I found myself really interested in the reading(s) for this week, because of the connotations that I feel are associated with both of them? haha I pose it as a question, because I'm not quite sure what, exactly, had me so fascinated with the reading(s) for this week...actually that's a lie.
The second piece, It wasn't me, was it?: Plagiarism and the Web by DeVoss/Rosati is especially interesting because it states that "first-year composition teachers have a key role in helping the students adapt to this space," this space being the Internet and the copyright/plagiarism laws that coincide with it (DeVoss/Rosati 153)...which continued to spark my interest as I began to think of the different ways in which I teach/introduce copyright/plagiarism into my 101 classroom, and whether not I am making clear distinctions between what is and is not plagiarism - as well as violating copyright laws. This becomes considerably more difficult because, as John Logie, author of Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, and the Composition Classroom, states, "Whenever composition instructors use computer technology within their classrooms, they raise exponentially the likelihood that the work completed within their classes will run afoul of current intellectual property laws" (Logie 135). Essentially, we are always running the risk of breaking the rules of the United States Copyright laws that were last updated in the 1970's - and, as Logie asserts, this was a period where "the personal computer was still a prototype" (Logie 135)
We still have hope, however. As educators, we are allowed the opportunity to dance around copyright laws with the assistance of "fair use", which lets us use copyrighted materials in our classrooms as long as it is nontransformative - yet educators who fall in the gray area with their usage with be dealt with on a case by case reading of the what and how the information was used? And plagiarism, oh what a mess.
While I agree with Devoss/Rosati that plagiarism can be an occurrence due to a lack of understanding of how to properly integrate/work with outside material into one's own...I really disliked the feeling that I got when reading this. It seemed like as instructors they were telling us to be aware that students will plagiarize, but be careful because it is tricky...don't jump to the gun and say that its plagiarism, when it could be a lack of understanding of how to properly write from sources - but also don't let that be the student's excuse..."I thought I was doing it right. I was plagiarizing?"
These are both two very intricate fields, and the more I research them I find myself that much more confused. I wonder, as an instructor, if I have broken the copyright laws of those whose materials I've used in class...
Post Script: I've got major beef with the term/phrase "fair use".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
okay, i'll bite: why do you have beef with the term "fair use"? i explained why i didn't like "indebtedness" - now i want to hear your rationale.
ReplyDeletei'm also wondering if i've ever plagiarized - in a class as an instructor or as a student. i like the fair use laws if only to help me work around a system i definitely do not understand. i mean, "criticism" is a pretty broad term, yeah? you could just use something and say "i don't like this because it's bad" under the guise of criticism, couldn't you? maybe that's stretching it - i don't know. is that your problem? who determines what is fair, and now we're saying that it is only fair to use something if your'e using it in a scholarly way, privileging scholarship over any other kind of production?
Malcolm,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that Copyright Laws are outdated and should be revisited so that educators will not "fall in the gray area with their usage" of materials because really, it is crazy that someone would be penalized for an over use of fair use. I mean, if the powers that be really checked to see if people in the Modern Language Association all used MLA citation properly (since it changes so often), then we would be up the creek without a good paddle with many fines.
I say all of that to say that it is confusing. The only things that "count" are things that people can make money from (and this goes back to Johnson-Eilola and others). But to put a price on the acquisition of knowledge makes this game more complicated…and it is just not right. So, is that your beef with fair use? That it is unfair and not clearly defined?
Jessica
I don't think DeVoss and Rosati were saying that we should allow plagiarism because students aren't aware that they are plagiarizing, but that if we understand what leads a student to (inadvertently or not) plagiarize, we can figure out how to engage them so that it doesn't happen in the first place. If we can understand the motivations we can try to prevent the need for plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI was accused of plagiarism in English 101 (an -- as it turned out --inaccurate accusation) due to exactly what DeVoss/Rosati were talking about. That gray area that prevents students (and teachers) to know exactly what is wrong and what is right. Malcolm, I too was intrigued, but because I learned so much from these articles. Even Logie stated that: "At present, standard Internet practices...fall into a legal limbo strewn with obsolete laws, contradictory rulings, failed legislation, and muddled practices"(135). I can see why you're annoyed.
ReplyDeleteI want to hear this story in class Maggie! (if you want to share)
ReplyDeleteMatt, good point: "If we can understand the motivations we can try to prevent the need for plagiarism."
Malcolm, I'm curious (along the lines of Rachel's questions), fair use?
haha fair use...still thinking about how to explain my beef.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Matt...I don't think I effectively communicated where I was going with my thoughts on plagiarism/students in academia as it relates to the DeVoss/Rosati piece.