Way to plagiarize Mussolini.

its called quoting

anyway the whole concept of plagarism is bullshit.

It's not quoting when you don't cite the person you quoted.

Plagiarism is bullshit? So you don't have a problem with people putting other people's ideas forth as their own? At least you're a purist crazy person, then.

heh... Invictus, I salute you.

Anyway, Fascism doesn't necessarily need to have the corporations under its thumb. It would help, but all you really need is a military dictator that the people generally support- probably out of fear of secret police repercussions.

Several of your 14 points are not sufficiently met, in my opinion. This is also why the lady is wrong--her own criteria aren't met. Here are some examples:

Mass Media is NOT controlled. This should be the absolute clearest since mass media has exploded into a state completely lacking control in the last few years. And the government isn't doing a whole bunch to control the media.

Sexism is not a staple of fascism. Gender equality was actually one of the early rallying points for Hitler if I recall correctly. At any rate, we've got very prominent women in very prominent political positions AND there is nothing systematic happening to keep other women out or otherwise disenfranchised.

Religion is actually very NONfascist and religious leaders have been strong opponents to fascist leaders in the past. Today our political leaders happen to be very religious but I think this is evidence AGAINST them possibly being fascist.

That's enough for now. Do you concede these points, sicarius?

I agree with the sexism point. I hardly see how sexism is being activly persued in government offices. If nothing else I think woman are becoming more involved in government and probably make up more of the electorate.

Regarding "gender equality" in the Third Reich...
Engelbert Huber, 1933:
"There is no place for the political woman in the ideological world of National Socialism, the German resurrection is a male event."
Josef Goebbels, 1934:
"Women's proper sphere is the family. There she is a sovereign queen. If we eliminate woman from every realm of public life, we do not do it in order to dishonour her, but in order that her honour may be restored to her."
Hitler, 1934:
"The phrase 'emancipation of woman' is the product of Jewish intellect, and its content is stamped with that same intellect."
Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (head of NS-Frauenschaft, the Nazi women's organization):
"We have never demanded, nor shall we ever demand, equal rights for women with the men of our nation."

Support of Dexter:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Women_Nazi_Germany.htm

I havent the slightest problem with plagarism, in fact I advocate it.

Why? It's stealing!

Maybe that's it exactly.

I think he might advocate plagiarism on the general principle that people that own things, own too many things, and that limits the "freedoms" of the rest of us who want to own what other people have :P

Or he couldn't ever write a research paper himself.

No it's because owning a thought, an idea is ridiculous.
it'd be like copyrighting a smile.
After all, a good idea should be available to everyone—should belong to everyone—if it really is a good idea. In a society organized with human happiness as the objective, copyright infringement laws and similar restrictions would not hinder the distribution and recombination of ideas. These impediments only make it more difficult for individuals who are looking for challenging and inspiring material to come upon it and share it with others.

we dont need to get personal. then it's an argument instead of a debate

Your point is, in my opinion, fundamentally wrong, Sicarius. Good ideas have historically come from the land of America, and from minds of people who come from all over the world to come to America.

Why?

From my profile:
Thank God for selfishness. Because of selfishness in America, we have a better mousetrap- in every aspect of our lives. Someone wanted to make money on their better mousetrap, so they made it as well as it could be made. And now we all get to use it.

The point being, you come up with a great idea for the express purpose of sharing it with everyone so that you can make a living off of it. And well you should- its your idea. And everyone else reaps the rewards of being able to purchase your idea for themselves.

Plagiarism... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (adapted from "The Princess Bride")
from the definition of plagiarism:
"Plagiarism is not always easily separable from imitation, adaptation, or pastiche, but is usually distinguished by its dishonest intention. "

Being that Sicarius is being honest about it - perhaps his intention is more imitation or adaptation... certainly it would come down to a case by case interpretation...

You're idea on this has no grounds in the law. Even places like China have intellectual property laws, they just don't have agreements to protect work from foreign nations.

You can own an idea. If I write a book and there's no such thing as copyright and no penalty for plagiarism, then any bozo can print copies of my book and make money from my work. That's wrong.

You're coming at this from your crazy happy hobo way of life. These laws are to protect the creators of new ideas. Not everyone's Abbie Hoffman.

We have all been taught from our youth that "there is nothing new under the sun." Whenever a child has an exciting idea, an older person is quick to point out either that this idea has been tried before and didn't work, or that someone else not only has already had the idea but also has developed and expounded upon it to greater lengths than the child ever could. "Learn and choose from the ideas and beliefs already in circulation, rather than seeking to develop and arrange your own," seems to be the message, and this message is sent clearly by the methods of "instruction" used in both public and private schools throughout the West.

Despite this common attitude, or perhaps because of it, we are very possessive of our ideas. The concept of "intellectual property" is ingrained in the collective psychosis much deeper than the concept of material property. Plenty of thinkers have appeared who have asserted that "property is theft" in regard to real estate and other physical capital, but few have dared to make similar statements about their own ideas. Even the most notoriously "radical" thinkers have still proudly claimed their ideas as, first and foremost, their ideas.

Consequently, little distinction is made between the thinkers and their thoughts. Students of philosophy will study the philosophy of Descartes, students of economics will study Marx-ism, students of art will study the paintings of Dali. At worst, the cult of personality that develops around famous thinkers prevents any useful consideration of their ideas or artwork; hero-worshipping partisans will swear allegiance to a thinker and all his thoughts, while others who have some justified or unjustified objection to the conceiver of the ideas will generally have a difficult time not being prejudiced against the ideas themselves. At best, this emphasis upon the "author-owner" in the consideration of propositions or artwork is merely irrelevant to the worth of the actual propositions or artwork, even if the stories about the individual in question are interesting and can encourage creative thinking by themselves.

