Monday, December 13, 2004
Columbia Graduate School Dean Plagiarizes Memo On Plagiarism
On November 18, Dean David Schizer of Columbia Law School sent out an email to the student body equating file-sharing with plagiarism and labeling it a violation of academic integrity. He stated at the beginning of the message that it was being sent at the request of Lee Bollinger, President of the University. (You can read the original message here.)
I emailed my Law and the Internet Society class list with the following response:
From: mrn2101@columbia.edu
To : lis@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:22:50 -0500
Subject: Fwd: Reminder about file-sharing
Anyone up for deconstructing the message we all just got from Schizer? I'll kick it off:
2. "Original thought". What, we should make our own music instead of listening to other people's music? Somehow, I don't think that Schizer's two criteria for relating copyright law to intellectual integrity apply to file-sharing.
3. Why is Plagiarism capitalized? Is this a reference to the section of the university code of conduct or something?
And, more generally:
7. What the hell is this about? Why this message, and not an email from the Dean reminding us that threatening the life of the President of the United States is a federal offense? Or a reminder that jay-walking is illegal? Schizer talks about recently stepped-up enforcement -- the real content of the message -- but his "intellectual honesty" fig-leaf is really distasteful. This is a piece of theater designed to demonstrate the university's official opposition to file-sharing, and the audience is the MPAA and RIAA. This email was sent, not to the student body, but to the legal record in future litigation, and I wish it were labeled as such.
Yesterday John Axcelson, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, sent out the same memo, less the disclaimer at the top about it originating from the office of the President. (You can read Axcelson's message here.) [Thanks to Timothy Waligore of the Political Science department for bringing this to my attention.]
So here we have a memo making dubious comparisons between file-sharing and plagiarism and reminding students about the importance of attributing work to its original author. And it's been sent out under several different people's names.
Irony.
Interestingly, the text is formatted differently in the two messages, and some other minor changes have been made (e.g. Axcelson's message corrects the "tools"/"works" error.) Presumably this text originated with Columbia's legal counsel, got approved by President Bollinger, and was distributed to the deans of the various schools for dissemination to the student body. Schizer was at least honest in implying that he had not composed the message himself, but it looks like Axcelson needs to re-read the part about the importance of "proper credit for others' work".
I emailed my Law and the Internet Society class list with the following response:
From: mrn2101@columbia.edu
To : lis@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:22:50 -0500
Subject: Fwd: Reminder about file-sharing
Anyone up for deconstructing the message we all just got from Schizer? I'll kick it off:
Intellectual honesty is the foundation of our academic lives. Original thought and proper credit for others' work is central to learning and teaching. Like Plagiarism, violation of copyright is a serious breach of the commitment to intellectual integrity that you made when you came to Columbia Law School.1. "Proper credit"? Is Schizer actually sending this out to remind us to attribute mp3s to the original recording artists? Most mp3s are tagged properly, so this doesn't seem like an actual problem. Which must mean he's concerned about...
2. "Original thought". What, we should make our own music instead of listening to other people's music? Somehow, I don't think that Schizer's two criteria for relating copyright law to intellectual integrity apply to file-sharing.
3. Why is Plagiarism capitalized? Is this a reference to the section of the university code of conduct or something?
As indicated in that letter, the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs such as Kazaa and Morpheus to make and share copies of copyrighted music and movies is a violation of copyright law and university policy.4. He slips out of his "maybe" language here. Again, fair use gets left by the wayside as a mere historical footnote, soon to be swept up by Congress and dumped into the dustbin.
Virtually any work you find whether software, music, videos or e-mail; whether on the internet, a CD, DVD, or tape, is almost certainly protected by copyright.5. Right. Free software, creative commons works, public domain material -- these things are also exceptions, annoyances, appendices, soon to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Copyright owners scan our network every day for unlawful use of their tools6. I assume this is a typo -- surely he means "... their works"?
And, more generally:
7. What the hell is this about? Why this message, and not an email from the Dean reminding us that threatening the life of the President of the United States is a federal offense? Or a reminder that jay-walking is illegal? Schizer talks about recently stepped-up enforcement -- the real content of the message -- but his "intellectual honesty" fig-leaf is really distasteful. This is a piece of theater designed to demonstrate the university's official opposition to file-sharing, and the audience is the MPAA and RIAA. This email was sent, not to the student body, but to the legal record in future litigation, and I wish it were labeled as such.
Yesterday John Axcelson, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, sent out the same memo, less the disclaimer at the top about it originating from the office of the President. (You can read Axcelson's message here.) [Thanks to Timothy Waligore of the Political Science department for bringing this to my attention.]
So here we have a memo making dubious comparisons between file-sharing and plagiarism and reminding students about the importance of attributing work to its original author. And it's been sent out under several different people's names.
Irony.
Interestingly, the text is formatted differently in the two messages, and some other minor changes have been made (e.g. Axcelson's message corrects the "tools"/"works" error.) Presumably this text originated with Columbia's legal counsel, got approved by President Bollinger, and was distributed to the deans of the various schools for dissemination to the student body. Schizer was at least honest in implying that he had not composed the message himself, but it looks like Axcelson needs to re-read the part about the importance of "proper credit for others' work".
