Faculty of Humanities and Social Science > Law

Interesting speech of Law

(1/1)

Farhana Helal Mehtab:

Sharing an interesting speech of a Law a School Graduate Speaker:

Law School Graduation Speaker: Oh, Are We Not Allowed to Plagiarize Speeches?
Preston Mitchum just graduated from North Carolina Central University's law school. He had the honor of giving a speech at graduation. Instead of writing his own speech, Preston decided to plagiarize the one above, that he found on YouTube.

Now, Preston Mitchum is surely not the first graduation speaker to plagiarize his speech. What makes him special is that he thought that doing so would be just fine.

Mitchum copied the speech, delivering parts of it word for word at Friday's ceremony for graduate and professional students at NCCU. In an interview Monday, he said he meant to credit [the speech's author, Binghamton University's Anthony] Corvino in the speech. He didn't...

    "I just don't want this to have an effect on my career," said Mitchum.

Corvino even tells the local paper that Michum asked his permission to use his speech, as if it would be fine to use someone else's law school graduation speech word for word, as long as you get their permission.

Preston Mitchum, we have no doubt, will be in politics sooner or later.

source: http://gawker.com/5803511/law-school-graduation-speaker-oh-are-we-not-allowed-to-plagiarize-speeches

riaduzzaman:
Copying is not bad if the purpose is for serving mass people as our politicians believes that.

shyful:
Dear Ma:am

Assalamualikum

Its an interesting and argumentative  issue  to determine the extent of copyright protection  in practice in everywhere of the world. Very recently I have read  out a judgment (I would like to share ) given by  the United States Supreme Court(In Sony v.Universal  City Studios)  whereas it  stated  that “every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation  of the monopoly  privilege that  belongs to the owner of the copyright. But that learned court didn't make it clear in that judgment ,what actually  meant by monopolistic right? the argument  here might not be with the issue of copyright, it should be  protected  and  perhaps in moral sense we  cannot deny it . The question  is here with the monopoly right and its extent. which might be raised in line with the economic interest  of any state. Isn't it ? 

Thanks

Navigation

[0] Message Index