Ownership of the customized writing - I don't own the essay and can't do anything except reading it?

It does not give the student the "right" to do anything. What it does do, however, is intentionally and falsely lead the student to believe that he/she owns the document and can freely submit it for academic credit as his/her own work. Any judge will agree.


OBVIOUSLY, you either didn't bother to read the laws in question or are mindlessly blowing smoke out of your arsssse just to spite me. The threshold in the laws is as clear as day: the "reasonably should have known" factor. Anyone who claims ignorance after having offered to transfer copyright to a student will lose. That's a fact.

What does the "courtesy period" do? Judges are not stupid as you, I guess.

Already explained that. Learn how to read.

A copyright gives the student the right to resell the paper he bought. Do you want to keep on denying this as a pathetic attempt to hide your company's greedy practices? Be my guest. ^__^

Where do you get off saying this "any judge would agree" ****? Again, copyright is different from authorship. A person who holds the copyright to a piece is not necessarily its author. As such, giving the student the copyright has nothing to do with whether or not he can submit the work as his own. I think anyone who knows what a copyright is would agree, including judges.


Oh sure, and how is this not your mere imagined interpretation? Do you have any court cases showing precedence that granting copyright falls under this "reasonably should have known" factor?

What you explained is just bulls-i*, and I have no interest in reading that.

industry rules

1. apply lipstick.
2. consider pig.

CopyRight != SubmitRight

Are you retarded? Seriously, retarded? One cannot ethically OR legally submit for academic credit any document that he/she did not write him/herself. Inherently, the writer owns the copyright. For academic works, ONLY the writer can submit for academic credit. Therefore, as the law specifically relates to ACADEMIC WORKS, the writer, copyright holder, and submitter must be the SAME person (i.e., the student). Since a company and/or paid writer cannot submit the document on behalf of the student, you lose.

I think you are not familiar with what is called "moral rights". Read it.

[tmweb.com/copyright.asp] Moral Rights

Even if an owner sells his copyright to someone else, he still retains what are called "moral rights". This means that no one, including the person who owns the copyright, is allowed to distort, mutilate or otherwise modify your work in any way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation. Your name must also be associated with the work as its author, if reasonable in the circumstances. In addition, your work may not be used in association with a product, service, cause or institution in a way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation without your permission."

"I think that you are not familiar with" basic comprehension. What you typed is in no way a counter to what I typed.

WB, you are actually mixing the definitions of copyright and plagiarism. Would you mind to be "schooled"?

plagiarism checker/plagiarism-vs-copyright.php

"Plagiarism doesn't have to include copyright infringement. For example, William Shakespeare's plays are not copyrighted because they're too old. Even though it would technically be legal to copy from one of those plays for an English assignment, it would still be plagiarism if you didn't give credit to Shakespeare. Your teacher may not be able to take you to court over it, but she can certainly give you an F. You might even get suspended or expelled from school. Even though copying one sentence from a Web site is legal according to United States copyright laws, that may still count as plagiarism in your teacher's book."

"I think that you are not familiar with" basic comprehension. What you typed is in no way a counter to what I typed.

Huh? I think you are facing THE comprehension problem, and you saying so means you want me to explain it to you over and over again. Please get enrolled in a school, or, maybe you should contact a psychiatrist. ;)

Why do I lose? You just reiterated my point. Even if the company gives the copyright to the student (as it should), the student cannot submit the work because he isn't its author. As such, copyright has nothing to do with the right to submit the paper for academic credit.

Maybe you should lie down and take something... >.<

Wow, you just don't understand the main point of contention, and that is the "reasonably should have known" aspect of the laws. If you offer to transfer copyright, you will be convicted. Period.

That's your interpretation of "reasonably should have known," and you're wrong.

We know you can't admit that companies withhold copyright because they want to leech more money out of their writers' work; we get it. No matter how utterly stupid you look, you will not give up a position that's likely earning your company a few extra bucks at the customer's expense.

^____^

Silly. No company will be convicted. You associate this factor with copyright transfers, but not with your silly "courtesy period" concept. Companies will never be called in courts when they transfer copyrights, because even if students submit papers bought from them, schools will not institute legal proceedings against them. This is what I meant by providing the concepts of plagiarism. Submitting others' work is plagiarism, not necessarily copyright infringement.

I think I should have started the debate by providing the legal interpretation of copyright. Copyright is basically the right to copy, edit, modify, improve, etc., (plus the right to prevent the reselling of) the thing the customer has bought the copyright of. I provided the explanation of moral rights to make you understand that copyright transfer does not indicate the transfer of authorship. Similarly, the companies having the copyrights of the papers do not own the authorship, which is quite clear by the fact that companies resell the papers under the name of the original writer. You don't understand it does not mean judges don't know it. To make it more clear let's consider this: The customer of a beer does not own the copyright, but the right to USE the product as he/she wants.

Actually your "reasonably should have known" concept applies to ghostwriting where the writer is transferring the authorship to the customer, BUT ghostwriting is not considered as illegal (but unethical) because the original author has right to transfer ANY rights to the customer. The main point is: Copyright is not ALL Rights. Got it now?


I missed a point here. Ghostwriting is not illegal for many works but academic works, by the way. To understand, consider the same "reasonably should not have known" aspect of law. This is how the law works.

Now, shut up, WB!

Wow. Thanks for putting your sheer ignorance on public record. Look up the Boston University lawsuit of 1995-1997. You have lost the privilege of contributing to this discussion because you have just PROVEN that you don't have a clue.


A company can NOT be convicted for providing example research and retaining copyright of the written document (which is SPECIFICALLY "OK'd" in the laws). A company CAN be convicted for offering to transfer copyright, which is also specifically "OK'd" in the laws. Dob't let facts get in the way of your propaganda.

