PUBLIC conversations must have a clear understanding of the sameness and subtle differences that exist when the twin terms, plagiarism and piracy are used.The latter we are more familiar with; the former and more sinister of the twins, ‘plagiarism’, may require some illustration as to why it is the more destructive of the two.
I want to use two common historical references that might require a little research, all in good ‘need-to-further-clarify’ faith.
When, around 528 B.C, Cambyses, son of Cyrus, King of Persia, entered Egypt during its decline, this Persian Prince burned the temples of Egypt, then forced the craftsmen of Egypt — under the yoke to Persia, now in its rise — to build his famous city of Persepolis, built on the ruins of Susa, which was the capital of Elam, the original Ethiopic civilization that the nomadic Aryan tribes met and fused with, to become Persia.
This was an act of ‘cultural plagiarism’ common to that age. But more profound are the events described in the book, ‘THE MOSES MYSTERY: The African Origin of the Jewish People’, by Gary Greenberg, President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York.
In this book, the author outlines the Egyptian prototype that was used to construct the chronology of the Bible by the former priest, Moses of Osarseph, presenting to us a course of plagiarism that bred further plagiarism, birthing the Judeo-Christian world with over 3,000 years of bitter contentions, misrepresentations, group racist defamation, God-given rights to murder, enslave and plunder and continuous academic debate.

OTHER PARALLELS
There also exist other parallels of devastating cut-and-paste and piracy among other groups of the human family, even in the halls of modern science.
Today, however, intellectual piracy and plagiarism are criminal acts; intellectuals are frowned upon and dismissed for plagiarism, because plagiarism permits imposters to present other people’s work as their own, with the intent to ascend to opinion-making levels which they retrogress rather than enhance.
Piracy is more obvious: The pirate doesn’t pretend to own; he merely steals and resells, even with the owners name inscribed. The pirate takes your book, CD, painting, recipe, t-shirt design, makes cheap copies, and sells it as their original.
The plagiarist hurts more; that character extracts four lines from your column, letter or essay and inserts it, awkwardly, in his book or letter, without the credit of quote.

A FAMILIAR PARAGRAPH
Some years ago, a student whose parent I knew asked me to read some writing he had done on genetics and culture. I promised him a layman’s view. Then I came to a familiar paragraph, “We are survival machines…”
When, on returning, I asked this student why was the author not credited, the student was surprised that I had read the book, and could identify the source of his theft.
The response from the student, to my alarm, was: “I felt the same way, so it was okay to use that explanation.”
I explained that the source book might have been a dusty hardcover on a shelf in 2008, but in the 70s, Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’ was conversation among many of us, from laymen to academics, who paid interest in certain streams of thought.
We debated for quite a while that there is no safe act of plagiarism; no ‘old books’ that someone else is not familiar with, or smart line in a movie that someone isn’t going to pin down.
You have got to talk to the world from your own experiences; in its language. Sure, someone is going to be thinking similar thoughts somewhere else in the world, but say your truth, and define it without seeking a language of pretensions.

LOOK WHO’S TALKING
I was embarrassed recently when the government was accused of plagiarism by the Opposition; the very Opposition who had authorised the piracy of schoolbooks for years, and whose president had journeyed to the UN to implore the ridiculous; that of a waiver of the human right of Intellectual Property Rights.
Now, the question is asked by a member of this government: “What’s wrong with cut-and-paste?”
Frightening! The saving chapter in all of this is the legal movement by the State to shape cultural policy, which will and must constitute decrees against plagiarism. When the Commercial and Land Registries Building was commissioned, that movement was initiated.

SAM’S FAUX PAS
I was infuriated by an incident that occurred some years ago, when I was invited to the US Ambassador’s home to view an exhibition of American Art. I ended up joining Dr. Paloma Mohamed and Malcolm De Freitas, both accomplished theatre artists, who were in the company of then Prime Minister, Sam Hinds.
I seized the opportunity to explore the then government’s position on Copyright. To this question, Mr. Hinds responded:
“Too many of our constituents depend on selling CDs and other things for us to bother with that at this time.”
I lost it! I was just about to get disrespectful when Malcolm held my arm and pulled me away.
I later explored what Mr. Hinds had said. Somewhere in the dismal minds of he and his colleagues, they must have known that copyright is not only about books, art and CDs; that it includes science, furniture, ceramics, jewellery, I.T design and commodity formulas.
But if a regime has friends like the now famous ‘Jet Pilot’ with large caches of undocumented monies, then too many laws would spoil that pot; there, plagiarism, cut- and-paste and piracy would neatly fit.

NO CREDIT
Last but certainly not the least, I was recently invited to a release of local short films. There was also some reworking of national songs that were commendable.
What alarmed me, however, were the credits: None were attributed to the original writers and composers; no RCG Potter; no Frank Pilgrim; no Valerie Rodway.
There should be a legal consensus that in the reworking of national songs, the credits for original lyrics and music must be included.
I close by sharing my experience on the subject discussed: Be inspired by the profound in another’s language, but if you truly explore your own position, you would indeed word it differently.