Category Archives: Authorship

Plagiarisimo

Leave a reply

It’s pretty hard to plagiarize. Really it is. Just as much work goes into stealing another person’s ideas as formulating and expressing your own. And even if you plagiarize, it will probably come out all wrong. I mean, look at this:

Piracy in our day serves nothing more than to undercut the academic community; it is an evil threatening not just the victim, the writer, but too the victimizer. For, though any expert man can judge by himself, or by indeed the general counsel of others, it is better to by labors intuitive to come to the conclusion. The work of others should be used only sparingly. The most of our literature should be meant for discussion; they should tasted, chewed, but not swallowed. To swallow would be a terrible avarice, consumption wholly of another. It may be fine, very so, to take from others and learn from them or with them, but to take in so entirely as to forget to whom it owes, would be a grave sin.

Do you see this? Awful. Truly it is. What the h am I trying to say? Am I even saying anything? Can you hear me?

Fake Harry Potter

1 Reply

During class I couldn’t help but look up the fake Harry Potter book: “Harry Potter and the Leopard Walk- Up- To Dragon”. This book actually contains the text from “The Hobbit” with all of the characters switched to character names from Harry Potter. To my surprise I found an article titled “11 Amazing Fake ‘Harr Potter’ Books Written In China”. If you thought the one mentioned by Striphas was hilarious- I mean awful- wait until you see the other ten. Do you think that any of them could fall under the heading ‘fan fiction’ or are they all illegal?

The Slow Death of the American Author

1 Reply

On Monday, an op-ed article in the New York Times sported this ominous title. Written by a self-acclaimed “best-selling author” Scott Turow, the article made a case that now, more than ever, authors are under attack… from everywhere. Search engines, libraries, and even scholars are on the list of threats to the American author, but none more vicious than publishing houses themselves. Their weapon of choice? E-books. The six major publishing houses insist on limiting e-book royalties to 25% of net receipts. While more renowned authors actually have some leeway with this, new and “midlist” writers have no bargaining power. Authors are finding it harder and harder to sell their books, much less publish them. The worst threat e-books (possibly) pose is stagnating the writers’ profession. Without new authors, a generation of writers will be gone.

The Cat NOT in the the Hat! A Parody?

4 Replies

The parody book “The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody” by Dr. Juice used Suess- like rhymes and illustrations to tell the story of O.J. Simpson’s double murder trial. The book depicts O.J. Simpson, wearing the Cat in the Hat’s distinctive red and white striped stove-pipe hat, and holding a bloody glove. An example of a line from the book: “One knife?/Two knife?/Red knife/Dead wife.”

Parody falls under fair- use according to the Copyright Act. However, what defines parody? According to the book, “Mass Media Law”, parody must “reflect the content of the original work not just the style or method of presentation”(523). In fact, Dr. Suess Enterprise sued because they did not believe that Dr. Suess’ image should be allowed to be commingled with a murder trial. Penguin book lost the trial because the court found that it was more a parody of the O.J. Simpson trial that used Suess’ shtick.

http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1181191.htmlThe disputed work

Close enough to meta

1 Reply

I just realized that not only are we on a blog, but we also have an English professor as a teacher, yet no one has gone meta. Prepare for that to change, as I start our slow descent into self-referential Hell.

…Nah. This post isn’t nearly enough to open the gates to the inferno.

Today, I did have a meta-moment (you can slap that prefix on anything!). As I was editing our Google doc for the portfolio 2 essay, I could not help but wonder who wrote it. Now, I know I literally typed the first page and a half, and my partner literally typed another page, but it still seemed odd. To be exact, I happened to be editing my partner’s section: she had written a page, but I did not like some of her phrases and words, so I replaced them with what I thought would better illustrate our point. But now that I had changed a few words in the middle of her writing, could she still call it hers? Could I really take credit for it, with my minimal contribution? I don’t think I want to call it both of ours, since each of our contributions were independent of each other and non-consensual. The bigger question for the class would be, who owns a collaborative piece of writing?

Arabian Nights

2 Replies

I cant believe the actors used improv in the middle of an actual play.  I feel like I would end up saying something completely ridiculous and make it more awkward than the prolonged makeout scene.  Its also interesting to think about the ownership of those words once they leave the actors mouth.  I couldnt see actors ever possessing much owner ship over improv lines especially since they aren’t documented.  They might not want to think of anything too witty or they could end up watching a play with their own lines.