Oh, and if you have some sort of proof that I own a company, I would LOVE to see it.

Stupid, foreign **** . . . . Stop trying to interpret American law. You're clueless.

Your quoted text is in no way a counter argument to my post. Can you not read the word ghost writing? Is that only a company research, too?

You are a stupid American **** who is not able to interpret American law. You are ignorant.

The two cases of copyright, as far as my knowledge goes, are internationally acceptable. For instance, 153 Member countries of the WTO can transfer a patent or a patented product (or a process) to a third party. The TRIPs Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) lays down all such provisions that protect IPRs. In the case of model essays, we see the same logic. This makes the industry and the work of writers legit. I do not understand why people keep on bragging against it, and yet they write.

There you go again inserting your opinions into facts. A company cannot be convicted for providing example research, period. Retaining copyright has nothing to do with it.


No, they can't. Granting copyright has nothing to do with the legal obligation of a company to duly inform their clients that the work that they are sold cannot be submitted for academic credit. Companies do not grant copyrights because they want to make more money off their writers' work at THEIR CLIENTS' EXPENSE. ^____^


Do you honestly think that anyone here believes that you're just some concerned citizen? Keep defending your company's unfair practice that robs clients regardless of the quality of work provided.

Can't you read? I mean, really?


This is true!


This is also true! (them = students)


You keep ignoring this because you lose here, ignorant fool.

As for your stupid "reasonably should not have known" thing:



Period.

F?*k off, WB. You have lost the debate.

Wrong, child. READ THE DAMN LAWS THAT I QUOTED. Search for "copyright" on each respective page. It's right there in black and white!


For probably the 10th time, see "threshold." You had better hope and pray that you never find yourself in an American courtroom, because you don't have the slightest fu**-n clue how American law works.

As for you, amnateeb, you're a hapless donkey. You can barely type/speak the language, let alone understand and properly interpret English-language laws. You offer no valid arguments and no challenge, so I will tend to ignore you from this point forward.

So just because "copyright" is mentioned in the law, it should already mean what you say it means? The "provided such publication or other written material shall NOT be intended for submission..." clause is duly addressed by the warning of essay sites that their products are model papers only and should not be submitted for credit. By giving that warning, the site duly informs the client of the limitation of use of the product under state laws. Even if the company gives the copyright, it cannot be held liable so long as the court believes that it was able to inform the student about the limitations and DID NOT encourage the student to go beyond such limitations. On the other hand, even if the company did not give the copyright, if the court finds that it did encourage the student to submit the work for credit by say, implying to the student that they have 6 months to do so, then the company can be held accountable.

Again, copyright is not authorship. It's sad that you find this concept impossible to grasp. However, it's not unexpected considering the many other ridiculous assertions that you've made over the years.

Oh right, and keep ignoring the issue about your company making money out of its clients' expense. ^____^

You're quite confused, child.

Actually, I am a human, but you are a J-A. You have been inconsistent in your arguments throughout the debate. For the evidence, refer to your stupid arguments again. The logic and validity of my arguments is clearly shown by the fact that many people agreed to my opinions, and you...still alone and looking like an ass clown. You have kept ignoring my points for you have no logical argument to present. I pity you, EFL crackpot. Are you really not able to understand American laws (even though they are written in English language.)? Maybe your language skills are at the level of "countless ESL writers" who barely speak English. Lol!

Randomly boldfaced text followed by meaningless one-liners don't prove points. Still, knock yourself out. ^_^

Um, until you can provide proof that I own or even work for any company, your baseless insinuation does not deserve a response.

The intellectual property to the written paper automatically transfers to the students upon submission. That is, unless the company has a specific rider that states the paper is to be used only as a model and not submitted for a grade. However, the caveat is, if the student ordered an original paper, then it can be submitted for a grade and the rights belong to the student who paid for the paper. It is important to ask about the paper ownership before placing an order because of the conflicting, sometimes confusing rules in place at various companies.

Everything I write is completely original and my clients own anything that they pay me to write for them and it's none of my business what they choose to do with the product once they own it. However, the vast majority of essay companies absolutely do not transfer copyright to customers (even for "original papers") and they expressly prohibit them from doing anything with the product other than reading it and citing it as a reference within the essays that their clients write for themselves. Just read the TOS of any essay company whose services you might be considering if you want to know what their policies are about copyright ownership and how they allow customers to use their product.

@FreelanceWriter: Cite, who is unlikely to respond to you, has proven over and over on this forum that he has little knowledge about how a legitimate essay provider works. It seems like he's operating out of someplace where anything goes, so his dim views of common industry practice and copyright law are no big surprise. Your response to what I call Cite's ongoing disinformation campaign is a good one, and clears up this thread a bit.

The problem is, Cite can learn a lot from a response like this, and tailor the facade of his operation accordingly. Although it is hard to resist, and I do it, too, I think that people should stop helping Cite by telling him how legit operations work. It seems very unlikely that he is going to thank you in any way, and it also seems unlikely that he is going to see the light and start operating a legit business, when the laws of wherever he is won't compel him to.

These days the writing companies make it clear that the company owns the model paper and the client is not allowed to submit the essay for grading under any circumstance. The retained ownership is meant to cover their liablity in the event that the student is discovered to have used a writing service. Unless the company clearly transfers the rights in the TOS, the student should not assume he owns the paper. All he can do is use it as a reference. If the company or writer retains the rights then yes, either of them can resell the paper numerous times.

You see what I mean? "These days" being the 1970s, if you're in the US/UK market. Cite is catching up, thanks to all of the blabbermouthed doofuses ON this forum.

Luckily, he can't seem to shake his tells. Thank God English is nearly impossible to learn!