A moral dilemma for you, Gentle Reader.
You are a self-described devout, "Bible-believing" Christian. Let's say you're called, erm… Hob Button? Yeah, that sounds about right. Anyways, Hob, old chap, you have a blog. On this blog you have published a poem. You didn't write this poem, but you decide to present it without citing either an author or a source. Indeed, you don't even mention that you didn't write it.
Not to point too fine a point on this, Hob old bean, but you have, in fact, plagiarised this work, haven't you.
But, anyway, moving on…
When a kindly commenter, who we'll call Dez, for the sake of anonymity, and who has—ahem—only your best interests at heart, points out to you that the work in question is copyrighted, and even takes the time and effort to provide you with a link to the source, do you:
- Realise that you may quite possibly have mucked up on that "Thou shalt not steal" thing that God seemed to think was pretty important, and immediately delete the post?
- Reflect on the matter, and come to the conclusion that, as you're not making a profit from their work and your use of it is wholly in keeping with the author's stated mission, it's probably okay to use it; but add a short paragraph to the end of the post, so as to make it clear that you aren't claiming credit for the work, as well as including a link to the source?
- Tell Dez that the post is perfectly okay as it is, because you've changed a couple of words in one line of the poem?
Answers on a post-card please, to:
Hob Button's School of Dumbfuck Loopholery
Isle of Thanet
And feel free to mention my name.
You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †