The Bureau of Labor Statistics would disagree with you.

https://docs.google.com/docume...

Sure, we don't bemoan the fact that there are so few geeks getting jobs as car mechanics. Last time I checked, though, there wasn't a huge shortage of car mechanics.

There is, however, a forthcoming shortage of CS/IT professionals. And silly stereotypes that discourage otherwise perfectly suited individuals from pursuing a career in CS/IT help no-one.

This isn't about offering a "pink CS degree".

There is a common cultural stereotype about what a CS major "looks like": their skills, their interests, their demeanor, and so on. Basically, if you want to be a CS major, you're supposed to be like Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak or Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer. There are plenty of folks driven off from even considering CS as a vocation because of that stereotype. Sure, many of those driven off are women, but I've seen men driven off by the same stereotype.

Given the predicted shortage of CS/IT professionals coming in the next ten years, CS can't afford to be driving off anyone due to some sort of cultural stereotype. Offering a different version of a CS curriculum isn't offering a "pink CS degree"; it simply shows that there are different ways to be a CS major.

And ... you know, some boys like pink, too. :)

The Star Trek analogy is flawed. If your Star Trek script is submitted to Turnitin, you still retain the copyright to the original script. And if Paramount acquires a copy of the script from Turnitin, they'd still have to pay you for the right to use it. As to the future ... if I could predict it, would I be posting here?

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

Copyright doesn't grant a universal right to control a creative work. Keep in mind that the purpose of copyright is to *encourage* more creative works, not less; in doing so, copyright law will grant certain limited rights of control to the copyright owner in order to encourage more work.

The famous "fair use" test provides an exemption to copyright law, and depends upon the famous four point test. Basically, courts can consider four issues in determining whether or not use of other works without permission is allowable:

1. The purpose and character of the use of the work. If the use of the work creates something "new" rather than just providing a copy, the use is more likely to be allowable. Educational use is also more allowable than commercial use, but this isn't an absolute trump card.
2. The nature of the work being copied. You can't copyright facts or ideas, only expressions thereof.
3. The amount and substantiality of the work being copied. In general, the less you copy, the better; even then, though, what you copy matters. (The last minute of Citizen Kane is a little more key to understanding the movie than, say, a random minute from the middle of the movie.)
4. The effect of the use upon the value of the work. Does the copy provide enough of a substitute that people would be less likely to buy the original? If so, the copy is less likely to be allowable. This doesn't affect criticism, however ... a negative review of a book or movie might have an impact on its sales, but that doesn't make quoting the book or movie a violation of fair use

Now, this isn't an all-or-nothing or add-up-the-points analysis. Courts take all matters into consideration.

In the actual decision, the court ruled:

1. The plagiarism detector was definitely a "new work" created from the old works, and therefore was likely to be permissable.
2. The nature of the work was not a factor in the decision, either way.
3. The amount of the work was not a factor in the decision; while whole works were used, they were only used in limited ways (i.e. to compare for plagiarism).
4. The use of the papers did not affect the market value of the works, therefore favoring the use.

On the whole, then, the tool was deemed to be fair use.