Copying projects has been discussed on the forums several times. The best solution is to see those copies as an advertisement, because the original creator is listed. But many people still don't like (and do pay attention) to those copied projects.
I was wondering if it is possible to add a "copy check". If the project is a remix, it should check the original sb file from the website. If it is the same file, the project may not appear on the website.
Any thoughts about this?
Offline
It is possible to have a remix with the exact same file size as the original project. A better characterstic to compare would be a checksum of some sort.
In general I like the idea of refusing to upload identical projects. But it would be very easy to circumvent any scheme like this. Copiers would soon learn that some sort of minor edit, such as adding a disconnected block to a script, was required before the project would upload.
Last edited by Paddle2See (2008-02-10 08:34:42)
Offline
Discussions such as this one are popping up ever more frequently in the forums. I find this extremely interesting and sometimes heartfully amusing. For some time now the music industry's attorneys have been massively going after people who have been illegally downloading and sharing copyrighted music over internet file-sharing services, and in almost every case the sentiments on the defendants' side are like "O, come on, everybody's doing it, music ought to be free, what's the harm done here, besides, nobody can afford to actually *buy* all of this anyway...".
While personally agreeing on at least the last of these points I'm often amazed about the hurt feeling of Scratch artists, whose projects have been copied and shared again by others with or without any major modification or contribution, and with or without mentioning ("giving credit" to) the original author. It's not that anybody's actually making a living coding projects in Scratch, is it? I sometimes wonder to myself if maybe Scratch has been sponsored by [fill in the international media-mogul company of your choice here] to spread awareness about their industrial copyright concepts among young internet users just kidding, of course ...
Offline
We have the automatic credit system, think that is enough that folk cannot easily claim a project that is not theirs as "all my own work".
After all, one of the three primary facets of scratch is "Share".
Offline
Many people do not notice the "Based on [------]'s project" sign. Maybe it should be placed somewhere else so it's more noticable? For example, under the name of the project.
Offline
I think that the Scratch Team were a bit naive in assuming that everyone would share nicely. People who have put hours of work into a project may be want people to look at the project and enjoy it (one meaning of "sharing your work"), but not want other people to copy it, or even remix it. (I note that the Scratch open-source code allows remixing, but puts some strong limits on what you can call the result and requires that the originators be properly credited.)
I think that having a sandbox like scratch.mit.edu in which copying is completely unrestrained does get kids to think about intellectual property and plagiarism, in a context in which no money is involved.
The sense of outrage when someone claims your work as their own is genuine. It forms one of the main foundations of academic life: you must always give credit to sources of your ideas. This is why school teachers spend so much time teaching you how to cite sources in standard formats.
Even in the Scratch environment, where copying is explicitly encouraged, giving credit to your sources is still expected.
Offline