I know many people share 'copied' articles because they find it interesting or useful and want others to gain from it but there must be that particular malicious individual who finds an article interesting and although knows the name of the writer, deliberately expunges his name from the article, replaces it with 'Copied' and goes ahead to share it with others.
Any time I come across a nice quotation, poem, or write-up and at the end it is attributed to an anonymous writer, I feel bad, it pains me to my bone marrow. It simply means I cannot get to know the writer and probably read his other articles. It is a painful phenomenon to me.
Now, there is a trend where people will share someone's article and will attribute it to nobody but merely indicate that it was copied by writing 'copied' at the top or bottom of the article. They even have an ash tag for it (#Copied). This trend is really becoming popular day by day and it is a worrying act that need to be discouraged. I came across one of these 'copied' articles about 'the other room' which I had seen earlier with the name of the author, being circulated with the name of the author replaced with 'copied'. How come we have an article about 'the other room' - a recent incident - being circulated with 'Copied'?.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
I know many people share 'copied' articles because they find it interesting or useful and want others to gain from it but there must be that particular malicious individual who finds an article interesting and although knows the name of the writer, deliberately expunges his name from the article, replaces it with 'Copied' and goes ahead to share it with others.
While many may not view this act the same way they will view plagiarism, I am of the opinion that anyone who indulges in this act is no less treacherous than a plagiarist. While a plagiarist copies the work of someone and makes it look like his without acknowledging the owner of the work, the, 'copyist' copies the work of someone without attempting to make it look like his but deliberately removes the name of the owner of the work. In this sense, both the plagiarist and the copyist deliberately deny the owner of a work its ownership and therefore put them on the same pedestal. I even find a 'copyist' more malicious than a plagiarist because while a plagiarist is traceable, it is almost impossible to trace a 'copyist'.
A 'copyist' does not only do harm to the writer of an article but also to readers like me who always like to know where an idea originates from and the owner of such idea. Apart from the fact that a 'copyist' denies the writer wider readership, he also creates a cut in the chain of knowledge. A 'copyist' denies a reader the ability to interact or exchange ideas with the the writer. He denies a reader the ability to challenge the idea or view of the author and provide a different view. The 'copyist' denies a reader the ability to collaborate or provide suggestion to the writer based on his understanding of the writer's article. What a copyist does to a writer's article is worse than death, it makes the writer's article a living dead article. It exists but doesn't grow, it remains stagnant. And while it may cause happiness to a reader it also causes sadness to an inquisitive reader who may want to know more about the author or read his other articles. No doubt, a 'copyist' is far more dangerous and poisonous than a plagiarist.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
It is the responsibility of all lovers of knowledge and creativity to discourage this sordid act of copying the works of people and attributing it to 'copied'. Everyone can do his or her bit in stopping this menace, first, by not sharing articles attributed to 'Copied' no matter interesting it may be. I kindly suggest we all do our bit.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });