A question on cross posting

[betsy]

Re: plagiarism

Many years ago, I was involved in the writing of a book. Was paid well and pleased with the result. A few years later, I gave a presentation in which I used some materials from the book - materials which I had created. I was "brought to task" by the publisher of the book and warned to "cease and desist" or I would be sued for plagiarism.

Once I got paid for the book I was no longer allowed to use any materials in it - without permission from the publisher.

It was not exactly your book, was it? You were involved in the writing of the book.....and you got paid for it.

That's like selling what you've written, I think. If you've sold it, you relinquished your right to it, I think.

Did you sign any contract?

Edited June 4, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

The premise is the same when the root of all those threads are about creationism.

Three different topics with different premises.

No, the root of the James Tour topic is not creationism. It is about the extrapolation of evolution - macro evolution to be exact, and the politicised science community.

The NAS is about creation -theistic evolution. It does not identify any particular God or god.

The Abrahamic God thread is stating the God of the Bible is the Creator - through given evidences. Though evidences given involve science makes no difference. It is still a separate discussion.

Big difference.

That's an example of what I mean. We see the terms, "God" and "creation".......and we nail it all down and lump them all, as being one subject.

In other words, anything that touches on creation and God would be cross posting if there is already a topic about God?

See? That would be dictatorial and narrow-minded for a forum....don't you think?

This wouldn't be really a forum, if that's the case. If a forum site does that...... it misrepresents itself by identifying

itself as a "forum."

Edited June 4, 2016 by betsy

[Bryan]

Re: plagiarism

Many years ago, I was involved in the writing of a book. Was paid well and pleased with the result. A few years later, I gave a presentation in which I used some materials from the book - materials which I had created. I was "brought to task" by the publisher of the book and warned to "cease and desist" or I would be sued for plagiarism.

Once I got paid for the book I was no longer allowed to use any materials in it - without permission from the publisher.

The publisher may have been asserting rights they did not actually have. Fully signed over work for hire has to be explicitly stated in the contract. Otherwise, the copyright for the materials you actually wrote are yours, not the publishers. Even still, the charge of "plagiarism" would only make sense if the publisher was claiming that you were lying about having written the materials in the first place. You might not have the right to republish or make new profit from old works (depending on the wording of the contract), but that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism -- that specifically means trying to claim someone else's work as your own.

[betsy]

The premise is the same when the root of all those threads are about creationism.

So, if I post a topic that claims, MACRO EVOLUTION SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE

OF GOD.......that would be cross posting, according to you?

Edited June 4, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

No, it's not plagiarism.

and... what is this?

The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author—God Himself.

The Bible was written by fishermen, kings, government officials, priests, farmers, shepherds, and doctors.......and yet, from all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. That unity is due to a single fact: it ultimately has One Author – God Himself.

.

[cybercoma]

The publisher may have been asserting rights they did not actually have. Fully signed over work for hire has to be explicitly stated in the contract. Otherwise, the copyright for the materials you actually wrote are yours, not the publishers.

It doesn't work that way with publishers. They have the distribution rights. You can't publish a book with someone, then print your own copies and spread them around. Likewise, you can't publish a book, then present the information from that book without the publisher's permission. It would be like the actors of a movie acting out scenes from it on their own time or the writer of a movie script selling or reciting that script on the side.

[Bryan]

It doesn't work that way with publishers.

It DOES work that way unless there is a contract explicitly stating otherwise.

They have the distribution rights. You can't publish a book with someone, then print your own copies and spread them around. Likewise, you can't publish a book, then present the information from that book without the publisher's permission. It would be like the actors of a movie acting out scenes from it on their own time or the writer of a movie script selling or reciting that script on the side.

If the contract says you can't do any of those things, then you can't. In the absence of such a contact of that manner, some variations of those things can and do happen.

I deal with these things all of the time. People publish compilations of their own works that were previously published by others. They can't lay claim to or republish the parts they did not write, but their articles and/or artwork remain their own. The creator specifically owns the copyright unless that creator contractually assigns the rights to someone else.

[Big Guy]

I cannot find any copies of the original contract so I cannot comment on the exact wording. The work that was contested was a series of flow charts and what I consider to be process maps.

