Topic: Isn't it plagiarism? (Read 403 times)

There was an isolated little city in the East. The major transportation means of the city was bicycle. Then, to avoid accidents at night, a law was made that every bicycle rider should hang lamp on the bicycle, else you would be arrested by the police.
One old man decided to ride by 09:00 pm, he hung the lamp without lighting it.
He was arrested by the police and referenced to the law book. The man was able to establish his case that he hung the lamp according to the law. However, the law did not specify that the lamp should be lightened. Then, the man was set free.

Morals:
At every law, there are loopholes, let alone here in the forum where almost all the rules are unofficial.
The best practice is to avoid anything that looks like an offence in the forum and not to play smart with some loopholes.

The text was copied, but it obviously doesn't bother Little Mouse. Not that it changes anything, just saying. I don't know this israt1@ guy, but if this is his only mistake, would the forum benefit from having him gone?

In theory, you are plagiarizing if you are copying someone's table layout as well. No one asks for permission to do that either, and look at the share amount of tables we have on the forum. It's obvious that not everyone can make those themselves. Therefore, they got them from someone else.
If you read the rules in signature campaigns or bounty threads, they are almost all the same but created from different users. At least very similar with a few modifications maybe. 

This is one of those cases that I would let slide with just a warning.

You hardly helped this guy by referring to this quote, because mprep's quote can be interpreted as desired only as long as he does not get tired of those who distort his words, (since this is one of those cases where rule #23 comes into play). I am sure that even without his detailed explanation today, it was clear that he then expressed himself quite unambiguously, (therefore, it makes no sense to compare that case with the current one).

This is strange, considering that, in theory, even an exactly copied thread structure or bbcode is one of the types of plagiarism or at least not gentlemanly behavior (copied without your explicit approval). If you remember ... when I needed to use a style like yours (in my thread), the first thing I did was ask you about it.

To quote a part of my PM I sent to a user a while ago:


AFAIK there are no old archives of either thread on the Wayback Machine so that's something I'm going to leave to one of the admins to handle (or one of the other global mods who's more in the know about this case, if there is one that is). As for the "escrow and signature campaign threads with copied lists of conditions", I can't really comment on that since I don't think I've handled any cases like yours.

Good to know the "loophole" doesn't work.

My archive confirms the original.

I'd like to add that I've seen escrow and signature campaign threads with copied lists of conditions too. Years ago I reported someone who copied a part of my service-thread to offer the same, and that didn't lead to a ban either.

If israt1@ copied Little Mouse's thread's text and posted his thread using an image-ified version of said text (while passing it off as his own), that's still plagiarism. Since Little Mouse posted his thread before israt1@ did his yet the date of its last edit is after israt1@ last edited his thread, I can't 100% definitively confirm who copied who since I don't have access over the previous edits / original contents of either thread. If you did see the contents of Little Mouse's thread before israt1@ posted his thread and they did indeed match up, I'd suggest reporting it via the "Report to Moderator" feature and waiting till one of the admins pitches in / handles the case (I'd report it myself if I had seen and remembered the original contents but if that was the case, I'd just handle it myself).

As for anyone referring to loopholes in the (unofficial list of) rules (mixed in with a single answer to a PM that isn't even mentioned in my thread and was qualified with an "AFAIK"), do keep in mind rule 23:


When a user asked me about images and plagiarism, I was implicitly referring to mostly non-text based images (photos, memes, charts, graphs, drawings, illustrations, etc.) rather than something that's essentially just a stylized (and annoyingly non-adjustable) block of text with some graphics sprinkled in between. Even if it wasn't plagiarism, someone reposting images could have their thread trashed / post deleted for other related reasons as well (e.g. the post being low value due to duplication of content). While I'm at danger of sounding too much like theymos, this is one of those cases where a moderator's discretion should be applied. I assume this is one of those cases as to why theymos doesn't want a codified hard set of rules.

You're talking about copyright: if the author agrees (or got paid), it's not a copyright violation. Plagiarism, on the other hand, means making it look like it was created by you, and permission from the original author can't change that.