The very assumptions behind the concept of "intellectual property" require more attention than we have given them. The factors that affect the words and deeds of an individual are many and varied, not the least of them being her social-cultural climate and the input of other individuals. To say that any idea has its sole origins in the being of one individual man or woman is to grossly oversimplify. But we are so accustomed to claiming items and objects for ourselves, and to being forced to accept similar claims from others, in the cutthroat competition to acquire and dominate (before we are acquired and dominated) that is life in a market economy, that it seems natural to do the same with ideas. Certainly there must be other ways of thinking about the origins and ownership of ideas that warrant consideration. . . for our present approach does more than merely distract from the ideas.

Our tradition of recognizing "intellectual property rights" is dangerous in that it results in the deification of the publicly recognized "thinker" and "artist" at the expense of everyone else. When ideas are always associated with proper names (and always the same proper names, in point of fact), this suggests that thinking and creating are special skills that belong to a select few individuals. For example, the glorification of the "artist" in our culture, which includes the stereotyping of artists as eccentric "visionaries" who exist at the edge (the "avant garde") of society, encourages people to believe that artists are significantly and fundamentally different from other human beings. Actually, anyone can be an artist, and everyone is, to some extent; being able to act creatively is a crucial element of human happiness. But when we are led to believe that being creative and thinking critically are talents which only a few individuals possess, those of us who are not fortunate enough to be christened "artists" or "philosophers" by our communities will not make much effort to develop these abilities. Consequently we will be dependent upon others for many of our ideas, and will have to be content as spectators of the creative work of others—and we will feel alienated and unsatisfied.

Another incidental drawback of our association of ideas with specific individuals is that it promotes the acceptance of these ideas in their original form. The students who learn the philosophy of Descartes are encouraged to learn it in its orthodox form, rather than learning the parts which they find relevant to their own lives and interests and combining these parts with ideas from other sources. Out of deference to the original thinker, deified as he is in our tradition, his texts and theories are to be preserved as-is, without ever being put into new forms or contexts which might reveal new insights. Mummified as they are, many theories become completely irrelevant to modern existence, when they could have been given a new lease on life by being treated with a little less reverence.

So we can see that our acceptance of the tradition of "intellectual property" has negative effects upon our endeavors to think critically and learn from our artistic and philosophical heritage. What can we do to address this problem? One of the possible solutions is plagiarism.


I plagiarized that

After reading Sicarius' explanation that "owning a thought, an idea is ridiculous", I must reconsider my interpretation of his other posts regarding the subject. First of all, no one is preventing you from thinking or using those ideas that others have come up with... it is when you go out to reap a profit from the idea as if it was yours that you cross the line.

my guess: Sicarius pirates music and/or software and is justifying it to himself.

Dexter, reposting from above:

"I think he might advocate plagiarism on the general principle that people that own things, own too many things, and that limits the "freedoms" of the rest of us who want to own what other people have :P"

Which is, indirectly, your last line there :P

Exactly. Making money from someone else's ideas or pirating for free is stealing.

It's easy to come to these hard, almost adamantine left positions when you live the kind of irresponsible homeless life Sicarius does. When you don't produce, all you can do is think in circles.

you're saying it's not plagiarism if no profit is involved?

why is my life irresponsible invictus?

why is my life irresponsible?

Wow.
"Our tradition of recognizing "intellectual property rights" is dangerous in that it results in the deification of the publicly recognized "thinker" and "artist" at the expense of everyone else. When ideas are always associated with proper names (and always the same proper names, in point of fact), this suggests that thinking and creating are special skills that belong to a select few individuals."

What a crock of crap. Thinking and creating ARE special skills - it is what separates us from the monkeys and the maggots and Isaac Newton from Alfred E. Neuman. Yes - everyone thinks and yes we all have innate ability to be creative on some level - but to suggest that there is utter equality in such things is delusionally idealistic.

Assuming that we all start with the same level of biological ability to think (not the case as evidenced by the mentally disturbed and developmentally challenged), obviously some have done more with this set of tools than others. The idea that the bum down the street should share in the wealth production from my ideas is absurd as me suggesting that I should have an even share of the earnings of an professional athlete. Granted I have a pot belly and I COULD HAVE been an athlete if I worked out and actually excelled... thing is I didn't. Michael Jordon profited from his body, why can't I profit from my mind? ...and why should you be able to profit from my mind at my expense??

I'm pretty left-wing - but what Sicarius proposes is Maoist tripe.

It's irresponsible for you. What will you do when your old? How will you raise a family? Being a drain on society aside, it's not good for you in the long run.

Sicarius: "you're saying it's not plagiarism if no profit is involved?"
Profit is a deal killer - that is for sure. The "fair use" doctorine allows for certain uses of copyrighted materials by others without gaining permission...

Per Wikipedia:
"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

This is the argument that manufacturers of cassette recorders used when defending themselves against the music companies... (it is fair to make a copy for personal use of a piece of music that you have already purchased). This is also the standard that allows my teacher wife to run off copies of handouts and to discuss concepts in books without being utterly hog-tied. But such things have limits. I cannot make a hundred copies of The Beatles' White Album and sell it on the street corner (even with attribution) - AND I cannot claim that I cannot publicly claim that I wrote the songs. Both activities could damage the reputation of The Beatles and could reduce legitimate sales of Beatles albums - decreasing their earnings.

invictus you have yet to prove that I am a drain on society in anyway

I guarantee that you are a much bigger drain than me