The Boundaries of the Public Domain

After reading Chapter 10 in Lessig’s book, and after our discussion in class, I am baffled with the example of the Adobe eBook Reader. I know that the government and organizations are attempting to crack down on pirating and illegal doings, but I believe this is crossing the line. As many Americans are already afraid and question if their actions are against a copyright, by the government interfering with that in the public domain, it will create problems and creativity will be at a standstill.

When guidelines have been more distinctly set, that in the public domain seems to give us a breath of fresh air. For once, creativity can spark and build off what is readily and legally acceptable to build on, learn from, and use. When the government draws lines against that, what is there left to use? I understand that companies are attempting to cover for themselves and lawsuits, but this seems to cross the line. I think that this will downsize creative accomplishments, and increase the aspect of fear. As Americans, fear is already endowed upon us in the news and media, this just adds to the chaos. My question is, does the government have the right to decide for us what we can and cannot use, when we were once allowed to use it?

Free Culture and the Pathway to the Future

I guess you never should judge a book by its cover. After picking up “Free Culture” from the bookstore I immediately let out a sigh and thought this is going to be one of those boring required reads that you hope to stagger through. I was actually greatly proven wrong. I have so far enjoyed the readings from “Free Culture” from the style of writing to the examples given. One reason I find this book so appealing is because although the examples are extreme cases, it shows, in a sense, that this whole issue of copyright is actually extreme in many cases.

After watching Good Copy Bad Copy in class, one of the main parts of the movie I enjoyed the scenes with Laurence Lessig. I thought the point he brought up that people should be able to use someone’s work if it is for good use without personal profit sums up how this whole system can be improved. If this were the case, imagination could exceed, along with creativity, which would promote innovation and invention. My question is, with so many people participating in file sharing (such as ‘illegal’ music downloading) do you think industries will try for years and years on end to bust people, or will eventually give up and see that physical harm is not taking place?

Plagiarism Reflection

I found the plagiarism experience intriguing, yet frustrating. As if typing a paper on a Friday night after a long week isn’t frustrating enough, I became more frustrated on how time consuming the actual experience was. When we were assigned this paper, my immediate reaction was that this will be one of the simplest papers I’ll be able to whip up, without too much heavy thinking. In fact, my paper entitled “The Modern Epidemic” dealing with the current issues of obesity, had me searching through numerous articles and textbooks, becoming more and more frustrated that they were not using the same tense of voice I was, or for using words I would have never thought up on my own. This paper opened my eyes to a whole new view on plagiarism and also made me realize I will probably not be doing much plagiarizing in any future writing assignments.

Prior to this assignment, my ‘cut-and-dry’ definition of plagiarism is directly stealing an article, word for word from another, and inserting it into a paper that you claim you have written independently. After this experience, I have come to an addition to my definition: stealing a particular style of writing or even thoughts that do not belong to you. During my paper I would read a section in my Nutrition textbook and then when I began to put it in my paper (not part of the plagiarized part) I realized that I could not do that if this had been an actual scientific paper without citing that source, because although it makes sense to me now and almost like common knowledge, I would not have known that had I just read what the author of that textbook had written.

Dealing with style, the articles I found on the internet few were quick articles that made the point it was trying to reach directly. This style is opposite of mine because I like to elaborate more when I attempt to get my point across. Even if I was not trying to plagiarize this paper, I feel that if I stole this writing style, created by another individual, that this would be a form of plagiarizing, simply because it is not my own.

Given the university’s plagiarism policy, I seem to agree more on the point of stealing from another individual and calling it your own. “Stealing” could be more highly defined, though, in my opinion. Is stealing simply just stealing words directly from another or a text, or is stealing related to a person’s style or the way they word things? As I the simple word “plagiarize” could not be defined more in depth, this experience has defiantly changed my mind.