copying copying and copying

Regarding differentiation between original.and copied works a view was expressed as to why benefit of doubt should not be given to those who do not understand the difference

My take on it

"I can understand that in depth and in all its dimensions. After all I too am groomed by law and jurisprudence for the past 46 years or so. But the remark in question came from a person of the class who lives with a presumption that people of their own clan and society can do nothing original but the best being done is copying and pasting with minimum errors.

Such people take credit even in ferreting out the work of someone else and presenting them as their own creation and showing themsekved off as very great.

I have exposed so many like that and in the process gained many enemies too.

But I will continue to do so.

I have nothing to gain by announcing that I have done something original.

I am retired and I am a recluse too.

But I am carrying the fight for all original artists ..

I do not consider copying as an art..

This is in spite if the fact that such originality in many authors and artists would leave a lot of things to be desired.

In Indian tradition no author left his name or address with the work and claimed copyright.

At best some eulogy for the favourie deity or the patron king would be found.

But every person who learned the work would invariably pay respect to the original author even before entering into.the narration or recital of the substantive part.

You can see that in the epics puranas kavyams and even in texts that are technical in nature.

Here we see a set of people who copy with impunity and we see a cheering crowd who praise the copyist as if he is Vyasa or Valmiki, Kalidasa or Panini .

My fight is to vindicate the genius of the original author or the genuine artist.