear. It makes no sense why I should suddenly claim there would be just one way to interpret the law when it is common knowledge that there is more than one way.
You have just provided the definition yourself:
Plagiarism is the appropriation of someone else's intellectual property.
Now try to find out how the law defines "theft". I will give you just one definition:
Let's quickly check some differences between "theft" and "plagiarism":
1) plagiarism: appropriation of someone else's intellectual property
theft: taking of someone else's property
==> the "taking" in theft is not limited to "appropriation", you can also take and trash sth without ever acquiring it (acquiring does NOT mean "picking" or "using", it means you want to keep it for yourself, you want to incorporate it into your own assets)
"appropriation" can be subsumed under "taking" in theft
"intellectual property" can be subsumed under "property" in theft (specific form is included in the general form)
so the "appropriation of someone else's intellectual property" can qualify as theft if the other legal prerequisites - see 2) and 3) - are also fulfilled
2) "without their consent or permission"
Let's assume the copy-paste jobs would not be used with the consent or permission of The Michael Jackson Estate, so let's go straight to 3)
3) "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
And BOOM! This legal prerequisite CANNOT be fulfilled!!!
HOW could you deprive the rightful owner (The Michael Jackson Estate) by using copy-paste jobs on one of their other works that still belongs to them?
Both the copy-paste jobs and the songs they are on are still the property of the rightful owner. There is no intent to deprive the rightful owner of them!
In order to understand this one and all other legal prerequisites you need to know about theories how to subsume facts of a situation under each of them. There's a reason why we have 1000 pages of a paper that is only about theft.
One of these legal prerequisities is "disseisin" (which consists of a) illegitimate, b), appropriation and c) eminent domain)
Can you explain why you think this should be affirmed here?
Bumper Snippet said:
You have just provided the definition yourself:
Plagiarism is the appropriation of someone else's intellectual property.
Now try to find out how the law defines "theft". I will give you just one definition:
Let's quickly check some differences between "theft" and "plagiarism":
1) plagiarism: appropriation of someone else's intellectual property
theft: taking of someone else's property
==> the "taking" in theft is not limited to "appropriation", you can also take and trash sth without ever acquiring it (acquiring does NOT mean "picking" or "using", it means you want to keep it for yourself, you want to incorporate it into your own assets)
"appropriation" can be subsumed under "taking" in theft
"intellectual property" can be subsumed under "property" in theft (specific form is included in the general form)
so the "appropriation of someone else's intellectual property" can qualify as theft if the other legal prerequisites - see 2) and 3) - are also fulfilled
2) "without their consent or permission"
Let's assume the copy-paste jobs would not be used with the consent or permission of The Michael Jackson Estate, so let's go straight to 3)
3) "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
And BOOM! This legal prerequisite CANNOT be fulfilled!!!
HOW could you deprive the rightful owner (The Michael Jackson Estate) by using copy-paste jobs on one of their other works that still belongs to them?
Both the copy-paste jobs and the songs they are on are still the property of the rightful owner. There is no intent to deprive the rightful owner of them!
In order to understand this one and all other legal prerequisites you need to know about theories how to subsume facts of a situation under each of them. There's a reason why we have 1000 pages of a paper that is only about theft.
One of these legal prerequisities is "disseisin" (which consists of a) illegitimate, b), appropriation and c) eminent domain)
Can you explain why you think this should be affirmed here?
Last edited:
qbee
Proud Member
Mod note
this thread has been cleaned and edited for content. Please do not talk down to one another and do not personally attck each other.
If you find words offensive or posts against our policies report the post rather than bring personal arguments into the thread
Thanks Guys lets get back on topic
this thread has been cleaned and edited for content. Please do not talk down to one another and do not personally attck each other.
If you find words offensive or posts against our policies report the post rather than bring personal arguments into the thread
Thanks Guys lets get back on topic
Chamife
Proud Member
"We're building homes that resist a hurricane, we're building ships that weather any storm, someone's working? on a light bulb that will never burn out, we just still can't seem to manage to keep the peace."
