It's not plagiarism if the author encourages you to pass off the stuff as your own. It's not theft if you pay somebody for something and then call it yours, right Slashdot?

Nor is it plagiarism to reuse your own work in a different academic contribution.

And do you have children kikito?

This is how they should spend the money: a vasectomy for dad, therapy for the kid in twenty years, college fund, and a parenting coach.

One of the only ads I saw during the Super Bowl (I was much more interested in the dip at the party) was for an Android phone that included a clip of "David After Dentist." Since Youtube users don't give up the rights, Youtube (or Motorola or whoever's ad it was) would have to obtain rights from the owners (the kid's despicable parents) somehow.

This is truly disgusting and overall sad. Videos of intoxicated adults are rarely funny, but videotaping a child on drugs and selling it is completely pornographic. These parents ought to be ashamed of themselves. They ought to get their child privileges revoked right away. Right on to adosch and wcrowe.

Perhaps the author isn't American; did you think of that?

I get really irritated when I hear people making these concessions in the name of "providing a good experience." What they're talking about is staying competitive so that they can keep making money. There's nothing wrong with that, morally, ethically or otherwise. So why can't they just say it? Record companies are the same way: they always do this silly stuff in the name of people enjoying the content. For once I would like to hear some corporation just say "We'd like to support X, but for now we think the better way for us to make money is to support Y."