Reading Response for 9.1.09 - Plagiarism & Copyrights

I found both the articles to be very interesting. Although the second article was somewhat tiresome at times due to the writing style and it’s length. I do think I share a similar opinion on plagiarism and copyrights.

With as much writing and thinking that goes on in this world, your ideas are bound to be similar in some regards to someone else’s ideas. If we were to have some of these high tech search mechanisms to find even paraphrasing of ideas, I think that goes a little too far. I remember being taught in high school and middle school that you were not to use the exact words of an author in a paper, but you could paraphrase and cite your source. Which often made wonder growing up how anyone had any original ideas. If they read something and or were influenced by something, they might just write something that sounds similar unintentionally. Worse yet, we were told that unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism. It’s almost as if you’re supposed to write in fear. No wonder so many people dread writing. They’re probably not sure how to create, invent, or otherwise fabricate their own words in such a way that it comes off as them and not the voice of someone else.

As far as copyrights go, I have always felt that as long as I am not profiting from the use of materials I have bought or otherwise obtained through legal means, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If I record something off of television, splice pieces of it together and add music from a CD or album that I have purchased, why can I then not show it on a site like youtube? I can very easily show it on my computer. Nobody can stop me from doing that. In theory, I could invite hundreds upon thousands of people to my house to view said video on my computer. Nobody can stop me from doing that either. What is the difference other than time? Hundreds upon thousands of people could view the video all at once on youtube, but they cannot all fit into my house at once. Some might argue that people have ways of ripping videos off of youtube and that would be stealing. Well what if I used the DVD burner that came with the computer that I purchased to put the video on DVD and gave everyone who came to my house to view the video a copy to keep, free of charge? Is that not the same concept? I find copyrights to be a very sticky situation when it comes to content. I have had aspirations at time to be involved in creative markets such as music or television, and I sometimes wonder how would I feel if people were sharing my product instead of purchasing it. I try to see both sides, but since I have not actually been in a position where something I profited from was being shared instead of purchased, I tend to favor the side that just wants to use that which I own in the manner in which I please.

I think I will be focusing my research in the class on fan fiction. Which is when a fan decides to write stories using pre-established characters. Sometimes it is for television shows, which the area that has caught my interest, but it can be used for other genres. I have been told that some authors don’t like their fans to participate in fan fiction because they do not like how they use their characters; in contrast, other authors like it. Does an author have copyright over their characters to the point that fans cannot write their own stories involving said characters? If this is the case, does that also mean that children cannot mimic their favorite television characters while playing make-believe in their backyards? It’s essentially the same concept, only in written form. If someone posts their stories on a centralized site where other fans can read it, is that not the same as several children participating in a character game in the backyard and then telling their friends about it later? Fan fiction can be a different take on established characters, or it can be an exercise in creative writing when the characters are not your own. It is an interesting medium and one I would like to explore more.