http://www.xanga.com/zupermann

she regularly steals people's words right out from their mouth. i know her so therefore shes's a friend and also a foe. we've had a dark past. people have confronted her of this including me and she flatly out denies n says shes just a damn good writer and were all just dyin of envy that she has a great mind and judge her because of our owin insecurities. this girl gotta stop. shes pretentous and a pathological lyer at that....

I checked the site pero hindi ko alam kung primitibo lang ang browser ko dahil wala naman akong makitang "sinulat" kuno nung plagiarist. Anyway nagrequest yung sender na wag ko raw siyang pangalanan dahil kaibigan niya yung culprit. Pinost ko lang dito kasi baka makatulong yung IP address kung may ilan man sa inyo, kung hindi ako, ang nanakawan ng gawa.

...There oughta be a law...

... na a peyups member submitted my article "parang kayo pero hindi" with the subject "you and me, not us" sa... surprise... sa peyups din! how stupid can you get? magpa-plagiarize ka ng article, dun mo pa isa-submit sa mismong pinang-galingan ng article!!!

... na kaya ko sinulat ang article na copycat kasi nakakainis na ang pinaghirapan mong isulat na article ay aangkin lang ng iba.

... na isa sa dahilan kung bakit hindi na ako nagsusulat ng articles sa column ko dito sa peyups ngayon ay dahil sa nananakaw lang naman ng ibang tao. and eventually, sa kakaforward sa email o kakalagay sa mga blogs, napupulot na ng iba at nagiging common term na such as "the kris aquino complex."

I met a very close friend of mine.. had dinner at zao and did some catching up.. she mentioned that I write and post the saddest things she can remember reading.. It made me ask myself, I am that obvious when it comes to my words?

hardliners do not differentiate material property from intangible, intellectual property. they draw upon the full force of institutional copyright law to argue that plagiarism is theft & therefore wrong.

they also go beyond the parameters of this debate, namely:

1. plagiarism discussed is within the context of the peyups.com community
2. plagiarized articles are not sold either by the author to peyups.com or the plagiarizer to anyone else.

...to generalize that plagiarism is and has been a crime for all time, supposedly even during the periods of civilizations when the concept of property did not yet exist.

they appeal from the authority of academia, citing the behavioral conditioning they received there as if the information structure of academia and the internet were one and the same.

softliners are observant of the given parameters, making no sweeping claims about plagiarism outside the givens, are generous with their contributions, are in fact, tolerant of the copy-paste technique asking only that their names accompany their text wherever the text may go.

it's more difficult to persuade the softliners since one readily wishes to grant their simple request. author attribution remains a request and not an obligation in the medium of the internet, this is the premise from w/c our whole issue is based upon & what our anti-plagiarists are whining against.

however, since our softliners eschew any form of material reward for their trouble of what is supposedly the enjoyable act of creative writing, then they are forced to point to the loss of certain grand abstractions when plagiarized. there have been two mentioned so far, Honor/Respect & Justice.

problem with these grand concepts are their varying interpretations from peron to person, so much so that they approach the level of opinion. for example, malatesta and i feel that the deepest honor a living brain can afford an author's ideas, especially dead authors' ideas, are to keep those ideas alive. one way of doing this is to keep those ideas circulating & recirculating in the realm of public discourse. the internet provides the perfect medium for this action as its potential audience is not limited to only a group of peers selected by the author but to anyone with internet access.

the injustice felt by unrecognized authors, in our opinion, pales in comparison to the injustice of depriving a person of information because an author still views her product as spatially and temporally bounded, that is the author is still thinking of her product in material terms where only a certain number of individuals may use it for a certain period of time in a certain location. information, so far, is the the only resource that can be consumed by the planet's population simultaneously. insofar as authorship -and the underlying socio-economic factors that require it- restrict this, malatesta and i prefer that our audience be ignorant & unconcerned of our labels rather than that of our messages/meanings. we are confident that relevant texts speak for themselves and lose no meaning when left un/mislabelled. for example, E=mc^2 loses no meaning if Manny Pacquiao formulated it instead of Albert Einstein. likewise, El Filibusterismo would still had have the same effect on Philippine history even if it was Gloria Arroyo on the cover instead of Jose Rizal. the curious fact that plagiarized peyups.com articles lose all meaning to the author upon appropriation by others bolsters the suspicion that antis are misconstruing identity theft for plagiarism. ---------------------

