Darren Cauthon
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in Hurricane Gustav on Plagiarism Today
I hope the storm weakens and misses New Orleans, and I'm glad to hear that you're well-prepared and doing the best you can given the situation. I hope it works out well, good luck!
1 reply
Jonathan Bailey
Thank you for your support. We, my wife and I, are as prepared as we can be in the situation. We're hoping for the best but planning for the worst. I'll keep everyone up to date.
6 months ago
in iParadigms Wins Turnitin Lawsuit on Plagiarism Today
Hi Bob. I didn't mean to jump on your previous post, and I don't here, either. This is just a friendly discussion about an important issue. :) But that said, I still disagree with you on a few points. You said:
"I guess copyrights just frustrate me, I mean what is a copyrighted physics book accept for a collection of uniquely explained facts, and examples."
A physics book is not just a collection of knowledge; it's a collection of knowledge *assembled through the work of other people." And it's that work that copyright protects. If you steal the digital copy of the physics book you're taking their work without their consent, and that's what makes it wrong.
I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise in this short of time, but I'd like to throw out an idea that really got me to totally change my attitude towards intellectual property. And that is, the foundation of intellectual property is the same as the foundation for material property: The right to your life. Every person needs stuff to survive (food, water, clothing, etc.), but we also need to be free to *make* stuff and to *own* stuff. We need to be free to act according to own judgment and reap the rewards.
I think that most people understand this when it comes to material property, at least to a certain degree. For example, most people understand that their right to own a car doesn't mean that somebody owes them a car or that they get to steal their neighbor's car, but instead know that it means they have a right to *earn* a car. If you want a car (or any other piece of property) you have earn the money to buy it, and once you do the car is yours. It's yours by right of *your work.* You did it, so you get it.
There are differences between material and intellectual property, but they're both still built on this same foundation. If you write a great song, write a great piece of software, or create something that may or may not be material, it's still yours by right that you created it. Just like any material piece of property you own.
There's a lot more to be said on this topic, but I just want to get that basic idea across. In all of the cases we've discussed (including the copyrighted GMO plant DNA), copyright is protecting the work of individuals. We can disagree on whether copyright should be used like this, but the issue is whether people's work will be protected. When you drop "work" out of the equation and say that copyright "monopolizes knowledge," you're dropping a huge amount of context.
And just one more thing: You mentioned the fact that never before in human history have authors, artists, or inventors been rewarded for their ideas alone. Well, I'm glad I live today and not in the time of castles! Just think about it. How many centuries went by where people had to work their lives away, with hardly any defense against disease, drought, or famine? Luckily for all of us, some people started to realize that that's not the way to live. Acknowledging the right to live -- including the right to own property -- was what let us pull ourselves out of that horrible existence and into the lives we get to live today. A few hundred years ago I'd probably be living on what I could kill or dig out of the ground, but today I survive by typing my ideas onto a computer keyboard. I do more than survive, though... I live! I have a fair amount of free time, I have a comfortable house, and car that I can use to go anywhere I want, the care of doctors who will help me live a long time, and the countless benefits of the work of thousands of inventors whose ideas have all been combined into making this great thing I call my life.
So if I were you, I wouldn't use the Middle Ages as an example of what we should do today. :)
"I guess copyrights just frustrate me, I mean what is a copyrighted physics book accept for a collection of uniquely explained facts, and examples."
A physics book is not just a collection of knowledge; it's a collection of knowledge *assembled through the work of other people." And it's that work that copyright protects. If you steal the digital copy of the physics book you're taking their work without their consent, and that's what makes it wrong.
I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise in this short of time, but I'd like to throw out an idea that really got me to totally change my attitude towards intellectual property. And that is, the foundation of intellectual property is the same as the foundation for material property: The right to your life. Every person needs stuff to survive (food, water, clothing, etc.), but we also need to be free to *make* stuff and to *own* stuff. We need to be free to act according to own judgment and reap the rewards.
I think that most people understand this when it comes to material property, at least to a certain degree. For example, most people understand that their right to own a car doesn't mean that somebody owes them a car or that they get to steal their neighbor's car, but instead know that it means they have a right to *earn* a car. If you want a car (or any other piece of property) you have earn the money to buy it, and once you do the car is yours. It's yours by right of *your work.* You did it, so you get it.
There are differences between material and intellectual property, but they're both still built on this same foundation. If you write a great song, write a great piece of software, or create something that may or may not be material, it's still yours by right that you created it. Just like any material piece of property you own.
There's a lot more to be said on this topic, but I just want to get that basic idea across. In all of the cases we've discussed (including the copyrighted GMO plant DNA), copyright is protecting the work of individuals. We can disagree on whether copyright should be used like this, but the issue is whether people's work will be protected. When you drop "work" out of the equation and say that copyright "monopolizes knowledge," you're dropping a huge amount of context.