[youtube]IfYxxMcaKl0[/youtube]
:mello:
[youtube]IfYxxMcaKl0[/youtube]
:mello:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
This just proves to me how people don't read what I post...
[...]
lawsuits alleging plagiarism can be based on the appropriation of any form of writing, music, and visual images.
[...]
The terminology isn't the issue, but the intention behind, be it plagiarism, self-plagiarism, forgery, misleading, you name it, it doesn't remove the problem that MJ's sentences have been fabricated ... not by himself.
says who?
MJ is dead, he can't voice his opinion on this. But he'd obviously say he didn't sing that line the way it's wrapped and sold.
The Estate? We don't even know if they're aware. But anyway, as I posted a zillion times, the issue is NOT the copy-paste (plagiarism) itself but the fabrication of something MJ didn't create and misleading the public to believe that he did it by omitting any kind of credit or at least a footnote to inform the consumer about the product they buy. Look at Adkhi for example, he's jubilating when he listens to Monster considering it as the best song on the album, yet it contains copy-pasted words from Invincible. What's next best song? "In the back" with full lyrics (copy-pasted from previous albums too)? And finally the next best song will ressemble to something like "Take me away" only because the voice alone is credited as MJ without informing the consumer what they buy?
So yeah, who's going to sue those who have the monopoly over the copyrighted material and the power to self-plagiarize, since it's not defined by the law? I've been wondering all along since my first post.
And where have you seen me saying the contrary. To remind you, my first post was a form of question and difficulty to name something that is odd. I proposed several terms and each term re-directed to the other in a vicious circle. All I did was posting legal definitions and articles relevant to some questions. Yes I did also say that the practice of fabricating sentences were illegal and I explained why, simply put you canot put something into someone's mouth and claim that before his death the person recorded that as such.
-----
How about to inform the consumer?
So the appropriation of something that does not belong to you is not "theft"???? Do you know the etymology of the word plagiarism at all?
Lol. You are skipping from one subject to another.
Let me help you out and remind you what you said. You said "Plagiarism is not theft."
"When are you going to understand this?" (
)The legal dictionary says:
Plagiarism is theft of another person's writings or ideas. Generally, it occurs when someone steals expressions from another author's composition and makes them appear to be his own work. Plagiarism is not a legal term; however, it is often used in lawsuits. Courts recognize acts of plagiarism as violations of Copyright law, specifically as the theft of another person's Intellectual Property. Because copyright law allows a variety of creative works to be registered as the property of their owners, lawsuits alleging plagiarism can be based on the appropriation of any form of writing, music, and visual images.
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/plagiarism
Keyt, Aaron. 1988. "An Improved Framework for Music Plagiarism Litigation." California Law Review 76 (March).
Lewis, Mark. 2002. "Doris Kearns Goodwin and the Credibility Gap." Forbes (February 27).
Mayfield, Kendra. 2001. "Cheating's Never Been Easier." Wired (September 4).
Cross-references
Copyright; Literary Property; Music Publishing; Publishing Law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved
Mod note
this thread has been cleaned and edited for content. Please do not talk down to one another and do not personally attck each other.
If you find words offensive or posts against our policies report the post rather than bring personal arguments into the thread
Thanks Guys lets get back on topic
I won, ooops, wrong thread.
Last edited:
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
No, it is not. And you have a hard time in accepting it. Plagiarism and theft are NOT the same!
Isn't it you who googles and believes he would fully understand what pops up? And aren't you not listening to ivy and me? Do we have a reason to make things up here? Isn't it rather that you want to know it all better yourself? Who do you want to consult? Someone who knows it or Google?
What you have just provided does not use the legal term "theft" when it simply says "plagiarism is theft" (because that is wrong), Bumper. -.-
You also have to understand what that dictionary is telling you. It is giving you the definition of a plagiarism that IS theft. It is completely omitting the important information that plagiarism most often does not lead to a theft. This is not the sense of a legal dictionary.
There is a HUGE difference between common speech and terminology.
They mean that plagiarism can be a form of theft (thus they state it as "plagiarism is theft"
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
It is not a common dictionary, but a legal dictionary. No matter how you try to twist it. Plagiarism is defined as theft. Period.