03-27-2009, 12:22 PM
Dears
There are some other issues which are related with the statement that âI have permission to quoteâ copyrighted material by some organization. These are (1) Claim (2) Scope (3) Timing issue. It is non-comprehensive list of issues though.
(1) This statement itself is merely a claim till it is proved so.
(2) Moreover, what is the scope of such âpermissionâ, to what extent this permission covers copyrighted material i.e. one specific article, two specific articles, ten specific articles, all published/ unpublished work of one specific author, or all work of all authors published by permission granting organization etc. etc. Therefore, as a standard practice and requirement of the Law, it is always suggested to disclose such permission with each replication of copyrighted material. I think, the professional accountants who know the importance of notes disclosure with financial statements would know better. Otherwise it would attract criticism just like in this case.
(3) Timing issue is the most important among three issues. It simply means when the permission was granted to copy/paste such article. There could be two situations which are (a) before the fact i.e. permission was granted before the article was copy/pasted, or (b) after the fact i.e. permission was granted after copy/pasting the article.
(a) If we assume that the permission was granted before the fact i.e. before copy/pasting, then it arises further questions which I have already pointed out in my previous post. For convenience of readers I repeat the whole para here again. I wrote, âNow, people may claim that they already had prior written permission, but were holding it. I would not wonder if they say so. Even it would not be amazing if someone would claim that he/she has permission to replicate all the copyrighted material available on whole internet. However, it is at-least very amazing to know that out of all pure economics literature available on all internet resources, some people were very smart that they already had prior written permission to copy/paste very specific pure economics article related to very specific discussion on this thread. Even a very naive student of accounting can calculate the probability of occurrence of such event, and can question about reasonability of such claim. <b>Perhaps someone already had some "ILHAM" about future events</b>.[)][)][)]â
(b) If the permission was granted after the fact i.e. after copy/pasting the article, then even there is no need to prove reasonability of my objection. It simply proves, when the article was copied/pasted, the poster did not have permission to replicate copyrighted material. So, it was an act of online piracy that was reasonably and correctly objected. There is no question about the correctness of objection in this case. Similarly, âconceiving ILHAMâ was not needed for logical reasoning in this case. [)]
I hope my post would clear misconception (created by claim of permission) about the reasonability of objection of plagiarism. As I said earlier, these are weak attempts to divert readersâ attention from mistake rather than simply accept it. [)]
Regards
There are some other issues which are related with the statement that âI have permission to quoteâ copyrighted material by some organization. These are (1) Claim (2) Scope (3) Timing issue. It is non-comprehensive list of issues though.
(1) This statement itself is merely a claim till it is proved so.
(2) Moreover, what is the scope of such âpermissionâ, to what extent this permission covers copyrighted material i.e. one specific article, two specific articles, ten specific articles, all published/ unpublished work of one specific author, or all work of all authors published by permission granting organization etc. etc. Therefore, as a standard practice and requirement of the Law, it is always suggested to disclose such permission with each replication of copyrighted material. I think, the professional accountants who know the importance of notes disclosure with financial statements would know better. Otherwise it would attract criticism just like in this case.
(3) Timing issue is the most important among three issues. It simply means when the permission was granted to copy/paste such article. There could be two situations which are (a) before the fact i.e. permission was granted before the article was copy/pasted, or (b) after the fact i.e. permission was granted after copy/pasting the article.
(a) If we assume that the permission was granted before the fact i.e. before copy/pasting, then it arises further questions which I have already pointed out in my previous post. For convenience of readers I repeat the whole para here again. I wrote, âNow, people may claim that they already had prior written permission, but were holding it. I would not wonder if they say so. Even it would not be amazing if someone would claim that he/she has permission to replicate all the copyrighted material available on whole internet. However, it is at-least very amazing to know that out of all pure economics literature available on all internet resources, some people were very smart that they already had prior written permission to copy/paste very specific pure economics article related to very specific discussion on this thread. Even a very naive student of accounting can calculate the probability of occurrence of such event, and can question about reasonability of such claim. <b>Perhaps someone already had some "ILHAM" about future events</b>.[)][)][)]â
(b) If the permission was granted after the fact i.e. after copy/pasting the article, then even there is no need to prove reasonability of my objection. It simply proves, when the article was copied/pasted, the poster did not have permission to replicate copyrighted material. So, it was an act of online piracy that was reasonably and correctly objected. There is no question about the correctness of objection in this case. Similarly, âconceiving ILHAMâ was not needed for logical reasoning in this case. [)]
I hope my post would clear misconception (created by claim of permission) about the reasonability of objection of plagiarism. As I said earlier, these are weak attempts to divert readersâ attention from mistake rather than simply accept it. [)]
Regards
