[INDOLOGY] Tagore, Aurobindo, and Malhotra

Howard Resnick hr at ivs.edu
Thu Jul 30 14:26:14 UTC 2015

Actually, it’s act and intent. Intent is considered in legal proceedings. It does not exonerate but it mollifies.

Malicious or criminal intent is worse in legal matters.

If Arlo is right, then why treat the offender with all the rage reserved for for malicious, criminal intent?


> On Jul 30, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Arlo, plagiarism doesn't, according to the various public definitions, depend on intention.  There is no distinction - formally speaking - between sloppiness and plagiarism.  This has already been discussed, about a week ago ("manslaugher vs. murder").
> This is an error that people make about copyright too.  "For scholarly purposes" means nothing, under the law.   Breaching copyright means physically ...making...a...copy.  It doesn't matter why.  If you copy something physically, without permission, you've breached the copyright-holder's rights.  It's Act, not Intent.  
> Best,
> Dominik
>> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150730/03b432f2/attachment.htm>

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list