Is Plagiarism Merely the New Sampling - Essay Example

Is plagiarism merely the new "sampling? In today’s world where every person is trying to seek something new and explore new ways to attract people and be famous, it has become difficult to recognize who has developed his own results and who has merely rewritten the information of the other. This confusion is not limited to the literature, arts, scientific research but also involves music. How can people then save their work from being stolen? This is the question that makes it difficult for people to continue the legitimacy of their work. Many researchers are seeking to know a single response to this question but the arguments and disagreements persist. ‘Plagiarism’ and ‘sampling’ are the two concepts which are often confused by people but both of them have different meanings and underlying theory. This paper aims to prove the claim that Plagiarism is not merely another name given to sampling. The two concepts differ widely on the grounds of using others work. It is important to first understand the definition of both terms. Sampling or digital Sampling may be defined as “the recording of a sound or a portion of a previously existed sound recording” in a new and creative way (Kohn & Kohn, 2002 ch. 24). The use of sampling refers to the use of short phrases which cannot be altered due to limited availability of notes in music, phrases and so on. For musical compositions, sampling refers to the use of 3-5 notes at a time which are too small to be altered (Kohn & Kohn, 2002 ch. 24). An existing and continually developing example of sampling is the emergence of rap. The DJs in the late 1970s began to play 2 songs, of Neil diamond and Barbara Streisand, which were composed on the same musical key and the encouraging response from the listeners led the two singers mix their songs together. They used samplings form the two songs and produced a new way to earn fame. Hence, sampling may not be constituted as a mere substitute of the term plagiarism (Barnet & Burriss, 2001 p 77). It has been observed that unlike other concepts plagiarism lacks a universal definition to incorporate all possible ways that need to be addressed. The definition of plagiarism varies from country to country, region to region and even from one organization to the other. The most common definitions to explain this term state that it is an act to “take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions etc.) of another person as one’s own” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Another definition to define it in a better way defines it as an act to “steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use another’s production without crediting the course; to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source” (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Plagiarism is defined by different authors in different ways. However, the easiest definition can be “the act of using the words (or work) of another without giving the originator credit” (Anderson 1998, p.201). Plagiarism refers to copying someone else’s idea and words without any prior acknowledgement to the original owner of the material. Moreover, using someone else’s work without indicating that it belongs to them is also plagiarism. For example, if a person makes the following text: “While the absence of one universally accepted definition of diversity management may have an attraction to employers in that it can be moulded to suit the prevailing organisational priorities, a lack of clarity about what ‘managing diversity’ means can lead to inconsistencies and the dominance of expediency among those required to put the concept into practice” as a part of their assignment or paper without referring to the original writer (i.e. Carley Foster and Lynette Harris) or text (i.e. Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail) this part of text is plagiarized. However, if someone wants to use others work or research he can use it and provide a reference within the text and/or at the end of the paper on a separate page to confirm that it is not their own efforts to find out certain facts but they have just used others knowledge. This act of getting prior permission changes the whole concept from the negative (i.e. plagiarism) to the positive (i.e. sampling). Plagiarism is a problem which is difficult to be handled because unlike other frauds and thefts (e.g. Property, money, jewellery etc.) it is difficult to recognize the frauds of intangible objects. The problem is so intense and difficult to handle because almost all matters are now being discussed by people and it becomes very difficult to come up with something that has never been published anywhere. Hence we may say that sometimes plagiarism is unplanned. However, people plagiarize deliberately too, sometimes to save their time, sometimes to be famous on others ideas and sometimes to avoid the struggles of creating original stuff. It is more prevailing and increasingly becoming a problem for the new generation as they have easy access to the materials via internet and online libraries and they are no more encouraged to carry out the research of their own. Sampling on the other hand provides more time to the researcher, composer or writer to use the existing compositions, writings or findings and concentrate on the new issues that may be helpful. For instance, it is quite useless to waste time on an already existing melody composed by the other musician just to ensure that it is not copied. It is infringement even to follow others’ ideas or compositions intentionally without their consent. Sampling gave rise to Rap and other artistic qualities in the music industry. Music sampling provides a good example of how sampling works and what makes it different from plagiarism. Artists use their own songs and melodies to produce new and more energetic compositions to attract audience. Hence, sampling cannot be linked to copying others’ work only. It involves using your own previously developed ideas by certain changes or modifications (Barnet & Burriss, 2001 p. 78). The concept of plagiarism and sampling are closely related. Both involve using the work of the other. However, it is crucial to understand the vast difference that exists between them. The use of others’ work with their consent or acknowledgement or at least by referring it to be the original owner’s property is not plagiarism but sampling. Sampling is usually not considered as offensive since it does not disenfranchise or deceive people. The most prominent line between these two concepts is the acknowledgement. Plagiarism constitutes an offensive and ethically and culturally unacceptable way of presenting work and efforts of other people. An emerging problem and risk associated with these two concepts is the perception of people that everything they mix in their own creation is sampling. This concept however is flawed since there are a number of principles, rules and laws created to save the rights of ownership of the original creators (Barnet & Burriss, 2001 pp. 78-80). What are the factors that involve people in plagiarism rather than using the positively attributed phenomenon of sampling? The answer to this question is of immense importance as many people especially the younger generation are facing difficulties for violating copyright laws. The lack of information and guidelines about sampling are leading to such difficult situations (Negativeland, 1995). Lack of information about referencing and acknowledgement requirements lead to unwanted behaviours. In today’s changing world and technologically advancing society it has become easier for the students to plagiarize than creating their own creations. The decision however, lies on people how they want to use the resources; either as a copying tool or as a tool for modification and improvement in the relevant area (Baruchson-Arbib and Yaari, 2004). In conclusion, we can say that although the concepts are strongly related, they differ in their conceptual framework. The concepts are dependent on the people how they use others’ information and present it to others. The main problem with sampling is the fact that people may misuse this concept easily violating other’s right of ownership. The laws related to plagiarism and unfair sampling is required to be stricter and must be implemented to save such violation of intellectual property rights. Plagiarism is not another name of sampling neither sampling can constitute the term plagiarism since the conceptual difference lies between them is great and must be considered. Music is a powerful example of sampling where composers use different music or parts of a melody to create a new one for their own piece of music. This artistic and clever combination of two or more melodies, musical notes or themes is hence called sampling. Whereas copying the whole poem, lyrics, melody or musical notes without any instance of change or prior permission can easily be judged as plagiarism. Plagiarism is also detected in instances where melodies are slightly modified or the written words are paraphrased without giving credit to the creator of those pieces of work. More rules, guidelines and laws are needed to stop the issues related to it and to pressurize the educational institutes on developing awareness about these concepts for better future outcomes. Bibliography: Negativland (Musical group). Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2. Concord, Calif: Seeland, 1995. Barnet, Richard D., and Larry L. Burriss. Controversies of the Music Industry. Contemporary controversies. Westport, Conn: Greenwood, 2001. Baruchson-Arbib, Shifra and Eti Yaari. " Printed Versus Internet Plagiarism: A Study of Students Perception." International Journal of Information Ethics. Vol. 1 (2004) Anderson, J. (1998). Plagiarism, copyright violation, and other thefts of intellectual property: An annotated bibliography with a lengthy introduction. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &. Foster, C., & Harris, L. (2005). Easy to say, difficult to do: diversity management in retail. Human Resource Management Journal. 15 (3), 4-17. Kohn, Al, and Bob Kohn. Kohn on Music Licensing. New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002. Read More