Plagiarism

[alphamule]

I am shocked and appalled to find users of a site founded for pirating copyrighted material are not properly attributing sources. Shame on the lot of you.

Shh, we don't like to remind people that the 'GBAtemp' in 'GBAtemp' stands for temporary hosting of Gameboy Advance ROMs . This site does not endorse and never, ever supports the piracy scene. Ever.

Like fer' sure.

Although to be serious, this site is vastly different than that old site. The founders of the new gbatemp.net moved on from the old site's ways. Try and post a ROM image collection magnet link and see how long your post lasts. Maybe to be a smart-alec, I'll post one that's pictures ('images') of real cartridge insides. Then laugh at people who download it thinking they're getting 'free games'. Naw, too banal! Of course, if I was Nintendo's CFO, it might be tempting to do that on the ED2K network.

 

[Rydian]

Wololo's blog post makes an excellent point in that regard.
Would it be fine to post a link to an ISO, then link a source to a store that sells the game?
In his specific example, a PSN game and then a link to the PSN store page.

A big difference being the articles are free on the originating site...

 

[Zarcon]

A big difference being the articles are free on the originating site...

Depends on what you mean by free.
Ad revenue and amount of traffic that may determine ad revenue or value of ad space, both of which you deny completely if people don't bother clicking on the source link.

Now if it were a completely ad free, revenue free site...then you're just a scumbag at that point since they're doing everything right and you're still denying them traffic.

 

[Rydian]

I don't mean in terms of what the holder gain from your visit, but what you're required to give in order to access the full content.

 

[Urza]

A good thread discussing actual plagiarism just popped up on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972651

Also a primer on the manner in which the CEO of a large publication should not respond to such allegations.

 

[alphamule]

Sadly, even the concept itself of copyright and originality will eventually have a use-by date. How many 4-word slogans can their be? This is why art is somewhat superior so long as you stay away from 'style' copyrights, which we haven't. Google learned this with the Dali parody (read: tribute). The new innovation in creativity will be artforms that have a great originality potential. Mathematicians gave up on plagiarism of solutions years ago and decided that proofs or tutorials would be how authors are judged for originality.

I read that link and had to wonder why they didn't use Google Image or the other 'G' (not wanting to mention those a-hats by name) copyright clearing house. There's literally tons of ways to see who else has used an image before. Heck, if I planned on having an image that I'd sell, it would be watermarked and have EXIF data stating exactly who made it. Most cameras and image tools have that feature now. Meta data is old freaking news since it exists even in old JPEG revisions and probably even older formats.

 

[Rydian]

Metadata is easily stripped, thogh. This might not be the most on-topic example, but most imageboards will automatically strip EXIF data for security concerns.

 

[Sora de Eclaune]

There's a point I thought I should make:

If an article is short enough, then a user may not know what part to quote to best summarize what's being said.

 

[alphamule]

Well yes, but if you're getting your images from an image board and you're being paid for them, you're all kinds of suck (and stupid as well). There is amazingly enough, a standard for watermarks inside the image itself, which are hard to remove without making the image look like it was drawn with cheap children's wax crayons on concrete. You'd think that being professionals, they'd use a program that automatically searches for that kind of information. Note that some watermarks are meant to be detected by machines, others by human eyes, and yet others neither (trivially) without some key.

 

[Deleted_171835]

I do agree that posting entire articles without links shouldn't be allowed (and does fall under copyright infrigment). On the otherhand, posting small excerpts of articles along with a link should be fine. Does that not fall under fair-use?

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

[Rydian]

The entire point of the new rule is to encourage small excerpts, opposed to large chunks or the entire article.

Three sentences out of 5 paragraphs is a small excerpt.
Four paragraphs out of 4.5 paragraphs is not a small excerpt.

Obviously when posting news it's good that some of the important info is posted directly, but people kept copying way, way too much.