Music in Restaurants

1 Reply

I recently came across this article which talks about copyright infringement.  BMI, Broadcast Music Inc., files copyright infringement lawsuits against restaurants and bars who fail to get licenses for playing music without paying royalties. I was surprised to learn that many of these lawsuits are not initiated by the artists themselves but rather, are initiated by BMI.  I was also surprised by how high and costly penalties can be.  It seems smart to splurge on the cost of subscribing with BMI or another organization like it because you may end up saving thousands later on.  I was left with the impression that companies like BMI don’t actually care about protecting an original artist’s rights or copyright but rather are taking advantage of restaurants that fail to get licenses solely for monetary gain.

“In Defense of the Liberal Arts”

Leave a reply

Last week, I submitted my essay that analyzed how the Copyright Act of 1710 and Age of Enlightenment gave authors extrinsic incentives to publish their works. Society ultimately benefits from the discourse that their literature inspires.

After watching this TEDxWhitehorse talk today, I realized that I undervalued the power of literature. In the essay, I touched on how authors could critique political and religious institutions or comment on the flaws in society. Literature, however, is more powerful than just critiques. Rather, we learn about ourselves by identifying with characters.

Judah Pollack, the speaker in the video, describes how he works with soldiers who return home from war. Oftentimes, they feel misunderstood. Ulysses in The Odyssey becomes a relatable character who helps them recover. Another classic, Candide, is still important to readers because “we still recognize ourselves in the mirror of [Voltaire’s] characters and their concerns, as if we would not be surprised to encounter Candide or Cunegonde on the streets of Manhattan today” (Wright).

I want to end with the following quote from Pollack’s presentation because I think it sums up everything well and is thought provoking.

“Pirates used to plunder gold and now they steal stories. Stories are actually more valuable than gold…Stories are the swords we use to slay our dragons. Narrative is the tool we use to understand ourselves and the world. If you don’t share your story with someone, you can never truly be seen. If you don’t share your scars with someone, you can never truly be known.”

Another video series where Pollack incorporates ideas about copyright and literature into everyday life. Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 I particularly like his analysis using Voltaire and Candide: “In many ways, Voltaire gave us the answer about how to mature out of childhood.”

The Job of an Editor

1 Reply

For one of my fourth hour requirements, I went to a faculty irregular lunch discussion this Friday. Though it did not address our course directly, it offered some interesting tidbits on the collaborative process of scholarly publication which I can expand into the realm of authorship.

I got the impression from the presentation that scholars in the Humanities are hesitant to take on collaborative writing. It was even mentioned that many scholars focus on their own work, a book, rather than seek publication in a journal. In retrospect, I regret not asking further on the subject. Why would a scholar choose to work on a book rather than publish an article? Perhaps, simply, the book is a hallmark of the academic and requires an immense amount of effort. However, I wonder if the idea of authorship comes into play at all in this trend. Does a book give an author more reputation than a published article? For my purposes as an undergraduate, both books and journals are considered equally scholarly and credible. I wonder if at the higher levels if their are any subtle differences in reputation between books and journals. Perhaps people only take you seriously if you have a book in your own name.

Copyright Controversy – The Verve

1 Reply

This week, I’ve spend much time working on the essay for the first portfolio, with the central theme of the essay being the history of copyright laws. Doing this made me think of an instance involving one of my favorite bands, The Verve. During the mid-90’s, while working on an album, the Verve came to an agreement with Decca Records, the company that deals with the music made by The Rolling Stones. Both parties agreed that for a small fee, the Verve would use a five note sample from a relatively unpopular Rolling Stones song in the composition of one of their own songs, “Bittersweet Symphony”. When the album as released in 1997, “Bittersweet Symphony” became a worldwide hit, bringing The Verve both enormous fame and album sales.

After seeing the success of this song, former Rolling Stone manager Allen Klein filed a lawsuit against The Verve, arguing that they had used “too large of a sample” from the original song. This was an absurd claim, as not only did the Verve use the exact amount they agreed to, but their resulting song was essentially unrecognizable from the song that the five note sample came from. Nevertheless, the case went to court. Facing a difficult legal battle, in which there was the potential to lose much money and still lose the case, The Verve had no choice but to hand over 100 percent of their royalties from the song to the Rolling Stones.

This whole controversy represents a disgusting chapter in copyright history. Allen Klein, fueled by greed, created a false claim and cost The Verve all the money they would have made from a worldwide hit. What makes it even worse is that these are the types of instances that copyright laws are supposed to prevent, but it is arguable that they have created this problem.

http://www.thevervelive.com/2005/05/bitter-sweet-symphony-controversy-and.html