Naging paksa sa isang umpukan ang usapin ng pangongopya o plagiarism.
Nababahala daw ang isang dean kuno sa magiging epekto nito sa kabataan dahil para bang nagiging role modeling na ipinapakita ng isang senador na ayos lang na humiram at hindi aminin na hiram iyon.
Kung tiyak na tiyak, walang anumang atubili, siguradong-sigurado at malinaw pa sikat ng araw na ang anumang bagay o kaisipan kaya, ay orihinal ng isang tao o isang grupo ng tao, marapat lang siguro na banggitin man lang kung saan, sino at ano ang pinanggalingan.
Halimbawa ay ang isang researcher na nagpapalabas ng isang ideya na hango sa ideya ng iba, pinalalabas niyang kanya at wala siyang binabanggit na hiniram niya lamang iyon.
Pero merong mga issue din dyan. Sure na sure bang orihinal ang kanyang pinagkopyahan ng ideya na kanyang pinalabas?
Lumitaw nga na sa tunay na buhay mas istrikto ang mga batas tungkol doon sa mga nakasulat o written text. Ang tanong lang: di ba mga tao lang ang gumawa ng batas?
Merong nagsabi na pagdating dun sa naririnig lamang ay hindi dapat masyadong istrikto, pero sabi rin ng iba na hindi nararapat maging istrikto dahil nga sa walang kasiguruhan.
Ang issue ay kapag may magsabing kopya lang ang sinabi o isinulat at ang bigat ng pagpapatunay ay sa balikat ng nagpaparatang nakaatang.
Content scraping is copying and pasting from websites and blogs, and google is branding it as plagiarism. For the one branding, the websites and bloggers are the true or genuine owners of the scraped, copied and pasted contents.
But, can anyone just say that he is the owner or a text or a word or any word or words simply because the west has come up with a word they called “plagiarism”?
Plagiarism is being defined and identified even in the cyberspace and there is a range of attempts to limit online copying, such as disabling right clicking and placing warning banners. Copyrights were also invented.
In the 1st century, the Latin word plagiarius, literally kidnapper, to denote someone stealing someone else’s work, was pioneered by a roman poet Martial, who complained that another poet had “kidnapped his verses.”
Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality emerged in europe only in the 18th century.
The west considered plagiarism as academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry, it is a serious ethical offense, and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.
Enough of these laws and restrictions. Just because people did compile the truth or lies about history and faith in their books, encyclopedias, bible or koran, those who did have full ownership or supposed be to the originators of all the words spoken and written by men and women of the world?
Just because they the first that scripted or printed such data and information whose contents could have been copied or lifted from more ancient manuscripts which were also copied from a much older manuscripts, and so on, and so forth?
so that lawyers can play around with words and say, wisdom?