• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think your legalistic view of the world is quite limiting.

    It’s not illegal to rephrase what someone wrote in a book and pass it off as your own work. You can’t “wown” a cultural analysis. It’s still plagiarism.

    • communism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What are you talking about? I’ve given you several examples of plagiarism outside of a legal concept, which means that there are non-legalistic definitions.

        Here’s another one: copying someone’s homework is plagiarism. It’s not illegal, though.

        I’d argue that most acts of plagiarism are actually legal, but can result in getting your title revoked. That’s not because of an IP law violation, since you don’t have ownership of an argument in an academic text.

        Letting a ghostwriter write an academic paper is plagiarism, too, btw. How would that make sense in an IP law context, if the ghost writer not obtaining the IP is the whole point?