And it's so easy to prevent, ask permission and post credits:

This case should be closed as this is not an intentional plagiarism. Since one party did not mind the 2nd party of using the same text, this raises another question in my mind that if both users agree, can they post the same text and avoid the consequences of it ?
I mean if there is mutual understanding then we cannot treat it as a plagiarism.

If israt1 wrote a small note in his post that he is using the text from little mouse post with his consent, then it would have been much better.

I can't remember if israt@1 had PMed me for permission to use my texts but we had some discussion regarding this. He asked me to continue exchange service together which I refused as I'm not regular, I don't have enough time. I need to check out if he asked for my permission before use the same text. However, I don't mind. israt@1 just used my text.

In theory, it must be considered as plagiarism which it is but since mprep has said something about image, it creates a loophole to get rid of a ban.

You are right but we are discussing in bitcointalk rules I think. When you are accusing whitepaper plagiarism, you are reporting it to potential investors, not to bitcointalk. Bitcointalk doesn’t ban anyone project owner account for copy/pasting whitepaper while on the other hand, we are discussing here about bitcointalk rules. This is also plagiarism but as LoyceV shown, mrep post can make an argument too.

In this case, if this is not plagiarism, then all scam projects that we previously accused of plagiarism must be justified. Several times I accused the project of plagiarizing white paper.
The scammers simply copied the text from another project and made their own "document", which looked like a photo or drawing, supposedly protected from copying.
Of course, you can think of someone finding a similar "photo dash picture" on the net. Then we must admit that we are idiots who naively believe in such nonsense. If you found a picture, show the source, if there is no source, then this is plagiarism.
Today, Yandex can easily display text in pictures that can be checked. You don't even need to look for other sites to recognize the photographed text.

I would call it plagiarism. It was obviously intentional.
Both having the same introduction in their business thread is absurd. Sure they "might happen" to have the same T&C, but israt1@ didn't even bother to tailor the quoted part below as his own introduction at least.

Uh....I don't think that's much of an argument unless that image was actually from somewhere on the internet to begin with and not in Little Mouse's thread originally.  In addition to that, it would still be text that was copied and passed off as one's own, not necessarily just the image so it would indeed be plagiarism. 

That whole thing about not being wrong to "plagiarize" images from the web wasn't meant to be about images with a bunch of someone else's words in them IMO, though I have no idea what Theymos or the moderators think about that.  I'd think that would at least be true for someone who made an image out of someone else's post about buying/selling bitcoin (or any other post on the forum).  Makes sense, doesn't it?

It's plagiarism definitely,

Source: https://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

Read the above article if you need to learn more about plagiarism. israt1@ stolen content from Little Mouse, but he didn't make an allegation since both of them are from the same jurisdiction. Since Little Mouse was aware of that later and didn't blame it as plagiarism, so it's always permitted by him. So israt1@ wouldn't be banned, whether for a loophole or due to permission. But it was the worst decision by israt1@. He made a good design but can't write content.

Should be making no different when the Text is on some picture or colored background !
If he claims he found the picture on the internet then there should be also a source link to the website where the picture was found .
Or at least where the text from , we got that a few times , mostly when we found plagiarised Whitepapers on some projects.

I got that, but the user can argue he found that image somewhere online and copied it. If text on pictures can lead to plagiarism claims, memes can lead to bans too.

In @mprep's reply, it was supposed to mean, and supposed to be understood, for the cases when you take an image from another website and post it here.
Not turning someone's text to another medium (here a picture). it's just that people try to get around the rules at all costs. Sometimes they have a lot of imagination

Otherwise, I can already guess a wave of images being posted as comments by shitposters

That's why he said there is a loophole, so yes it won't be considered as plagiarism but if a random newbie do that and keep doing that then they will be considered as spam and their accounts will be nuked which is same as permanent ban but only newbies are eligible to get nuked if I am not wrong.

Since images are excluded from plagiarism, this means that one person can copy the whole text and make it an image of that with a background color / image and paste copied text on top of it and thus avoid plagiarism ?

I don't think so: images are excluded from plagiarism bans. So it's looks like loophole.

It looks like the Little Mouse doesn't mind:

If you stick to the rules and be fair, then this is pure plagiarism. Copied israt1 @
Nowhere is there a link to the fact that the text was borrowed from another account, and there are also no links to the relationship between these two accounts.