stephiny: (spaceballs the icon)
[personal profile] stephiny
I'm somewhat prone to obsessing over what is right when it comes to moral issues. I end up thinking way more than is healthy, like the time that it was suggested to me that using wikipedia in any way for coursework was cheating. I'm still of the opinion that it's not, because proper research papers include bibliographies too, and the main thing I use wikipedia for is to find relevant sources of information on a subject. She wouldn't explain why or how it was cheating though, so I still find myself occasionally tearing the subject apart in my head trying to figure out how it is wrong.

The same goes for my thoughts on piracy. B thinks I'm a thief, and today on facebook this status was posted, "Ebook piracy is theft. If you upload or download an in-copyright ebook without paying for it you are a thief. No ifs, ands, or buts. You are a thief. It's no different to walking out of a shop with a book under your coat."

When two people that I respect disagree with me, that's a fairly strong sign that there is some kind of flaw in my logic. I can't for the life of me figure out what it is though, and it's not like I haven't carefully examined every issue that I can think of relating to it. I'm obviously missing something and it's really frustrating.

I understand perfectly that in terms of what the law states, I am a thief. Ethically though, I don't want to steal. I just have a different definition of theft to most people and if it's actually wrong then I have a lot of fixing that I need to do.

When I've watched a film online more than once I try to buy a copy. This is why I have a pile of DVDs that are still in their wrappers. I buy them because it seems wrong not to, because I've watched it enough that I can't justify not owning a copy. When it comes to books I read whatever is freely availible online first. Google books or amazon often have long excerpts that I can read to decide if I want to buy something or not. If I can't find anything like that, I'll hunt down a copy to download and read and I have a hard time stopping reading something partway through. I almost always read those to the end, even if the books are shit and not worth buying at all, which is wrong but still not resulting in the loss of a sale. At least there aren't many books that I download and don't go on to buy. I have a nice little pile of unread paperbacks because of this, though most books I like to read multiple times and I get enticed by the new book smell so they tend not to go unread for long.

But then again, everyone already knows I do that. I'm still missing something and it's going to drive me nuts until I figure it out.

Date: 2010-08-16 10:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elleipsis.livejournal.com
I don't agree with the idea that using Wikipedia is cheating. Most of the time, I use it as a sounding board, and a possible direction to go. Sometimes it offers a area which you can expand, and offers very useful peer accredited sources which you can then list. It is rather ironic that the information found there is perfectly fine, and yet as soon as you mention it's from Wikipedia, it immediately loses any credulity. I'm looking forward to them time when they get people in the field to verify certain pages, and then lock them to the public. Surely then it could be linked, and would be as good as any other site you read as help to a project?
Why is just Wikipedia cheating?

We aren't encouraged to include bibliographies at all, just reference pages of information we actually include ( though they want a figure contents page, which is a nightmare!), and if you include Wiki in your references you can pretty much say goodbye to any sort of impressive grade, and most likely receive a rather scathing comment about being careful what sites you chose. Whilst some of the information may be false or not accurate enough, I still consider Wikipedia an incredible resource.
But we all have to pretend that we don't use it, and read it. Which is a lie I think for almost every single student I have ever met.

Yes, out of all the points in your entry I decide to expand on that one.

While you can respect them, perhaps they don't understand your point of view, and perhaps it is them that has missed something.

With Google books and such, I read their excerpts, particularly if they are text books. My reasoning behind this ( and when does it become an excuse rather than a valid justification?) is that it was put on internet by Google, which got permission from the publisher, often using it as advertising. I tend to only use it to read textbook excerpts, usually because they are ridiculously expensive, and they aren't in the library. I'm not sharing it, and I'm using for academic reasons, and if it truly was useful I would buy it.
Amazon excerpts are kind of giving you the ability to flick through it as you would in a book shop, and I like that.

It is such a wide and complicated subject. But I agree with [livejournal.com profile] smarriveurr, and they raise a very interesting point about copyright infringer. We have all done it, say if you have recorded something off the radio, because strictly? That's illegal.
There really isn't a source which investigates it fully I don't think, in wariness perhaps at encouraging or justifying what copyright infringer's do. It's an idea that is being stolen, and officially that does belong to someone.
Perhaps if no profit is being made by people that don't own copyright, that changes it yet again?

Long reply, but you have got me considering it now.

Date: 2010-08-16 04:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stephiny.livejournal.com
Wikipedia is useful for finding links to various sources of information on a particular subject. It's also great for getting a brief overview of the topic, but it's not useful at all for getting detailed information because it is so open to abuse. Locking entries won't work either because that takes away from what the site actually is. No entry is ever truly complete and as information available changes, the entries evolve to reflect this.

The person who told me that it was cheating said that it was because I should instead be using journals and textbooks as my starting points to gain information, something she deemed appropriate for university students, as opposed to something anyone can access easily. She never got around to saying how exactly that was cheating though. It took me a while to realise that she was probably just being elitist but without knowing all the reasoning I can never be certain :(

I suppose it is entirely possible that they might be missing something, but it feels a bit arrogant to assume that. Well, until I discovered that other people don't completely disagree with me. This makes me feel a little more secure in my reasoning.

The difference with recording from the radio and copying from an album is an issue of quality. I don't know what the legal issues with that are, but if you record something on cassette from a radio then you won't get the whole song, will probably get some DJ talking over the beginning and end, and will get something of inferior quality. If you like it enough to want to hear the whole thing then you need to copy from an album. I think the radio and TV things are actually covered by fair use or something similar, though it's stupid that I can't tell you off the top of my head at the moment. I've read the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act so many times recently that it isn't even making sense anymore!!

Not enough people actually stop and consider it. They tend to instinctively think that it's either right or wrong and not go into why. Consideration is always good, especially if it leads to you buying more.

Profile

stephiny: (Default)
stephiny

July 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 10:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios