Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
To be fair to Amazon, much of what you're talking about isn't, in fact, plagiarism; it's copyright infringement. Similar, but not the same thing. There have been authors that take another's book and rewrite it, in their "own words" forever. There's nothing new there. I mean...for example we've all read Austen in modern times, like the movie Clueless ("Emma"). Or again, with movies, Barb Wire is a remake of Casablanca. Sure, it's a sendup, but it's the same damned movie, when push comes to shove. White House Down is Under Siege, down to the helicopters-crashing scene. The list goes on and on and on. And how many times have we seen remakes of Death Wish? (over and over and over). Give me a few days and I can probably come up with a long list of books that do the same thing.
|
I tend to agree that there seem to be fewer new stories being told in print or on the screen. And as for books, the current trend of mining authors from the 1800's seems to be gaining popularity. That Jane Austen didn't write multiple generation spanning sequels doesn't mean that they should not be written?
Most of the ones I was looking at qualified as what I've seen termed as mosaic plagiarism. OTOH, there is always the old saw about "steal from one source, it's plagiarism, steal from multiple sources, it's research".
OYAH, the dictionary definition of plagiarism seems to be "an act of copying the ideas or words of another person without giving credit to that person".
In the educational environment, plagiarism can be extended to include copying from yourself, for instance, by using a portion of an earlier work without the permission of the professor for whom it was produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
I do admit the whole sparkly vampire thing is just repulsive, but hey, I guess I'm too old to go gaga for boy-band vamps.
|
I don't think I was ever young enough to go for sparkly vampires. Vlad the Impaler as a romantic figure is too hard for me to swallow.