Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

Just to argue with an argumentative, here is the definition of Plagiarism from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

And the Plagiarism Policies of my School:
http://www.kings.uwo.ca/library/services/how_do_i/plagiarism/

 

Pretty much what i just told you. As long as you cite it, it's fine. The shadow on the cave wall is common knowledge last time I checked. It's a stand in for a platonic approach to metaphysics. Used as an allusion, for instance, it need not be cited.

Academia is not required to ask permission, because of a concept called "fair use" that is generally accepted.

Example: "Richard's view is in conflict with Sally's, but perhaps Richard places too much emphasis on the shadow he is casting on the cave wall." If that were a sentence in an academic paper, I would not need to cite Plato.

Furthermore, the Constitution is not an academic document, further proving my point. Perhaps I should point out that for someone who claims to "study language", you are pretty careless with it.

 

Oh yeah? When was the last time you checked that out and put the phrase "the shadow on the cave wall" in your essay without quotations or citing it?

What is your issue?

Jefferson stole Locke's ideas and put it into the American Constitution. Stop being bullheaded and wake up - he thrust published material into legislation. Today we call that plagiarism.

 

didn't you just say that plagiarism was a form of academic deceit? Therefore if a document is neither academic nor deceitful, how can it be plagiarism? And I think you are perhaps referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The constitution was written by a group of men generally referred to as "the framers". It was a process rooted in compromise and principle. Not an easy thing to do, and Canadians have never succeeded in doing it. Remember Meech lake?

I have many issues, like most people, that need addressing. When you erroneously attacked my grammar, for instance, instead of being grown-up about it, I responded by trying to humiliate you, and it was a stupid tit-for-tat. Not knowing that "semantics" is not treated as a plural collective noun in English is a relatively common error, and doesn't really reflect poorly on you. There are others. None of them are too important to this thread. But I believe some of the people, including yourself, derive pleasure from personal attacks directed at me. I don't take it personally, so fire away. I'll respond when I am also entertained, as in your case.


I wrote a paper in my undergrad days that included a turn of phrase involving the shadow on the cave wall. It stands out in my mind, because it also had a picture of half naked lesbians making out. The topic was Hemingway's "The Sun also Rises". May basic point was that the "The Sun also rises" is boring. I think i got an A-. Incidentally, I should probably re-read the book, as I have changed and may be more receptive now.

 

Check and mate,

 

Where did I ever say that?

Oh, and the Sun Also Rises was one of my favourite Hemingway novels. I dream about visiting those little secret corner cafés in Paris, of drinking wine out of a cabás in the streets of Ronda, and fishing along the Andalusian Coast in the summer time. It was a decent read for what Hemingway is.

 

People seem to be confusing and combining several different issues here. The case was about whether his films were obscene or not. How about a simpler case -http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_476139.html
where a woman is charged with writing obscene stories and putting them on the internet. No other people were involved. She faces jail time for writing fiction, that is not much different from many tragic and real news stories that anyone might read in a newspaper.

 

Well, that's a pretty stupid case. Fiction is fiction. I think there's a line between writing about filth and actually acting it out.

 

This debate is amazing.

I love Earth.

 

Someone in a previous post wanted to know who was responsible for this wave of obscenity prosecutions. It is the Department of Justice's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, that was formed in 2005, that is behind it. Set up because of the pressure and influence of conservative christian groups in league with pres. Bush. No longer is terrorism, organized crime, public corruption, etc their top priority, but obscenity. For those that support this, you should take this into consideration and also read the full text of the linked article.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

 

Stupid cases are what you get when people get careless with the law. Maybe you should think about that next time you advocate jailing someone for selling obscene material.

 

because terrorism and money laundering are far more important than protecting women from psychopaths that somehow think it's ok to rape women because their "legal" videos they watch on their computer everyday tell them it's not unlawful to do so.

Or in this case, videos that were bought in a local video store in a town who simply does not want this.

 

The declaration of independence is a letter to the king of england and the world at large. It is not journalism, it is not an academic paper. It is a statement of intent to secede from one country and form a new one. It was also written in a time when borrowing from other authors was not regarded as particular offensive. There is nothing deceitful about the document in the sense you imply, and Thomas Jefferson was most certainly not making a claim of originality. Plagiarism is dependent on context, and you seem to have little concept of that. Of course, it's not unusual for those in academia to confuse the planet they live on with planet earth. In the real world, especially in 1776, Thomas Jefferson was following accepted practices for his time.

Imposing your academic standards on the declaration of independence is just that: academic. By your standards, the following are plagiarists: Thomas Jefferson, Goethe, Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Petrarch. They are not plagiarists. They lived in a different time.

 

False dilemma. And an obvious setup for the straw man argument. Which IS dishonest.

 

has anyone considered the fact that his greed played a factor in his prosecution? If he cared about the protection of his rights, he could have simply not distributed his videos in the area of prosecution. From my understanding, he sells his videos worldwide and is very wealthy.

And you would think someone who produces such videos would know exactly what protects his rights to distribute them.

 

so he's greedy. what's your point? no amount of "being bad" makes setting bad legal precedents any smarter. When someone who isn't "bad" winds up in court for writing fiction, "i'm not a bad person" is not a defense.

 

my point is that he clearly did not give a shit. and people like that get sent to jail in this country. after throat fucking five women to the point that they cry and puke all over themselves, you would think at the end of the day he would look back on it and wonder just how much his rights protect him to sell this material. obviously he did not, and he got what was coming to him.

 

Ok, so the new defense for the poor author who is sentenced to jail for writing indecent fiction is "but judge, I give a shit". I don't care which road you are taking. They all lead away from the bill of rights.

 

the difference is that the author is writing fiction and knows that his rights are being protected, while someone who is advocating an act that is against the law on film should be questioning their rights to do so. Carelessness in protecting oneself can lead to being eaten by the wolf. It happens, and it is often the fault of the person accused. Sometimes it isn't, but i feel that in this case it most certainly is.

And you are defending this man who is in jail as a result of his own ignorance.

 

Why would I think twice when I know what is going on?

The man is a criminal in several ways in case you failed to read the entirety of this thread. Maybe you should think twice before opening your mouth.