In this day and age, I doubt if anyone has come up with something new in the way of integrating process with priorities with innovation. I assume that all I would have had to do was change a few arrows or wording to make minor changes from my original and avoid the charge of copying and/or theft of work. I guess this may come under the heading of "intellectual property" - a term I do not understand.

[Argus]

Speaking of cross posting. Is it against the rules for a poster to copy wholesale posts he made on one topic - which was locked, and then repost them on another topic?

[cybercoma]

It DOES work that way unless there is a contract explicitly stating otherwise.

If the contract says you can't do any of those things, then you can't. In the absence of such a contact of that manner, some variations of those things can and do happen.

I deal with these things all of the time. People publish compilations of their own works that were previously published by others. They can't lay claim to or republish the parts they did not write, but their articles and/or artwork remain their own. The creator specifically owns the copyright unless that creator contractually assigns the rights to someone else.

You know many publishers who just print and distribute books for people without having a contract?

[Bryan]

You know many publishers who just print and distribute books for people without having a contract?

Some do, some don't. And the contracts themselves can vary widely. Some will have republishing restrictions, but many will not. Many creators would never sign a contract like that -- they'll negotiate the terms to have those clauses removed.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Bryan

[Charles Anthony]

Philosophers and panels keep debating and discussing the same controversial topics over and over again,

in various venues.....

.......and yet we can't bring up the same topics that had been posted elsewhere, here?

CORRECTION: Philosophers and pan-handlers are invited into various venues to keep debating and discussing the same old same old.

You are all invited to this MLW venue but there are rules and guidelines.

We recognize that a lot of other forums permit cross-posting as a basis to stir discussion. We do not want that here.

You can bring up the same topics but your contribution here in this forum must be substantially different from what is posted elsewhere. Otherwise, your postings are objectively indistinguishable from spamming the board with the same old bunch of "science" links under the guise of an argument or of a debate.

Speaking of cross posting. Is it against the rules for a poster to copy wholesale posts he made on one topic - which was locked, and then repost them on another topic?

In the context of continuing a discussion from a thread that was locked due to derailment, we can permit it within reason.

If you believe somebody has crossed the line, click the Report button associated with the post and we will make a decision.

[betsy]

and... what is this?

The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author—God Himself.

The Bible was written by fishermen, kings, government officials, priests, farmers, shepherds, and doctors.......and yet, from all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. That unity is due to a single fact: it ultimately has One Author – God Himself.

.

What about it? Is it a copy/paste?

Surely you don't think you can't repeat a fact just because that fact is already written by someone else?

You think newspapers are plagiarizing just because they're reporting the same event?

Edited June 6, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You think newspapers are plagiarizing just because they're reporting the same event?

Newspapers will have their own writer who uses their own words to describe the event. That writer would be fired for copying and pasting someone else's writing, as above.

I would think that in terms of limiting plagiarism on a site like this, where the writers are usually anonymous, it would be essential to not allow cross-posting. When the writer is anonymous and the writing exists elsewhere, it would be difficult to ensure it isn't stolen.

[betsy]

When the writer is anonymous and the writing exists elsewhere, it would be difficult to ensure it isn't stolen.

Having different handles, yes I agree to that. I understand about the suspicion of plagiarism from tosca1, thus I had to prove that she and I are the same person.

Edited June 6, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

What about it? Is it a copy/paste?

It is a nearly identical ripoff from someone's blog here: http://wildmenofgod.com/2015/05/the-biblical-mosaic/

Did you write that blog? You copied and pasted it as your own words. That's blatant plagiarism if you didn't write the blog.

You think newspapers are plagiarizing just because they're reporting the same event?

If one newspaper copied from another paper just with a few word changes, then yes. They are indeed plagiarizing. Edited June 7, 2016 by The_Squid

[betsy]

It is a nearly identical ripoff from someone's blog here: http://wildmenofgod.com/2015/05/the-biblical-mosaic/

Did you write that blog? You copied and pasted it as your own words. That's blatant plagiarism if you didn't write the blog.

If one newspaper copied from another paper just with a few word changes, then yes. They are indeed plagiarizing.

Those are facts about the Bible! And no, it's not copy/paste.

