Wow.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    That is not what plagiarism means

    Oxford English Dictionary

    The action or practice of taking someone else’s work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one’s own

    Merriam-Webster

    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source

    Dictionary.com

    an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author

    All three definitions clearly state that Plagiarism is taking some production of someone else’s and claiming it as your own. That there is some kind of deception going on as to who created the original thought/work. Merriam-Webster’s definition has that second component talking about the act of using without crediting the source, which LMG didn’t do at first but later added a pinned comment. While not immediate and the barest amount of effort on LMGs part, but it still is credit.

    Plagiarism has no legal component to its definition.

    Copyright does have legal implications as it is someone’s right to duplicate a work. In general a creator of a work has exclusive rights to reproduce it, but there are exceptions (everyone’s favorite Fair Use laws). With LMG being Canadian the legal side is more complicated but in US courts it’s been tested that one such exception is around additional commentary and that the usage of the work was limited as to what was relevant to being actively discussed (big case here being H3H3 a few years back). Even by GN’s own admission the WAN show was taking phrases and repeating them verbatim, but just that, only phrases. Ones pertaining directly to the on hand topic of EVGAs ending partnership with Nvidia. They were not showing GNs video, reading his script word for word start to finish. Again, IANAL but I find it highly unlikely that a US or Canadian court would say that what LMG did on WAN Show meets the definition of a copyright violation

    Edit:

    And to answer your last point directly, Plagiarism and Copyright are orthogonal to each other. You could plagiarize by not giving public credit but still get copy permission from the copyright holder. Semantically kinda weird to think about

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      That’s the point I was attempting to make. Linus used Gamers Nexus copyrighted work without permission or even attribution. It was both plagiarism and a copyright violation. Steve was being polite by only calling Linus out on the plagiarism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 hours ago

        Did you not understand anything I typed out?

        LMG used GN material, yes.

        LMG did not commit plagiarism

        LMG did not violate copyright law

        Words have meanings, and by the definitions of the words plagiarism and copyright LMG does not meet the criteria. You and I do not get to change the definitions to fit whatever narrative we have in our heads on who we want to be the good guys and who we want to be the bad guys

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 hours ago

          From the Gamers Nexus website:

          “The script nearly identically matched the order, topics, and words.”