And just one more thing: You mentioned the fact that never before in human history have authors, artists, or inventors been rewarded for their ideas alone. Well, I'm glad I live today and not in the time of castles! Just think about it. How many centuries went by where people had to work their lives away, with hardly any defense against disease, drought, or famine? Luckily for all of us, some people started to realize that that's not the way to live. Acknowledging the right to live -- including the right to own property -- was what let us pull ourselves out of that horrible existence and into the lives we get to live today. A few hundred years ago I'd probably be living on what I could kill or dig out of the ground, but today I survive by typing my ideas onto a computer keyboard. I do more than survive, though... I live! I have a fair amount of free time, I have a comfortable house, and car that I can use to go anywhere I want, the care of doctors who will help me live a long time, and the countless benefits of the work of thousands of inventors whose ideas have all been combined into making this great thing I call my life.
So if I were you, I wouldn't use the Middle Ages as an example of what we should do today. :)
6 months ago
in iParadigms Wins Turnitin Lawsuit on Plagiarism Today
I'll say it: I think it's a stretch to rationalize music piracy based on the fact that a company stores a copy of your homework (submitted by the teacher you submitted your work to) in their database. Bob said:
"Im tried of people not allowing me access to knowledge and preventing my access to knowledge under the banner of copyright infringement, then on the same token not afford me the same right to restrict what, where, or whom, I choose to privilege my privileged copyrighted knowledge to."
1.) To put it in full context, copyright doesn't restrict your access to "knowledge," it restricts your access to somebody else's intellectual property. You're free to learn whatever you want, but your pursuit of that knowledge does not give you the right to trample somebody else's property.
As a quick example: You're free to study physics all you want, but your desire to learn does not give you a right to illegally download copyrighted physics books.
2.) When you agree to join a class, you voluntarily grant your teacher access to your homework (i.e. your "copyrighted knowledge"). How your homework is to be used is a matter between you and your teacher. If that teacher requires the submittal of your homework to a plagarism service, then your choice is to agree or leave the class.
3.) Are you really that worked up about the fact that your homework is in Turnitin's database? How does it affect your life or your ability to use your homework however you choose? It doesn't, and I bet that's why the judges said that there was no loss in the value or marketability of your homework.
"Im tried of people not allowing me access to knowledge and preventing my access to knowledge under the banner of copyright infringement, then on the same token not afford me the same right to restrict what, where, or whom, I choose to privilege my privileged copyrighted knowledge to."
1.) To put it in full context, copyright doesn't restrict your access to "knowledge," it restricts your access to somebody else's intellectual property. You're free to learn whatever you want, but your pursuit of that knowledge does not give you the right to trample somebody else's property.
As a quick example: You're free to study physics all you want, but your desire to learn does not give you a right to illegally download copyrighted physics books.
2.) When you agree to join a class, you voluntarily grant your teacher access to your homework (i.e. your "copyrighted knowledge"). How your homework is to be used is a matter between you and your teacher. If that teacher requires the submittal of your homework to a plagarism service, then your choice is to agree or leave the class.
3.) Are you really that worked up about the fact that your homework is in Turnitin's database? How does it affect your life or your ability to use your homework however you choose? It doesn't, and I bet that's why the judges said that there was no loss in the value or marketability of your homework.
6 months ago
in My Experience with the Music Industry on Plagiarism Today
What sin is both the RIAA and the Pirate Bay guilty of? I know the Pirate Bay commits copyright infringement, but what about the RIAA?
6 months ago
in My Experience with the Music Industry on Plagiarism Today
Some of the blame? It seems that pirates should have the blame. If pirates didn't pirate, there would be no piracy. The problem is not a business model, it's an individual who infringes on another person's property. That's illegal, no matter what the victim did prior to the crime.
I understand why people point at the music companies, but I think they're making the mistake of blaming the victim. As a quick example, imagine if I emptied my bank account, dumped the cash into a wheelbarrow, and then walked down the bad part of town singing the "Money, Money, Money" song. Sure, I'm putting myself in a bad situation by not protecting myself, but if somebody grabs some of my cash and runs away they've still committed the same crime as if they had grabbed my wallet out of my back pocket. Music companies aren't acting nearly as irresponsibly as my wheelbarrow o' cash example, but they're treated as if they're the primary cause of piracy.
I've only been listening to the podcast and reading your writing for a few months, so I'm sorry if this is a bad question... but I want to ask it: Do you come down on groups like the Pirate Bay as hard as you do on the RIAA?
