2…LITERATURE REIEW………...

………………………………………………

1.1 The Concept of Human Dignity

Plagiarism has not always been regarded as unethical. In fact, for most of recorded history, drawing from

other writers’ works was encouraged. This view was grounded in the belief that knowledge of the human

condition should be shared by every- one, not owned or hoarded. The notion of individual author- ship was

much less important than it is today.

“Writers strove, even consciously, to imitate earlier great works,” wrote authors Peter Morgan and Glenn

Reynolds in their 1997 book The Appearance of Impropriety. “That a work even similar passages or phrases

— was a mark of pride, not plagiarism. Imitation was bad only when it was disguised or a symptom of

laziness. It was not denounced simply on the grounds of being ‘unoriginal.’” Examples of this tradition

abound in literature. In ancient Greece, for example, writers such as Homer, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle

borrowed heavily from earlier works. “Aristotle lifted whole pages from Democritus,” wrote Alexander

Lindey in his 1952 book Plagiarism and Originality. Novelist and former Vassar College English Professor

Thomas Mallon agrees that the concept of originality was radically dif- ferent centuries ago. “Jokes about

out-and-out literary theft go back all the way to Aristophanes and ‘The Frogs’ [a play written in 405 B.C.],

but what we call plagiarism was more a matter for laughter than litigation,” Mallon wrote in his 1989 book

Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism. “The Ro- mans rewrote the Greeks. Virgil

is, in a broadly imitative way, Homer, and for that matter, typologists can find most of the Old Testament in

the New.” The Greek concept of imitation—known as mimesis— continued to influence writers during the

Middle Ages. Accord- ing to Syracuse [University’s Rebecca] Moore Howard, the Catholic Church

promoted the medieval emphasis on mimesis because it was concerned with spreading the message of God.

“The individual writer in this economy of authorship is beside the point, even a hindrance,” Howard writes

in her 1999 book Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collabora- tors. “Instead, the writer

voices God’s truth . . . and participates in the tradition of that truth-telling. Even in patron-sponsored writing
for the purpose of entertainment, the writer’s identity and originality are only tangentially at issue.

Plagiarism was a concern that seldom arose.”

Rise of Copyright

Attitudes about plagiarism began to change in the 16th century, as the Protestant Reformation swept across

Western Europe. The notion that salvation could be attained without adhering to strict Catholic sacraments

gave new importance to the concepts of originality and individual thought. These ideals were spread far and

wide through the use of the printing press—invented in 1440—and new copyright laws, which advanced the

notion that individual authorship was good and that mimesis was bad. Notably, religious reformers like

Martin Luther were among the staunchest opponents of the new copyright laws—first pro- posed in the late

1400s—because they believed human learning should circulate unrestricted for the common good and better-

ment of mankind. “Much like defenders of Internet freedoms of access and speech today, Luther and others

objected that copyright laws would limit the free circulation of ideas and knowledge that had been made so

widely and instantly available . . . [by] the print- ing press,” scholar C. Jan Swearingen wrote in a 1999

essay. Passage of the first copyright laws—in England in 1710 and in the United States in 1790—

transformed writing into a viable economic pursuit. Mimesis was no longer tolerated or encouraged —in fact

it was illegal. “No longer was a writer supposed to build on top of the structures left by earlier figures; now

one was sup- posed to sweep the ground clear and build from scratch,” Morgan and Reynolds write. “Once

money was involved, people became more vigilant for copying, whether real or imagined.” Mallon agrees.

“Plagiarism didn’t become a truly sore point with writers until they thought of writing as their trade,” he

writes in Stolen Words. “The writer, a new professional, was in- vented by a machine [the printing press].

Suddenly his capital and identity were at stake. Things were now competitive and personal, and when writers

thought they’d been plundered they fought back.”

first time. As enrollments increased, schools began requiring students to present more of their work in

writing, rather than orally, as they had in the past, Carter says. “At Harvard . . . by the 1890s, first-year

students wrote a new paper every two weeks as well as one short paper six days a week for the entire
academic year,” Carter wrote in a 1999 article on the history of plagiarism. “In such a climate . . . students

may have felt plagiarism to be a viable option.” Aside from the sheer volume of writing, students also may

have felt pushed toward plagiarism because many schools assigned unimaginative, “canned topics” for those

papers, Carter says.

“Some students believed it was OK to cheat because the teachers weren’t doing their jobs. For them, it made

sense to plagiarize.” To be sure, not all the student plagiarism of the mid-19th cen- tury was intentional.

There were no universally agreed-upon guidelines for using sources properly. Writer’s manuals didn’t ap-

pear until the late 19th or early 20th centuries. “It’s not like there was an MLA Handbook or a Chicago

Manual of Style,” Carter says. “Students knew they couldn’t claim another per- son’s words as their own,

but there was nothing to give them specific, concrete guidelines about avoiding plagiarism, such as using

quotation marks or footnotes.” Still, students who were so inclined in the mid-1800s could easily obtain

completed papers from fraternity houses or “term- paper mills” that set up shop near many universities. A

graduate student who taught writing at Harvard in the 1890s even sold term papers himself, Carter says.

Inadvertent academic plagiarism began to level off in the 1920s, as specialized handbooks began to appear

providing guidelines on the correct use of sources. Even so, the number of students who patronized term-

paper mills continued to grow. Calling themselves academic “research” companies, they adver- tised in

campus newspapers and “alternative” publications and often employed graduate students to do the writing.