apologia
i must apologize for the antagonistic tone of my previous posts only insofar as that tone hindered mutual learning. the 2 of us pros still stand by everything that we've said, as it is in our opinion to do so in the same way that despite you anti-plagiarists holding the majority here in peyups.com, your positions are not necessarily true, valid or even of any consequence outsid
Read the rest of this comment...

This comment is not in an effort to presume a false sense of "the intellectual." Rather, it is to present some points on the matter in a more academic way, where we can use our knowledge in our disciplines to the maximum. And yes, I may bore people here, but I think that this is a good way of approaching this problem. Let us use this as an avenue for gaining new knowledge. BTW: I could be wrong on some of my interpretations here.

I think you're taking the concept of "free flow of information" a bit too far here. Information, and the meanings of information, are always attached to those who created or otherwise provided that information (for further reading: Merton, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Habermas, Schutz). For example, the meaning of the equation E=mc^2 is not a mere presentation of the relationships that exist between mass and light. The equation also presents the historical fact that Albert Einstein created that equation. Which means that Einstein's being is part of the equation's constitution of meaning (pace Schutz, phenomenological social theory, Giddens).

We are, however, dealing here with texts. The text's constitution of meaning cannot be separated or abstracted from who made that text (invoking postmodernist theories on literature and social inquiry). The meaning of a text is, concordantly, the meaning of the author. Presentations of syntagyms, sentences and other texts are not mere presentations of information, but presentations of selves (cf Goffman, dramaturgical theory). The Akt of writing is a presentation of the self. In the social world, there can only be one self for every identity that participates in social activity. So not only is plagiarism and/or identity theft illegal, it also runs counter to logic and runs counter to social norms and conventions. So yes, aspergian, information is spatially and temporally bounded: information is fundamentally subject to space, time and existence.

To invoke your argument, however, is a mistaken ontology. A text is part of an instrumentality: (Zuhandenheit) you should know that. Phenomenologically, it's not true that "I wrote this text" (See Heidegger). Rather, "I am this text." We cannot, fundamentally, disembody a knowledge or an idea and abstract it, making it "float." So yes malatesta, people can own ideas.

My thanks, and my apologies to people I may have antagonized/bored.

------------
Selected references:
Goffman, Erving, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, 19__
Natanson, Maurice, Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality, 1962
Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, 1996
Schutz, Alfred, The Phenomenology of the Social World, 1967
Turner, Jonathan, The Structure of Sociological Theory, 2003 (7th ed)

Postscript: Sources, check. Citation, check.

Kapag bumibili ka ng pinirata, kinikitil mo ang buhay ng industriyang nagpapatawa, nagpapaiyak, nagpapalibog at nagpapalipas ng ating oras.

Sundin ninyo ako, mga kapatid. Senador ako at aksyon star. Ako ang batas.

STAP Piracy!
------------------------------
Greetings, valued customer!

We are the Recording Industry Association of America. We represent the combined corporate might of EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music, & Warner, the four richest and largest recording studio owners and record distributors in the world.

We have hired computer programmers known as "crackers" to remotely search your harddrive. If you are found to possess copies of music files with no copyright encryption, then you are guilty of the crime of theft. We have also logged your IP address. Your internet service provider will soon be contacted and ordered to deny you internet access.

We have paid the WTO and lobbied the UN to enforce laws counterparting those we have enacted in the USA to be enforced in all countries where our clients operate. Needless to say, you will be prosecuted, you dirty criminal.

Have a nice day!

------------------------------
Greetings, valued customer!

We are the Motion Picture Association of America. We represent the combined corporate might of Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros, the seven richest and largest film & television studio owners and distributors in the world.