As for your three options, the error wasn't missing the Amazon website, it was creating a list that didn't include all of your viable options. When I read your options I immediately thought "Or, 4.) you can buy the music DRM-free from an online store that sells it. Emusic, Amazon, or Napster perhaps?" Then I checked Amazon, and sure enough it was there. I think if you wanted to make amends for skipping over that option, you'd do more than buy an album from Amazon. Wordpress has an edit button, and you can still add in that fourth option to correct the original error.
I understand why people point at the music companies, but I think they're making the mistake of blaming the victim. As a quick example, imagine if I emptied my bank account, dumped the cash into a wheelbarrow, and then walked down the bad part of town singing the "Money, Money, Money" song. Sure, I'm putting myself in a bad situation by not protecting myself, but if somebody grabs some of my cash and runs away they've still committed the same crime as if they had grabbed my wallet out of my back pocket. Music companies aren't acting nearly as irresponsibly as my wheelbarrow o' cash example, but they're treated as if they're the primary cause of piracy.
I've only been listening to the podcast and reading your writing for a few months, so I'm sorry if this is a bad question... but I want to ask it: Do you come down on groups like the Pirate Bay as hard as you do on the RIAA?
As for your three options, the error wasn't missing the Amazon website, it was creating a list that didn't include all of your viable options. When I read your options I immediately thought "Or, 4.) you can buy the music DRM-free from an online store that sells it. Emusic, Amazon, or Napster perhaps?" Then I checked Amazon, and sure enough it was there. I think if you wanted to make amends for skipping over that option, you'd do more than buy an album from Amazon. Wordpress has an edit button, and you can still add in that fourth option to correct the original error.
6 months ago
in My Experience with the Music Industry on Plagiarism Today
I don't understand why you say that copyright is used as a "stick to beat customers into following a business model that simply does not work." When I shop for music, I'm never forced to do anything. I am offered a lot of deals that I either accept or reject, but the salesperson never pulls out a stick and holds me up for my money. And likewise, I don't hold up the store or try to steal their property. Everything is voluntary, nobody is made to do anything against his or her will. We either do business or we don't.
And I bet that's not exactly what you meant, but I think some parts of your post suggest that somehow people don't have a choice or they are somehow a victim of the way music is sold today. The truth is, it has never been easier to find, listen, and buy music than it is right now. Legally, too, and without DRM. I just did a search on Amazon, and the music you were looking for is available as a DRM-free, 256 kbps MP3 download. And if you want the CD and liner, you can order the CD online and get it shipped to you in a day or two. So let's be honest: 1.) You weren't driving from store to store just to get the music; you were picking one option (out of many other options) that would get you the physical CD in your hands the soonest, and 2.) customers have more than the three options you listed.
If customers were only limited to your options, though, it still wouldn't justify stealing the music (not that you are saying that). Copyright is like a deed on a piece of intellectual property. When someone owns something, whether it's an apple, a car, or a song, they get to decide what to do with it. That includes the right to set up bad business models to sell it. It's their call what they charge and how they sell it, and as customers our only option is to accept or decline.
And I bet that's not exactly what you meant, but I think some parts of your post suggest that somehow people don't have a choice or they are somehow a victim of the way music is sold today. The truth is, it has never been easier to find, listen, and buy music than it is right now. Legally, too, and without DRM. I just did a search on Amazon, and the music you were looking for is available as a DRM-free, 256 kbps MP3 download. And if you want the CD and liner, you can order the CD online and get it shipped to you in a day or two. So let's be honest: 1.) You weren't driving from store to store just to get the music; you were picking one option (out of many other options) that would get you the physical CD in your hands the soonest, and 2.) customers have more than the three options you listed.
If customers were only limited to your options, though, it still wouldn't justify stealing the music (not that you are saying that). Copyright is like a deed on a piece of intellectual property. When someone owns something, whether it's an apple, a car, or a song, they get to decide what to do with it. That includes the right to set up bad business models to sell it. It's their call what they charge and how they sell it, and as customers our only option is to accept or decline.
7 months ago
in Copyright 2.0 Show - Episode 54 on Plagiarism Today
Hi guys, I listened to the podcast and read the article about the French politician who considers internet access to be a "human right." Personally, I have a problem calling anything that is a product of another individual's work as a "right."
Internet access is just like food, automobiles, cell phones, email, employment, or chocolate: They're essential things that a lot of people need to life a happy life, but it's each person's responsibility to earn each of them. Access to the internet requires a lot of hard work and expensive investments by companies and individuals. If a potential customer wants to use their work to get on the internet, he or she should have to meet their terms.
