Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Scott1328]

Disseminating as your own, the work of another without attribution is the definition of plagiarism, permission is irrelevant. Perhaps you are confusing plagiarism with copyright violation?

Plagiarism is illegal if the intent is to defraud. For example, works in the public domain can be disseminated with or without permission. It is still however plagiarism if you use such works without attribution.

Little legal education for you.

[tattuchu]

Isn't SD the one who used another Ratskepper's avatar over here, but replaced the name with the word "vermin"?

I have no idea

Tatt, you just like him 'cause he's in the catwoman suit, don't you.

Yeah, pretty much

[Strontium Dog]

Disseminating as your own, the work of another without attribution is the definition of plagiarism, permission is irrelevant. Perhaps you are confusing plagiarism with copyright violation?

Plagiarism is illegal if the intent is to defraud. For example, works in the public domain can be disseminated with or without permission. It is still however plagiarism if you use such works without attribution.

Little legal education for you.

I think it is you who is confused, since there's no agreed definition of plagiarism. You have to look behind that at the intent behind the RatSkep rule, which is primarily about legality - although it's also a useful tool to bust people they don't like when no other offences have been committed.

I mean, you only have to look at the people over there who are practically Labour Party mouthpieces to know that using the material of others, in and of itself, is rarely acted upon (indeed, it's amusing how the terminology those people use alters as the terminology in Labour Party internal missives alters).

Isn't SD the one who used another Ratskepper's avatar over here, but replaced the name with the word "vermin"?

I have no idea

This isn't quite what happened, but I did have an avatar with "VERMIN" written upon it, and it was a reference to an individual who repeatedly refers to me in such terms with hilariously specific pseudo-generalisations that are stupidly/dishonestly denied by the powers that be to be references to me, even thogh they're obvious references to me.

Better though to just ignore people like that, to treat people you wished didn't exist as if they didn't exist is much better for your own wellbeing.

Tatt, you just like him 'cause he's in the catwoman suit, don't you.

Yeah, pretty much

[laklak]

It's simply good manners to acknowledge the author when quoting.

[tattuchu]

It's simply good manners to acknowledge the author when quoting.

[JimC]

It's simply good manners to acknowledge the author when quoting.

[Scott1328]

Disseminating as your own, the work of another without attribution is the definition of plagiarism, permission is irrelevant. Perhaps you are confusing plagiarism with copyright violation?

Plagiarism is illegal if the intent is to defraud. For example, works in the public domain can be disseminated with or without permission. It is still however plagiarism if you use such works without attribution.

Little legal education for you.

I think it is you who is confused, since there's no agreed definition of plagiarism. You have to look behind that at the intent behind the RatSkep rule, which is primarily about legality - although it's also a useful tool to bust people they don't like when no other offences have been committed.

I mean, you only have to look at the people over there who are practically Labour Party mouthpieces to know that using the material of others, in and of itself, is rarely acted upon (indeed, it's amusing how the terminology those people use alters as the terminology in Labour Party internal missives alters).

The matter of properly attributing a source is orthogonal to the issue of copyright. The principal of Fair Use determines how much of copyrighted work may be reproduced with or without attribution. In other words the RatSkep FUA limits how much text can be quoted even if it is properly sourced.

[pErvinalia]

Stop viciously trolling SD, Scott! When will this heinous injustice end???

[JimC]

Stop viciously trolling SD, Scott! When will this heinous injustice end???

Especially when he uses vicious words like "orthogonal"...

[pErvinalia]

There's no call for that sort of shit here on Ratz!

[Scott1328]

Stop viciously trolling SD, Scott! When will this heinous injustice end???

He is the one who chose the initials SD and everyone knows that SD's are anathema to me.

[JimC]

Stop viciously trolling SD, Scott! When will this heinous injustice end???

He is the one who chose the initials SD and everyone knows that SD's are anathema to me.

Sexual Deviants?

Silly Ducks?

Suicidal Dustmen?

Succubi Destroyers?

Sporting Dilettantes?

[Scott1328]

Yes

[JimC]

Yes

I bet you say that to all the girls...

[Strontium Dog]

The matter of properly attributing a source is orthogonal to the issue of copyright. The principal of Fair Use determines how much of copyrighted work may be reproduced with or without attribution. In other words the RatSkep FUA limits how much text can be quoted even if it is properly sourced.

Where is your evidence that the work is copyrighted? Has the apparent owner attempted to assert copyright? Has he issued a cease and desist notice to RatSkep?