critique

br Boys that they had copied another persons work is said to hold no water since it was trivial

By focusing on the intellectual property doctrine Gladwell gives us an insight into copying of work . He states that , the intellectual property doctrine does not provide an accurate situation of the ethical principle that one should not steal . Stealing is allowed by the doctrine based on how much work a person copies . The protection of copyrights is time limited , a notion that I fully agree with . Gladwell asks , So is it true that

words belong to the person who wrote them just as other kinds of property belong to their owners ? Actually , no He uses the opinion of a Stanford Law Professor to that referring to a copyright as property is misleading

Intellectual-property extremism may also be experienced in literature , according to Gladwell . He compares this to the extremism that has been seen in the business world , where owners on patents use them for their own private interests . The ethical rules in literature advocate against any copying , not even that of a few words . An experience that Gladwell has with his friend who is in the music field supports the view that copying can be accepted only up to certain levels . Gladwell uses this experience explain two aspects in which we can look at copying . Though copying needs to be condemned , it should be seen as a creative process . While true copying should not be allowed because it inhibits creativity , over vigilance in creative expression policing is not necessary

Gladwell experience with Lavery assists us to understanding how borrowing can be done in the right way . Recognizing the difference between borrowing that is merely derivative , and the one that is transformative is vital when it comes to understanding plagiarism . It is people...