More support for embattled Philippines law profs
Malaya.com noted some faculty of the College of Law of the Lyceum of the Philippines University have come out in support of the professors who challenged the Supreme Court about an opinion which plagiarized text from law review articles.
The article included the text:
The Lyceum faculty said it found "regrettable" that the Court did not require any person to apologize for the oversight, nor did it see fit to issue a corrected decision in the Vinuya case with proper attribution.
They said that in determining that no plagiarism took place in the Vinuya case, because the evident copying was done without "malicious intent," the SC established a dangerous precedent and lowered the standard of conduct that the court has expected of its officers.
"What will the law professors teach their students now? That it is all right to copy another person’s work without proper attribution as long as there is no "malicious intent?" The reach of the SC’s unfortunate decision will affect not just the legal and judicial professions, but also all fields where ownership of creative work is cherished and protected as sacrosanct," said the group.
The article concluded:
"Lawyers are required to be honest. Dishonesty has been defined by the SC as a ‘disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of probity in principle, of fairness and straightforwardness. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty. The basic definition of plagiarism is the copying and owning of someone else’s work and claiming it as one’s own," the group said.
IPBiz would say plagiarism is copying without attribution, wherein the recipient of the copied text would not recognize the original author of the copied text.
Abraham Lincoln, in his "House Divided" speech, might have expected that his audience recognized that the text about a house divided against itself originated in the Bible.
The article included the text:
The Lyceum faculty said it found "regrettable" that the Court did not require any person to apologize for the oversight, nor did it see fit to issue a corrected decision in the Vinuya case with proper attribution.
They said that in determining that no plagiarism took place in the Vinuya case, because the evident copying was done without "malicious intent," the SC established a dangerous precedent and lowered the standard of conduct that the court has expected of its officers.
"What will the law professors teach their students now? That it is all right to copy another person’s work without proper attribution as long as there is no "malicious intent?" The reach of the SC’s unfortunate decision will affect not just the legal and judicial professions, but also all fields where ownership of creative work is cherished and protected as sacrosanct," said the group.
The article concluded:
"Lawyers are required to be honest. Dishonesty has been defined by the SC as a ‘disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of probity in principle, of fairness and straightforwardness. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty. The basic definition of plagiarism is the copying and owning of someone else’s work and claiming it as one’s own," the group said.
IPBiz would say plagiarism is copying without attribution, wherein the recipient of the copied text would not recognize the original author of the copied text.
Abraham Lincoln, in his "House Divided" speech, might have expected that his audience recognized that the text about a house divided against itself originated in the Bible.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home