Here's another site:

Glossary of Christian Terminology

Bible - a book consisting of 66 books on topics such as law, history, poetry, prophecy, biographies, and epistles (formal letters). About 40 different human authors contributed to the Bible, which was written over a period of about 1500 years. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. The Bible's unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author — God Himself.

The Bible is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).

http://www.eastmainpc.org/resources/glossary.html

and another....

About 40 different human authors contributed to the Bible, which was written over a period of about 1500 years. The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author-God Himself. The Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). The human authors wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, and the result was the perfect and holy Word of God (Psalm 12:6; 2 Peter 1:21).

http://www.jv-seeker.net/Why_Believe.html

And no, I didn't read that blog given by Waldo. I read another apologetics site's, which I frequently use for reference:

What is the Bible? - The Authors

About 40 different human authors contributed to the Bible, which was written over a period of about 1500 years. The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout.

The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author—God Himself. The Bible is “God-breathed” (

2 Timothy 3:16). The human authors wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, and the result was the perfect and holy Word of God (Psalm 12:6; 2 Peter 1:21).

http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-Bible.html

Btw, a lot of apologetics sites are created not only for those who want to understand, but also for Christians who are engaged in debates or discussions, and for those who are asked difficult questions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, this is how some forum member(s) engage in "discussion," with posters whose views they don't agree with, and which they cannot refute. They turn personal, and try to discredit the poster.

It's a tactic to derail the topic, to turn it into a name-calling thread....that would either result in the thread getting locked down, and/or the poster getting infractioned, suspended or banned.

The same names who'd been doing that all the years I've been here, are still very good at doing it......that sometimes I couldn't help but suspect a few ones must be privileged for some special reason.

You are the one most guilty of cross-posting here, actually.

Since my recent return, all you had posted in most of my threads are,"THIS IS A SPAM!" You never actually contributed anything that directly pertains to the topic. That's basically all you say, "This is a spam!"

Methinks, you are promoting a brand for luncheon meat. Spam. Are you getting paid?

You are spamming, in the truest form of that term!

Somebody else said that exact statement, too. The question is: who plagiarized who?

Edited June 7, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

If those weren't your own words, then it was plagiarism, since you didn't cite your source. I know Christian apologetic sites encourage people like you to copy and paste so-called answers from their sites... It's still plagiarism on your part if you pretend that they're your own words.

[Charles Anthony]

Somebody else said that exact statement, too. The question is: who plagiarized who?

No, that is not the question.

The question is: has cross-posting occurred?

ANSWER: Yes.

[The_Squid]

No, that is not the question.

The question is: has cross-posting occurred?

ANSWER: Yes.

I think it goes beyond "cross-posting" when one copies and pastes from the writings of someone else and passes it off as one's own words on this forum.

From the forum rules:

Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely.

[?Impact]

Newspapers will have their own writer who uses their own words to describe the event. That writer would be fired for copying and pasting someone else's writing, as above.

Unless their name is Margaret Wente.

[Smallc]

Unless their name is Margaret Wente.

Funny, I almost posted the same thing.

[betsy]

No, that is not the question.

The question is: has cross-posting occurred?

ANSWER: Yes.

I was responding to him - in the context" that he views "plagiarism."

Edited June 7, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I was responding to him - in the context" that he views "plagiarism."

Everyone views plagiarism in the same way. If you copy and paste someone else's writing without attribution, it's plagiarism. Otherwise known as "stealing."

[waldo]

And no, I didn't read that blog given by Waldo. I read another apologetics site's, which I frequently use for reference:

Somebody else said that exact statement, too. The question is: who plagiarized who?

perhaps you don't recall; in that post I mentioned the blog reference was but one example of several returned by the tool I used to search for that multi-sentence phrasing you wrote. Notwithstanding the liberty you've taken to call that phrasing "factual", you lifted it directly from somewhere... just shifting words, for some reason. Odd that you would need to shift words for something you declare as "facts". In any case, yes, what you wrote does appear in several places, shifted words or not. But there's no attribution given... by you... or anyone in the other examples presented. You wrote it as if they were your words - and, of course, it was quite easy to quickly find several other examples of you doing the same with other phrasing in other posts. As to your direct question, as quoted above: I will suggest you did - from whatever source site you actually drew it from.

.