In Boston in the 1960s and ’70s, for example, term papers were hawked on street corners and from

Volkswagen buses, says Kevin Carleton, assistant vice president for public relations at Boston University

(BU). “You could find them in Kenmore Square and Harvard Square and at Boston College and North-

eastern University,” Carleton says. In 1972, BU sued several local term-paper mills for fraud and won an

injunction prohibiting them from operating. The fol- lowing year, the Massachusetts legislature banned the

sale of term papers. Today, 16 states ban term-paper mills, according to the Denver-based National

Conference of State Legislatures. But BU wasn’t so successful in 1997 when it tried to use federal anti-

racketeering laws to prohibit all term-paper mills from using the fledgling Internet. A federal court dismissed

the university’s
Copyright Does Not Equal Plagiarism

One of the biggest misconceptions about plagiarism is that it is synonymous with copyright infringement.

Each passing year, I spend more time during my copyright seminar at Syracuse Uni- versity explaining the

distinction between (and possible inter- secting points of) copyright and plagiarism. Here’s how I compare

and contrast these two concepts: Copy- right simply is a set of laws that governs the creation, reproduc- tion,

and distribution of original works that can be perceived. Copyright law is codified as a federal statute at Title

17 of U.S. Code. The most important things to remember about copyright are that 1) it is a set of laws and 2)

allegations of wrongdoing— the illegal use of protected works without exception, license, or purchase—are

made within the context of a standardized legal process. But more about this process later. Plagiarism, in

comparison, is the act of stealing and passing off someone else’s ideas or words as one’s own without

crediting the source, as defined in Merriam-Webster Online. Brief or at tributed quotes generally do not

constitute plagiarism. Typically, no law governs plagiarism, so no one can be sued for plagiarism.

Ultimately, plagiarism is about idea theft: A person tries to take an idea and claim it as his or her own. There

is also a potential intersection between plagiarism and copyright. For example, an idea can be plagiarized,

but an idea cannot be copyrighted. However, if that idea is committed to paper (or otherwise recorded), then

the idea can be both plagia- rized and infringed. So let’s take this a step further: While a recorded idea can be

subject to plagiarism and copyright infringement, a person could use a recorded idea if that use falls under

one or more copyright exceptions. Qualifying for one of the exceptions may remove the copyright

infringement risk, but it may not necessarily remove the plagiarism risk. In fact, a person who adds some

level of ironic twist to the use may be considered a parodist and make that parody his own new, unique work

that is subject to its own copyright protec- tion. Or, given our working definition of plagiarism—the act of

stealing and passing off another’s ideas or words as one’s own without crediting the source—one could

reasonably argue that the act of parody constitutes a form of plagiarism. In many paro- dies, the source of the

parody is instantly recognized, but does instant recognition equate to attribution? In the end, though,

copyright infringement and plagiarism are distinct and separate. But it is easier now to recognize how these

concepts can get twisted.

Even though copyright infringement can result in financial damages or even jail time, plagiarism allegations

can be much more damaging to a person’s professional reputation than allega- tions of copyright

infringement. To support this statement, let’s return to the Copyright Act. The act operates in a way that ex-

cuses infringement allegations. For example, fair use under Sec- tion 107 excuses an allegation of copyright

infringement. Practically speaking, a judge may look at the facts of a case and determine that a party has

actually made fair use of a work. Alternatively, a judge could determine that an accused’s claim of a fair use

excuse is errant. (The publishing industry has been making just such an argument in its lawsuit over Google

Book Search.) But in the end, copyright law allows for the possibility that allegedly illegal conduct may be

excusable or defensible. Federal copyright law (along with federal rules of evidence and civil litigation

procedure) also typically places certain bur- dens on the accuser, including the burden of proving that an in-

fringement occurred and that the accused is the party responsible for the infringement. Copyright law also

imposes

(As an aside, an issue that seems to be lost within these dis- cussions is the failure of educational institutions

—domestic and international, at all levels—to train students properly for the rigors of high-level academic

work, including technical writing and citation. That subject should be addressed elsewhere.) The lack of

standards in plagiarism cases make an accusation virtually impossible to defend, but the mere allegation of

plagia- rism is considered an often irreversible smudge against a person’s professional and personal values

and ethics. This modern ver- sion of the scarlet letter points to one of the biggest problems with plagiarism:

Without any clear standard, no burden of proof, and virtually no defenses, mere accusations of plagiarism

can crush reputations faster than any allegation of copyright in- fringement.

Potential Plagiarism Solutions

This plagiarism controversy will not end any time soon. Inter- estingly, information professionals can play a

role in helping knowledge workers with academic and technical writing. From a reference standpoint,

several academic and corporate libraries will have subject matter specialists to help sift through and man-

age the literature on a given topic. The best librarians also will be quite familiar with standard citation
conventions in that lit- erature, and perhaps even will have available citation style guides that distill citation

intricacies into manageable and re- peatable steps. Some libraries are even going further by providing access

to Web-based citation management software. These service offer- ings are consistent with the contemporary

trend of moving ap- plications off the desktop, and instead, leveraging the Web as a computing platform.

The benefit to packages such as RefWorks

(Heidi Williams, Plagiarism: issues that concern you. Greenhaven Press, gale cengage learning, New York,

London 200)

1.2 The Concept of Social Growth

1.3 Ethical Issues on Human Dignity

1.4 The Impact of Human Dignity Awareness on Children’s Social Growth

1.5 The Role of Human Dignity in Social Development

1.6 Principle of Nurture (Training)