Plagiary and moralism

Can you answer this question: is plagiarism a moral or a legal issue? What's the difference?

For the purposes of answering this question, we have bookended the glorious spectrum of human experience with two works:Christopher Ricks' article "Plagiarism" in Allusion to the Poets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) and an Interview withthe late Novelist Kathy Acker from Hannibal Lecter, My Father (New York: Semiotext(e), 1991) in which she discusses her techniques of authorship and plagiarism.

First provocation.

Ricks suggests that the definition of plagiarism is not in question-- that it is only the truth of an accusationof plagiarism that can be questioned. Ricks, being English, chooses the OED:

The wrongful appropriation, or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression ofthe ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical) of another.

Interestingly, the American definition from Webster's 3rd Int'l adds:

to commit literary theft: to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

quoting, paraphrasing, or otherwise using another's words or ideas as one's own withoutproperly crediting the source. Rice Honor Council

Ricks stresses the notion that plagiarism is plagiarism when it is conducted "with an intent to deceive." Given what we'vediscussed about the vagaries of authorial intention, is such deception clear cut? What distinctions might we make?

"using another's words with an intent to deceive."

• that I said this. (deceive with respect to author)
• that this is true. (deceive with respect to truth)
• that I own this. (deceive with respect to right)
• that I experienced this
• that I discovered this
• that I researched this
• that this was told to me
• that I have it on good authority
• that I found this
• that this is obvious

That no moral position is natural does not itself entail that moral positions are nothing but the insistences of power...the extirpationof ethical or moral considerations by such political history is a sad loss...(Ricks p. 223)

Second provocation.

Is plagiarism theft?

What exactly is stolen?

• words?
• ideas?
• style?
• form?
• look and feel?
• hard work?
• originality?
• identity?
• credit?
• right?
• fame?

Far from lumbering, intellectual property law is limber, well aware of the complications. But, to moralconsiderations the law must always offer a handshake at arm's length. For although the law is a moral matter, beingdistinguishable form but not distinct from justice, the law acknowledges that there is a moral world elsewhere. (Ricks, p.224)

Cultures differ in their views about the ownership of ideas. In some cultures people believe that ideas,like air and sunshine, cannot be owned, and they do not acknowledge those who first publish ideas. Some countries areonly now developing laws for ownership of patents and copyrights. Rice University is not part of such traditions: itfollows Western conventions for dealing with intellectual properties. Its Code of Conduct acknowledges the uniqueintellectual contributions of individuals at the same time it recognizes that all individuals rely on the concepts, creations,and inventions of others. Although some students come from countries and cultures that do not recognize individualcontributions to knowledge, Rice University expects these students and all other students and faculty to participate in anacademic community that honors the intellectual work of others and acknowledges their influences. This community's commitmentis formally recorded in a system of rules called The Honor Code. Rice Honor Council

Third provocation.

If I had to be totally honest I would say that what I'm doing is breach ofcopyright--it's not because I change the words---but so what? We're always playing a game. We earn our money out of the stupid lawbut we hate it because we know it's a jive. What else can we do? That's one of the basic contradictions of living in capitalism. Isell copyright that's how I make my money... The work isn't the property, it's the copyright. (Acker, p.12)

Question: Is Kathy Acker more or less moralistic than Ricks?

Question: Is Kathy Acker's "method of plagiarism" original? Consider what she says about it:

What a writer does, in 19th century terms, is that hetakes a certain amount of experience and he "represents" that material. What I'm doing is simply taking text to be the same asthe world, to be equal to non-text, in fact to be more real than non-text, and start representing text. So it's quite clear, I took the Harold Robbins and represented it. I didn't copy it. I didn't say it was mine.

Here's an example, from "Great Expectations" of Acker's more direct form of plagiarism.

Mr Jaggers had duly sent me his address; it was, Little Britain, and he had written after it on his card, `just out of Smithfield,and close by the coach-office.' Nevertheless, a hackney-coachman, who seemed to have as many capes to his greasy great-coat as he wasyears old, packed me up in his coach and hemmed me in with a folding and jingling barrier of steps, as if he were going to takeme fifty miles. His getting on his box, which I remember to have been decorated with an old weather-stained pea-green hammerclothmoth-eaten into rags, was quite a work of time. It was a wonderful equipage... (Great Expectations, Chapter 20).

My lawyer Mr. Gordon duly sent me his address; and he wrote after it on the card "just outside Alexandia, and close by the taxi stand."Nevertheless, a taxi-driver, who seems to have as meany jackets over his greasy winter coat as he is years old, packs me up in histaxi, hems me in by shutting the taxi doors and closing the taxi windows and locking the taxi doors, as if he's going to take mefifty miles. His getting into his driver's seat which is decorated by an old weather-stained pea-green hammercloth,moth-eaten into rags, is a work of time. It's a wonderful taxi... (Great Expectations, part 1, chapter 2)

Question: What kind of moralism does willful plagiarism represent, and is it different from the moralism of Ricks?

What is the implication of accusing Acker of plagiarism? Is it a moral denunciation or a political one? Is Acker's plagiarism moral orpolitical? What would it mean to accuse her of copyright infringement and how is, or should it be distinguished?