Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by smt88 on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:08PM (#10494788)

Plagiarism can also apply to copying content without using the exact same wording. In my mind, "stolen" means copying verbatim.

Plagiarism comes from a word meaning "kidnapping" though, so the tone of both words is pretty similar.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by johansch on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:12PM (#10494833)

Stolen implies that the original owner no longer has access to the data due to the actions of the perpetrator.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by bduerst on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:29PM (#10494962)

For physical property, yes. For intellectual property, it can still be stolen even if the original owner still has a copy.

e.g. The Soviet spies stole the plans for the hydrogen bomb.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by tbrownaw on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:31PM (#10497272)

No, for intellectual property the word "stolen" is not appropriate.

(Well, unless you're talking about getting the courts to tell the original owner it's yours instead. Which has been at least attempted a few times.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by bduerst on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @12:49PM (#10501179)

It is semantically appropriate for the word steal. I think you're confusing it with the criminal implications.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by johansch on Monday November 02, 2015 @05:17PM (#10495756)

Ah, so you mean the actual blueprints? And the poor Americans had no copies? How stupid of them!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by Natanael_L on Monday November 02, 2015 @05:21PM (#10495774)

So... copied.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by gaius on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:48PM (#10495104)

The original owner no longer has access to the revenue stream so yes, the implication is correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by ryandrake on Monday November 02, 2015 @04:58PM (#10495609)

Then, say "potential revenue" was stolen, not content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by nkrisc on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:31PM (#10494973)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

See definition 1d.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by rustynails on Monday November 02, 2015 @04:40PM (#10495480)

A different angle is to look at what is accepted in a court of law. Laws do not consider copying/infringement to be stealing. I know some people who say gunna (I was gunna do it). However, that doesn't make it correct. So, usage is not a measure of validity either. Most online dictionaries exclude steal/theft being linked to infringement/copyright.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by nkrisc on Monday November 02, 2015 @05:11PM (#10495714)

EDIT: Look at OED's additions list from June 2015, specifically under 'g': http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oe...

'gunna'. Is it still wrong?

--original comment--

Common usage does eventually lead to validity, though. Language is not static and evolves through usage. Besides, how are you going to measure validity? Is the OED the sole arbiter of what's "correct"? Common usage and mutual understanding is a great way to determine what's "correct" in a language.

I won't debate the legal usage of the word, as there was no mention of legal interpretation by the courts in the previous comments. However you are correct from a legal perspective where words have specific meanings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google doesn't recognise or penalise stolen content by jsizz on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:42PM (#10495056)

So now Merriam-Webster has become the Twelfth Circuit? This is the lamest jurisdiction shopping I've seen in a while.

[ Parent | on HN ]