Heat of Battle
Not only is it 35 freakin degrees outside, but e-mails from Mr Steffler have been heating up as well. Just got this doozy...guess who else joined in on the party! None other than Mme MacGregor herself! I feel so enlightened now!
Mr. M,
Thank you once again for your message. It is clear that you have put a lot of thought into this matter.
Having reviewed this matter, I believe that you have misread my original post and/or formed links to other concepts that were not being addressed in this message. Note that UW Policy #71 is not directly linked to the Copyright Act or Criminal Code. The arguments presented in my original post referred solely to Policy #71 and not the other documents that were discussed in your message. As such, I will make no comment on the other information you have provided, nor the links provided to these other documents. This is not due to a lack of appreciation of the efforts that you have went to, but rather, due to the lack of time I have to devote to these other issues in light of my other duties.
Once again, I reiterate that UW does consider Theft to be a charge under UW Policy #71- a charge independent of what may be contained in the other documents you list. It appears that you have an understanding of plagiarism and cheating under the policy. However, there is a difference between a case in which an individual who plagiarizes or cheats does so using an assignment that was freely provided to them versus someone who cheats and plagiarizes using an assignment that was secured through dishonest means. In the latter case, this is not simply a case of plagiarism and cheating- there is another element of dishonesty- theft. In this case, the policy refers to theft through its actual English definition, quite simply “the action or crime of stealing” or “taking (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it, giving or taking surreptitiously or without permission” (www.askoxford.com). At no time in my post do I attempt to make reference to theft as defined in “legal” , “criminal” or “copyright” terms. While I appreciate the spirit of your message, I truly think you have overcomplicated the issue and once again do not feel a clarification is required.
I do note that many of your arguments appear to be related to concepts covered in the PDENG 35 course. As Dr. MacGregor is taking lead in this course, I am copying her on this response. She may have additional insights to add based upon PDENG 35 issues.
Regards,
Jeremy Steffler
Man this guy dodges the issue better than George Bush dodged military service! Basically, he's saying that I'm confusing up the issue with too much evidence. Great, now proof of why you're lying and making up shit is 'overcomplicating the issue'.
But the good news is, his argument still doesn't make any sense and is easy to disprove. I haven't responded yet, because I'm waiting for some evidence from the Office of the Secretariat, but rest assured, this gross lack of logic will not go unexposed!
posted by ARGUING 4 LIFE at 12:49 PM
3 Comments:
are you stupid? PDEng sucks, sure, but do you even speak English? you don't do well in PDEng because you're an idiot and can't argue half as well as a drunken cat
Guys just the let the Man be...
I feel you are overanalyzing this but hey you're putting up an intellectual fight against UW...do it and provide us with the laughs :) GoodLuck brother.
So Jeremy's argument is that he is not using the legal definition of the word theft, but rather the dictionary definition which he states as:
“taking (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it, giving or taking surreptitiously or without permission”
The problem for Jeremy is that the dictionary definition does not imply that copying is theft any more than the legal definition does. What it comes down to is the word "taking". To take an item is to deprive another individual of that item. When you copy an item, the individual in possession of the item is not deprived of it.
For instance, going to a art gallery and photographing an art piece is in no way theft (legally or otherwise) because you are not physically removing that art piece.
The dictionary, at least the one I'm using, has several definitions for the word "take". Not one of them implies that making a copy of something is considered taking it. If the dictionary definition of theft was instead:
“copying (something) without permission..." then yes, copying would be theft. But it uses the word take, which requires that the other party be deprived of that property. If this is what happened in the plagiarism scenario then sure, they could be charged with theft. But if the individual was sent electronic data, then in no way can anyone argue that they stole the original work (for the reasons I outlined above).
This copyright infringement vs. theft distinction is made often on sites like Slashdot and is a very important distinction to make since organizations like the RIAA and MPAA tend to muddy this distinction in order to spread their FUD.
- bwalkin@gmail.com
Post a Comment
<< Home