Quote:
Originally Posted by papermario13689
"The wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."
Sometimes people accidentally plagiarize without intention;
|
Mind explaining how (logically) that's possible? Personally I read it as…
Quote:
|
Sometimes people accidentally [intentionally copy someone else's work] without intention;
|
However, what it sounds like you're trying to say or is coming out is…
Quote:
|
Sometimes people accidentally [ignore copyright] without intention;
|
Which sounds to me like you're talking about a licensing/trademark issue; in other words a law issue not a moral issue (ie. you botched the topic badly). It's not wrong to say the same thing, the same way. Language, as well as style, are only pseudo-random, and there's no criteria of freshness either. Legally however, there's a nice little line above which "the same thing" is illegal.
You can break copyright without "plagiarism" getting involved. Someone just has to beat you to it. You can also have plagiarism without copyright infringement; not everything is copyrighted, or the copyright has expired, or simply the copyright allow for distribution of copies with no mention of the author of said copyright. This means that even though it's plagiarism it's not illegal (from a copyright perspective). My point, the two worlds only intersect, they are not equal, nor the same thing.
I'm really not getting what this apple-orange
thing we're suppose to talk about is, but everyone seems to have just taken it as "intentional plagiarism" (going by your classification) so whatever, "the show must go on"
I guess 