Re:What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
by Turing_Machine on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @11:45AM
(#6991364)
Yep. The way I used to explain it to my students was this:
Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare": not plagiarism or copyright violation.
Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by Turing Machine": plagiarism, but not copyright violation.
Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien": Copyright violation, but not plagiarism.
Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by Turing Machine": both plagiarism and copyright violation.
Re:What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
by JetSpiegel on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:56PM
(#6992165)
Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by George RR Martin": Boatloads of cash
Re:What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014
by simbolit on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:00PM
(#6993058)
I remember reading an article about this phenomenon, and arguing from that "plagiarism" as a concept will eat the "copyright" concept. unfortunately i cannot find it right now.
I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't? I see disclaimers on Youtube all the time ("I don't own this") which seem to imply the person posting the video doesn't understand the difference.