So I don't buy the idea that the government (or an ISP) can't take away a music pirate's internet access. Maybe an argument can be made about the actions a government should take in copyright enforcement, but a pirate's supposed "right" to the connection he uses to steal other people's intellectual property shouldn't be an issue.
And this comment isn't against anything specific you guys said, it's just about a story you guys brought up. Take care!
Internet access is just like food, automobiles, cell phones, email, employment, or chocolate: They're essential things that a lot of people need to life a happy life, but it's each person's responsibility to earn each of them. Access to the internet requires a lot of hard work and expensive investments by companies and individuals. If a potential customer wants to use their work to get on the internet, he or she should have to meet their terms.
So I don't buy the idea that the government (or an ISP) can't take away a music pirate's internet access. Maybe an argument can be made about the actions a government should take in copyright enforcement, but a pirate's supposed "right" to the connection he uses to steal other people's intellectual property shouldn't be an issue.
And this comment isn't against anything specific you guys said, it's just about a story you guys brought up. Take care!
8 months ago
in iParadigms Wins Turnitin Lawsuit on Plagiarism Today
Hey Jonathan,
I think you brought up an interesting point when you presented the fact that students don't really have a choice. You're completely right. Giving a child the "choice" to submit his or her works to a company in order to pass a required class in the only school available to a student really isn't a choice at all. Unfortunately, lack of choice can be found at all stages of our education system. Students are told where to go to school, when they'll go to school, what classes they'll take, and what standards they have to reach in order to graduate. Parents are told what schools are available, how much they'll have to pay for those schools (regardless whether they have children attending those schools), and what educational opportunities are available. This is just a small list of the types of "choices" that are really available to parents today. I don't mean to argue against government education here (if you can't tell, I'm totally against the idea), I just want to point out that the problem you've brought up is a problem *everywhere* in our current system.
Given that, I don't think that the lack of choice is a relevant issue in this copyright case. It is an essential point when discussing the rights of students in the government school system, but if we opened that door for this case I think it would take us far outside of the scope of this case. And hey, I'm happy to do that, but since I'm commenting on your blog I'll try to stay on-topic. :)
So, while I agree with your concerns, I had the exact opposite emotional reaction to this story. I just don't see how the students rights are being taken away. It sounds ominous when the situation is described as minors being forced to surrender their works to another company, but let's be honest: We're talking about students turning in their homework for grading. The student already has to give his teacher his copyrighted works in order for the teacher to grade it. I don't have a problem with a teacher including this service in the grading process so long it is relevant to the grading process and so long as it is disclosed to the student. With the multitude of sources for plagiarism available to students online, I bet this service could be invaluable to any teacher that wants to be sure his or her students are really doing the work.
What's next? Is a 13-year-old going to take his teacher to court because he was forced to hand in his book report? Or sue the teacher for royalties because the teacher read the book report aloud to the rest of the class?
Anyway, thanks for the post. I like it when people bring up issues that make me think. :)
I think you brought up an interesting point when you presented the fact that students don't really have a choice. You're completely right. Giving a child the "choice" to submit his or her works to a company in order to pass a required class in the only school available to a student really isn't a choice at all. Unfortunately, lack of choice can be found at all stages of our education system. Students are told where to go to school, when they'll go to school, what classes they'll take, and what standards they have to reach in order to graduate. Parents are told what schools are available, how much they'll have to pay for those schools (regardless whether they have children attending those schools), and what educational opportunities are available. This is just a small list of the types of "choices" that are really available to parents today. I don't mean to argue against government education here (if you can't tell, I'm totally against the idea), I just want to point out that the problem you've brought up is a problem *everywhere* in our current system.
Given that, I don't think that the lack of choice is a relevant issue in this copyright case. It is an essential point when discussing the rights of students in the government school system, but if we opened that door for this case I think it would take us far outside of the scope of this case. And hey, I'm happy to do that, but since I'm commenting on your blog I'll try to stay on-topic. :)
So, while I agree with your concerns, I had the exact opposite emotional reaction to this story. I just don't see how the students rights are being taken away. It sounds ominous when the situation is described as minors being forced to surrender their works to another company, but let's be honest: We're talking about students turning in their homework for grading. The student already has to give his teacher his copyrighted works in order for the teacher to grade it. I don't have a problem with a teacher including this service in the grading process so long it is relevant to the grading process and so long as it is disclosed to the student. With the multitude of sources for plagiarism available to students online, I bet this service could be invaluable to any teacher that wants to be sure his or her students are really doing the work.
What's next? Is a 13-year-old going to take his teacher to court because he was forced to hand in his book report? Or sue the teacher for royalties because the teacher read the book report aloud to the rest of the class?
Anyway, thanks for the post. I like it when people bring up issues that make me think. :)