1. Price writes, “In
drafting a plagiarism policy, we must remember that its readers come
from a variety of cultural contexts, across which definitions of new
and original,
not to mention the value placed on newness and
originality, may
change (95, emphasis original). With this in mind, does Eiola and
Selber’s
work illustrate the fluidity of such terms as originality OR does it
seek to provide a more concrete but broader re-definition of the
terms?
2.
Each of our texts for today,
even Price in a less-extreme way, suggests that we challenge the laws concerning
fair use in some way (unless I misread). This was surprising to me,
simply because in school we are typically taught just to follow the
rules in place about citations, etc. in order to stay out of trouble.
But, taking these readings into account, to what extent should we
discuss challenging these laws with our students, if at all? (I
honestly feel a bit crazy even asking this, because it just seems
like it would just be asking for trouble).
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteI really like your second question. I'm not sure I'll even attempt to answer it, but these were my thoughts: The Selber Johnson-Eilola article acknowledges that the composition community rejects the idea of "the lone genius in the attic," so isn't everything essentially a least a little plagiarized? It's so rare that an original idea is formed completely organically, free of outside influence. So should every creator credit every possible influence on their life and work? I don't think so. So maybe in this way, we're challenging the definition of plagiarism which tries to act like its clearly defined in black and white, when there are clearly shades of gray when it comes to the issue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*Reposting my comment with typos fixed. I really should type my comments outside of the comment boxes so I can better edit them:
ReplyDeleteI wonder how an individual's moral or ethical compass would factor into answering your second question? Challenging these laws seems to usually take a cognizant yet relaxed form of activism. For example, if I am using copyrighted media but believe it is fair use because I am using it in an educational setting and to illustrate a point (not for profit), should I wade into the the intricacies of fair use and copyright law or just present the media anyway? Actively challenging copyright law as anarchist or "extreme copyright leftist," as Rife words it, does not seem that far off from "knowingly push[ing] boundaries/legal-infrastructural framework."