Comment on Plagiarism-BECKER

Posner correctly argues that there is no hard and fast line that separates plagiarism from accepted use of other people’s written work. But wherever the line is drawn, plagiarism is the reverse of counterfeiting activities. Plagiarists try to take credit for the work of others, while counterfeiters credit others for their own work. Both have been with us for a long time, but the internet and other new technologies have made both plagiarism and counterfeiting easier. A potential plagiarist has access through the internet to extensive written materials on any topic, while counterfeiters can discover designs and products to copy, and can find customers through email and websites. It is also more difficult to detect plagiarists and counterfeiters since the number of potential sources for reports and other document to the plagiarists is immense, as are the outlets for counterfeiters. A well-recognized part of the theory of deterrence of illegal and other undesirable activities is that punishments should be greater when the likelihood of detection is smaller. So it follows that since these technologies have made plagiarism much easier, and its detection more difficult, punishments of plagiarists should be greater than in the past. Posner discusses the damage from plagiarism by students and professors, and appears to conclude that punishment should be less severe on professors caught plagiarizing than on students. I share his concern about plagiarism, but do not agree with this conclusion. Plagiarism by professors and other writers makes greater use of the work of others than does plagiarism by students. As Posner notes, this provides an incentive for authors to discover professors and other writers who plagiarize since citations of one’s work is the major way to gain a reputation in academic fields, and sales is the source of income to professional writers. But the analysis of deterrence implies that punishment should be directly related both to the magnitude of the gain from an illicit activity, and the extent of knowledge about whether it is illicit. On both issues, professors are more culpable than students. A professor who succeeds in plagiarizing typically gains far more from this than a student who plagiarizes in preparing say a term paper. The student may get a higher grade, while the professor helps his chances of getting tenure, promotions, and raises. In addition, professionals know much more than students do about the distinction between plagiarism and simply relying on the contributions of others. This is why I side with students who believe that professors discovered to have plagiarized are typically let off too easily. They should be fired for clear-cut and flagrant plagiarism. Unfortunately, that does not usually happen if they are in senior positions because that means revoking their tenure, which is usually vigorously opposed through litigation and other means. In particular, The American Association of University Professors, a kind of union of professors, has opposed with almost a religious fervor all attempts to revoke tenure of faculty except for the most dismal behavior, defined in part by what is politically incorrect at the time. To return to counterfeiting, companies that produce clothing with unauthorized labels of famous designers, watchmakers who falsely claim their watches are Rolexes or other expensive brands, or private producers of $20 bills pretend to be other producers in order to free ride on their reputations and markets. These and other examples of reverse plagiarism are clear violations of patent or copyright law even when the counterfeit product is just as good as the original, which it often is not. I mentioned earlier that production of counterfeits has become easier because of the internet and other technologies, while detection is more difficult also because of these technologies. Detection is also more difficult because markets have become more global. These changes imply that punishment of counterfeiters should be harsher than in the past. However, globalization often makes it harder to punish producers of counterfeit products since developing countries do not really want to enforce the copyright and patent protection on products made elsewhere.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Great site. Good info.

[Anonymous]

buy Cozaar

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

tiffany jewellery
ed hardy

[Anonymous]

links of london

[Anonymous]

links of london
abercrombie and fitch

[Anonymous]

ed hardy
tiffany jewelry

[Anonymous]

tiffany jewellery
tiffany jewellery

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

شات
شات صوتى

[Anonymous]

Thanks very much for the compilation!links london
tiffany jewellery

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Pervert! Let's get out of here. There are so many perverts here.So what? You are such a bad person Who's gonna like you? Tiffany Jewelry Don't mind him. Don't mind him. He's just playing. Forget him. He saw me steal the diamond. Tiffany Jewelry You're dreaming! In your dreams. Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer l Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer look.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late. ook.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late.

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

PA1eJH I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

Great work,webmaster,nice design!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

Perfect work!