We have hired computer programmers known as "crackers" to remotely search your harddrive. If you are found to possess copies of video files with no copyright encryption, then you are guilty of the crime of theft. We have also logged your IP address. Your internet service provider will soon be contacted and ordered to deny you internet access.

We have paid the WTO and lobbied the UN to enforce laws counterparting those we have enacted in the USA to be enforced in all countries where our clients operate. Needless to say, you will be prosecuted, you dirty criminal.

Have a nice day!

------------------------------
Greetings, valued customer!

We own computer programmers known as "crackers" and have commanded them to remotely search your harddrive. If you are found to possess unregistered or improperly registered Microsoft(TM) products then you are guilty of the crime of theft. We know how to deal with the likes of you. Muhumahahaha!

If you possess Open *nix or Open BSD-based software, you are an evil communist and anarchist.

I am Bill Gates. Enough said.

If one examines subtextual dematerialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the dialectic paradigm of context or conclude that language serves to entrench capitalism. Parry[1] states that we have to choose between capitalism and subdialectic dematerialism. It could be said that a number of theories concerning the failure, and subsequent meaninglessness, of deconstructive society may be found.

"Class is part of the rubicon of consciousness," says Sontag; however, according to Hubbard[2] , it is not so much class that is part of the rubicon of consciousness, but rather the meaninglessness, and eventually the defining characteristic, of class. Sartre uses the term ’subtextual dematerialism’ to denote the common ground between sexuality and society. Therefore, if the dialectic paradigm of context holds, we have to choose between capitalism and neomodernist dialectic theory.

If one examines Baudrillardist hyperreality, one is faced with a choice: either reject subtextual dematerialism or conclude that government is fundamentally used in the service of hierarchy, given that the premise of subcultural theory is invalid. Bataille’s analysis of the dialectic paradigm of context holds that art may be used to disempower minorities. But Lacan uses the term ’subtextual dematerialism’ to denote the role of the writer as artist.

The characteristic theme of Bailey’s[3] essay on the dialectic paradigm of context is the bridge between culture and class. Tilton[4] suggests that we have to choose between subtextual dematerialism and neotextual capitalist theory. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a capitalism that includes language as a whole.

“Art is part of the meaninglessness of culture,” says Sontag. If the poststructuralist paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose between capitalism and textual patriarchialism. But the subject is contextualised into a subtextual dematerialism that includes reality as a reality.

Any number of narratives concerning capitalism exist. However, Sartre promotes the use of subtextual dematerialism to analyse society.

The main theme of the works of Tarantino is a neosemiotic whole. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a dialectic paradigm of context that includes culture as a totality.

Derrida suggests the use of Batailleist `powerful communication’ to deconstruct hierarchy. But an abundance of appropriations concerning the role of the reader as poet may be found.

Bailey[5] implies that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of context and cultural dematerialism. In a sense, many theories concerning the prepatriarchial paradigm of consensus exist.

The primary theme of Pickett’s[6] model of the dialectic paradigm of context is the common ground between consciousness and society. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘capitalism’ to denote the genre, and subsequent rubicon, of textual class.

A number of discourses concerning the role of the participant as artist may be discovered. In a sense, Sontag promotes the use of subtextual dematerialism to read and modify culture.

The subject is contextualised into a precultural theory that includes art as a whole. Thus, Derrida suggests the use of the dialectic paradigm of context to challenge sexism.

The subject is interpolated into a subtextual dematerialism that includes language as a totality. But in Naked Lunch, Burroughs deconstructs Lyotardist narrative; in Port of Saints, however, he denies the dialectic paradigm of context.

If capitalist postdialectic theory holds, we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of context and the cultural paradigm of narrative. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is not deconstruction as such, but subdeconstruction.

1. Parry, K. S. K. (1993) The Absurdity of Class: Capitalism and subtextual dematerialism. Yale University P
Read the rest of this comment...

In the interest of bringing closure to this matter, I'd like to pose a challenge to Aspergian and Co. to engage in an online debate with me (and whoever wants to join in) via an exchange of e-mails, chat or YM on the matter of plagiarism. Simple enough.

Any takers?