Infringements

Judith Jarvis Thomson and others contend that rights are pro-tanto rather than absolute, that is, that rights may permissibly be infringed in some circumstances. Alan Gewirth maintains that there are some rights that are absolute because infringing them would amount to unspeakable evil. However, there seem to be possible circumstances in which it would be permissible to infringe even those rights. Specificationists, such as Gerald Gaus, Russ Shafer-Landau, Hillel Steiner and Kit Wellman, argue that all rights are absolute because they have implicit exceptions, the exceptions being either right-voiding or right-compatible. Specificationists have charged pro-tantoism with preventing rights from being action-guiding, and pro-tantoists have levelled the same charge against specificationism. I show that both charges are mistaken. Pro-tantoists claim that specificationists cannot account for the moral remainder that we recognise in some circumstances and which can be explained by reference to a permissible right-infringement. Specificationists retort that the moral remainder can be explained by invoking compensation-rights. I show that the pro-tantoist claim is true and that the specificationist retort is false on two counts: explanation in terms of compensation-rights is not applicable to all cases; and it fails to account for the moral dynamic in the cases to which it is applicable. The contention that rights are pro-tanto does not conflict with the substance of the contention that rights are trumps, despite claims of specificationists to the contrary.

For Citation:
Salem, H.S. 2015. Plagiarism (Theft of Intellectual Property) Is A Crime Representing Violation of Law, of Intellectual Property Rights, and of Human Rights and, Accordingly, It Must Be Punished. Published online at:
https://www.academia.edu/11255978/_A_Must_Read_Plagiarism_Theft_of_Intellectual_Property_Is_A_Crime_Representing_Violation_of_Law_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_of_Human_Rights_and_Accordingly_It_Must_Be_Punished

Summary:
A few months ago (in July 2014), George et al. (Nyakno J. George, Joseph B. Emah, and Ekong U. Nathaniel) stole
two of my (Hilmi S. Salem) best published papers which have been widely viewed, downloaded and cited by thousands of research scientists around the world, as they are posted at "Academia.Edu. The plagiarizers (George et al.) (re)published
the plagiarized work in the "Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences", which is
published  by the University of Bahrain (UoB), Kingdom of Bahrain, and hosted and produced by Elsevier, the Netherlands. The George et al.’s acts of Plagiarism and Infringement, with respect to the George et al.’s theft of my hard-work research, are a typical example of theft of “Intellectual Property”. This is with reference to the international laws and regulations of the Intellectual Property Rights, as they are the legally recognized as exclusive rights to creations of the mind. According to “Wikipedia.Org”: Under the Intellectual Property Law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of Intellectual Property Rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets. According to the Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author". Although the relationship between intellectual property and human rights is a complex one, there are moral arguments for intellectual property. This is with consideration of the arguments that justify intellectual property, which fall into three major categories, which are: 1) Intellectual property is an extension of an individual; 2) Intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation; and 3) Intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work (Wikipedia.Org).

For your interest and the interest of researchers, academicians, scientists, attorneys, academic institutions, publishing industry, editors, etc., please see the attached document. 

1) Nyakno J. George, Joseph B. Emah, and Ekong U. Nathaniel.
2014. Estimation of Porosity, Formation Resistivity Factor, Archie Cementation Factor, Pore Geometry Factor and Tortuosity for a Coastal Aquifer. Received 16 December 2013; Revised 14 May 2014; Accepted 23 June 2014. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences (JAAUBAS) (2014) xxx, xxx–xxx (Published Online). Publisher: University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain; Hosted by Elsevier, the Netherlands. To link to this article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S181538521400039X

2) Hilmi S. Salem (2001). Determination of Porosity, Formation Resistivity Factor, Archie Cementation Factor, and Pore Geometry Factor for a Glacial Aquifer. Energy Sources: Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 23:6, PP: 589-596.  DOI: 10.1080/00908310152125238. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908310152125238

3) Hilmi S. Salem and George V. Chilingarian (2000). Influence of Porosity and Direction of Flow on Tortuosity in Unconsolidated Porous Media. Energy Sources: Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 22:3, PP: 207-213.  DOI: 10.1080/00908310050013992. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908310050013992

This article examines discursive strategies used by police and politicians to describe and justify the application of penalty notices to minor criminal offences. Critical discourse analysis is used as an analytical tool to show how neoliberal economic thinking has informed the prism through which infringement notices have been rationalised as a legitimate alternative to traditional criminal prosecution, while also highlighting the contradictions inherent in neoliberalism as an ideology through which to view the embrace of legally hybrid powers in the criminal justice system. Discursive strategies identified in the article include the use of ideological key-words ordinarily associated with free market economics and managerial efficiency; the adoption of militaristic vocabulary and metaphors in representations of policing and space; the strategies of assimilation and formulation to represent police views as uniform and coherent; and the use of nominalisations to legitimise the lack of procedural safeguards attached to infringement notices. The logic of—and the language ordinarily associated with—the domain of private business, the ‘free market’, and deregulation has infiltrated the criminal justice sphere. In addition, the naturalisation of neoliberal economic discourse in political and police representations of infringement notices produces and sustains important ideological effects, by disguising the ways in which the expanded use of administrative sanctions in public order policing intensifies state power at the expense of due process of law.

This article examines discursive strategies used by police and politicians to describe and justify the application of penalty notices to minor criminal offences. Critical discourse analysis is used as an analytical tool to show how neoliberal economic thinking has informed the prism through which infringement notices have been rationalised as a legitimate alternative to traditional criminal prosecution, while also highlighting the contradictions inherent in neoliberalism as an ideology through which to view the embrace of legally hybrid powers in the criminal justice system. Discursive strategies identified in the article include the use of ideological keywords ordinarily associated with free market economics and managerial efficiency; the adoption of militaristic vocabulary and metaphors in representations of policing and space; the strategies of assimilation and formulation to represent police views as uniform and coherent; and the use of nominalisations to legitimise the lack of procedural safeguards attached to infringement notices. The logic of—and the language ordinarily associated with—the domain of private business, the ‘free market’, and deregulation has infiltrated the criminal justice sphere. In addition, the naturalisation of neoliberal economic discourse in political and police representations of infringement notices produces and sustains important ideological effects, by disguising the ways in which the expanded use of administrative sanctions in public order policing intensifies state power at the expense of due process of law.