I didn't realize how very little I knew about copyrights and plagiarism until I read these articles today. Frankly, these issues feel painfully obvious; I wrote this - don't steal it. Easy, no?
Ok, so no. Without the apparent remnants of Fair Use running around, I wouldn't even be able to make copies of articles for my classes. And according to Logie's article anyway, things look to be getting grimmer for us poor teachers/students. Instead of focusing on public access as a key component in determining copyrights and their limitations, legislators seem to be paying more attention to the commodification of intellectual property. It seems that if a copyright holder can claim that either they are losing money (Napster?) or someone else is profiting from their work (for-profit educational institutes), then the hammer needs to come down. However, there is an awful lot of gray area interspersed between the oddly-specific page requirements ("Not to exceed five years, but no less than three," [obscure "Arrested Development" quote, anybody?]).
The issue of plagiarism is no less interesting to me. Looking back over classes I've taken, plagiarism was always addressed in this way, "And you all can read this (copy-pasted) excerpt from the student handbook about plagiarism in your own time. Moving on..." Instead of being well-defined, plagiarism mirrors the haziness of copyright laws. Kids know it's wrong to buy a paper and they know it's wrong to copy-paste other people's work, but what about that kid who used Cliff's Notes? Plagiarism needs to be better addressed in the classroom, I'm behind DeVoss and Rosati on that.
This leads me to a question for all you current instructors: what do you teach your students about plagiarism/copyright? Do you address these issues explicitly? Do you come across a lot of plagiarism or a need to bring up copyright law?
As for WWWS (What Would Weinberger Say)? I don't know, maybe something like, "Copyrights are soo last -ism." Or perhaps, "Plagiarism is the new black." Looking back at Weinberger, I'm now surprised that he does not explicitly address plagiarism or copyright in this new mode of organization (I know, I checked the index). Weinberger seems much more concerned with public access than what Fair Use says he's entitled to as a member of the public. Remember, for Weinberger, Everything is miscellaneous and everyone should be able to help miscellanize it.
Jill,
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with your assertion that "[p]lagiarism needs to be better addressed in the classroom," though I'm hesitant to treat the idea of academic integrity as mystifying, or at least, difficult to teach. At my undergrad, we maintained a strictly enforced honor code, which a group of professors and upperclassmen taught to incoming first-year students over the course of a workshop that consumed five hours of our first week of school. All cases of academic dishonesty were brought before a student-operated Honor Board; if a student was found guilty once, he or she failed the course for which he or she had submitted the assignment. Two proven cases of dishonesty would result in expulsion.
My roommate was a member of the Honor Board, and it was thanks to him that I learned to appreciate the rigor of consistent research and the importance of academic integrity. Academic honesty may not be completely easy to understand for some students, but I've learned to be firm in my interpretation of plagiarism, and unlike DeVoss and Rosati, I thoroughly doubt the premise that "the vast majority of students who plagiarize might not even realize that they are plagiarizing" (DeVoss et al. 158). You talk about "gray areas" in copyright law a fair bit in your blog post; how might we address similar ambiguities when judging problems relating to content appropriation in student writing? And how harshly do you think we should treat plagiarism? How does intention fit into all of this?
Scott
chereth cutestory?
ReplyDeletei think it's interesting what you say weinberger would say. i don't disagree. i don't really know. i'm always hesitant to say, "this author would say...." because i just don't know. i write something, and it means one thing, but the next day, i change my mind. i'm so consistent.
but anyway. i think it's interesting, the idea that everybody should be able to help miscellanize the miscellaneous. why SHOULD they? should implies RIGHT, right? as in, it is my RIGHT to miscellanize whatever i want. why? why do i have that right? who has given it to me? power does not just exist without a giver and receiver, yeah? there always has to be that transfer of power. does the author automatically transfer power by relinquishing it to the public?
I find myself clinging to this one as I prepare for class:
ReplyDeleteScott says: "I thoroughly doubt the premise that "the vast majority of students who plagiarize might not even realize that they are plagiarizing" (DeVoss et al. 158)."
I'm not truthfully sure what I think.