Cyberlaw M6,7,&8
1. Answer to the following discussion question: (Minimum 250 words with 2 APA references)
Describe an instance of plagiarism or other use of another’s intellectual property with which you are familiar. Please give one argument condemning this conduct and one argument defending it.
2. Respond to the following discussion post which was posted by another student (minimum 100 words) - Atilla Genc
Plagiarism happens where an individual (or individuals) presents the information, ideas, expression, or the entire work that is owned by another person as their own (Yadav, Gautam, & Baxi, 2016). It is categorized as a type of fraud because it is deceiving others to get their value of work. In this essay, we are going to discuss an instance of plagiarism, together with the arguments of the action.
A lot of the authors' international and local have been accused of plagiarism. A good instance of plagiarism that I am familiar with is the one which was committed by Jane Goodall on her book by the title "Seeds of Hope" (The Economic Times, 2018). It was said that Goodall plagiarized some of the content from Wikipedia and other websites and articles. One of the authors whose material was copied posted the plagiarism act of Goodall, which made her feel very embarrassed. Later, Goodall defended herself by saying the incident occurred as a result of the poor skills in taking notes, which was a careless mistake (The Economic Times, 2018).
From one point of view, the act committed by Goodall was not acceptable. She should either take the main points and regenerate into new ideas, or she should have cited the authors of the work which she plagiarized. She did not do choose to do this. I think the fraud that she was accused of is a big mistake and cannot be termed as a careless mistake, as she claims. The whole affair seems like plain plagiarism, hence a very big mistake.
From the other point of view, let us assume Goodall was sincere about her explanation. As hard as it seems to believe that the amount of work was copied by accident, according to some psychologists (Taylor, 2005), it can happen. It is called cryptomnesia, and it occurs when the author thinks the ideas that he or she read/saw before was their original idea (Taylor, 2005). She took some of the information from the various sources that she thought were relevant, noted them, and later thought it was her ideas. In this case, we can argue that the only thing which happened is the careless mistake, which cannot be termed as plagiarism.
On September 28, 1999 Amazon was granted a patent for 1-click technology. Also known as one-click buying, using 1-click technology customers make an online purchase in a single click without having to manually input billing and shipping information every time they purchase a product. 1-click uses a billing address and credit card or other payment info that is saved in the user's account.
Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble 1-Click patent lawsuit: There have been several patent disputes surrounding 1-click technology, including a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Barnes & Noble in 1999—only a month after Amazon's patent was issued. Barnes & Noble offered a checkout option called "Express Lane," where shoppers can purchase with one click. The lawsuit was settled in 2002 without disclosing the terms. Currently, Barnes & Noble.com customers require a minimum of two clicks of the mouse to make a purchase. The company modified its single-click system to comply with a court injunction obtained against it by Amazon.com. Later, Barnes & Noble.com won a repeal of that injunction pending the resolution of the court case, but it did not implement the single-click system. Critics of Amazon patent have always argued that it gives the company an unfair monopoly on what amounts to little more than an efficient means of using standard technology.
The risk, they point out, is that other web sites must make their shopping systems intentionally less efficient to avoid infringement, which in effect suffocate e-commerce. Many observers of the case will be disappointed that the companies have settled, rather than going to court and obtaining judicial guidance.