Plagiarism

[swansont]

Since it's come up…

Plagiarism involves copying another students work or a book I did neither. Since I am not in school. It is also in reference to DMCA which I am not bound by. DMCA applies to the US not all states and not outside it, If I were to use Princton's definition Princeton perceives plagiarism as the "deliberate" use of "someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source." Since the source of most textbook definitions is unknown you cannot acknowledge the source. Unless the US knows the "real" source.

Also http://librarycopyright.net/resources/exemptions/index.php

The US provides exemptions to copyright law for teachers in a not for profit environment. So eh not plagiarism I have not asked for money. I have also not claimed I was the original author of said work.

First of all, from the FAQ:

4. Why was I yelled at for copyright/plagiarism?

Copyright is a set of laws that protect things that people write, and mean you can't just paste entire screeds here without permission (and simply existing somewhere on the internet is not permission). Under the provision called Fair Use, you can post small excerpts for review and commentary. Copyright also protects pictures and drawings, so anything posted here should be done with permission or under some form of Creative Commons license.

Plagiarism is an ethical violation that occurs when you present material as your own. That is, you have not attributed the work of others.

Whenever you are using the creative work of others, you should post an attribution and whenever possible, a link to the source material.

You can go and Google the word and find the definition of plagiarism

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own

(See what I did there? I provided a link. Pretty simple.)

Students are cautioned because they seem to be prone to it and are often in situations where it might be a problem but there is nothing in the definition that confines the practice to students. Academics, journalists and even politicians have been embroiled in plagiarism scandals.

It is, as is plainly stated, passing off someone else's work as your own. It has little or nothing to do with copyright; it doesn't matter if you steal work from someone dead for 500 years and whose works are in the public domain: if you don't attribute them, it's a problem of academic/intellectual honesty. Sometimes it's merely an oversight and there is no intent to deceive, so we don't come down too hard unless it's a chronic problem — all we ask is that you cite your source. It doesn't really matter if the source has good citations, as far as this goes. What you're showing is where you got the information.

 

That practice goes for facts and data as well, even things one might claim are "well known" — it may well known to you, but it helps move the discussion along if you provide a link to where you got the information, or where others might confirm for themselves.

When you're asked for that link, there's no need to get pissy about it.