Sir, I do not disagree with your point nor was my post an attack on you. I was just poking a bit of fun at SVs expense.
Seriously, I agree with you. This is not plagirism. For it to be so, they would have had to claim the TOS was their creation (which they haven't) and CCP would have to show some proof of financial harm.
Regardless, my intention was not to offend you or any other poster.
This isn't plagiarism. The concept of plagiarism doesn't apply to contractual text. No one wins a lawsuit against someone else because the someone else copied contract text. Lawsuits like that just don't happen, because copying in this way isn't wrong. Copying contract text is a very common legal practice today.
Was it a sloppy copy job? Yeah. Did they do anything wrong other than being lazy? No.
Edited for clarity.
Actually, plagarism isn't a legal term at all. It is strictly a term of writing, literature and rhetoric. This is certainly plagarism. It may not be (and probably isn't) copyright infringment, etc, but it is the very basis of plagarism with no doubt, unless they wrote this themselves and happened to put "CCP" in mistakenly.
Actually, plagarism isn't a legal term at all. It is strictly a term of writing, literature and rhetoric. This is certainly plagarism. It may not be (and probably isn't) copyright infringment, etc, but it is the very basis of plagarism with no doubt, unless they wrote this themselves and happened to put "CCP" in mistakenly.
And I have no opinion of the quality of the game.
Then your definition of plagiarism is different than mine.
Actually, plagarism isn't a legal term at all. It is strictly a term of writing, literature and rhetoric. This is certainly plagarism. It may not be (and probably isn't) copyright infringment, etc, but it is the very basis of plagarism with no doubt, unless they wrote this themselves and happened to put "CCP" in mistakenly.
And I have no opinion of the quality of the game.
Then your definition of plagiarism is different than mine.
pla·gia·rize
verb ?pl?-j?-?r?z also -j?-?-
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
Sounds like plagiarism to me. Probably not illegal, but plagiarism nonetheless.
Standard definitions don't apply in every context. Context can alter definitions or simply render them inapplicable. As I've already explained, that's what is going on here. Using the word plagiarism in this context is simply inaccurate or misleading. It doesn't apply.
With the word plagiarism is a connotation that plagiarism is morally wrong or inappropriate. That connotation is just as commonly associated with the word as the definition you quoted. Yet what they did here is completely fine and not wrong. Also, in your definition, it's required that one try to "pass off" the ideas as one's own ideas. In the legal community, taking text from other contracts is such a common practice that no one who knows anything about contracts would believe that SV was trying to pass off this text as their own. In fact, the opposite would be presumed. Also, there is no stealing where there is no ownership of the words to begin with. As I've hinted at earlier, it is likely that CCP did not write the words from scratch. In fact, they probably pulled it from other sources as well. Even if they did write it from scratch, CCP would have to claim to own the words.
I wrote all that out not to discredit your definition, but to show how the word simply isn't properly applied to this situation. Using the word plagiarism is simply inaccurate.
Hopefully CCP wins a lawsuit against SV for plagiarism and end ups aquiring Mortal Online. It would do Mortal a lot of good to have some decent programers.
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
Hopefully CCP wins a lawsuit against SV for plagiarism and end ups aquiring Mortal Online. It would do Mortal a lot of good to have some decent programers.
CCP has shifted focus back to Flying in Space, not Walking on Planets, so they wouldn't do much with Mortal Online even if they owned it.
Hopefully CCP wins a lawsuit against SV for plagiarism and end ups aquiring Mortal Online. It would do Mortal a lot of good to have some decent programers.
CCP has shifted focus back to Flying in Space, not Walking on Planets, so they wouldn't do much with Mortal Online even if they owned it.
Yes, but Mortal has "Rocket Pigs" (tm) which very well could be ome new DLC, cash shop item in Eve. These could NOT be "game breaking" Rocket Pigs, merely cosmetic.
If CCP sued MO over this- We could finally have a sandbox "pigs in space".
Standard definitions don't apply in every context. Context can alter definitions or simply render them inapplicable. As I've already explained, that's what is going on here. Using the word plagiarism in this context is simply inaccurate or misleading. It doesn't apply.
With the word plagiarism is a connotation that plagiarism is morally wrong or inappropriate. That connotation is just as commonly associated with the word as the definition you quoted. Yet what they did here is completely fine and not wrong. Also, in your definition, it's required that one try to "pass off" the ideas as one's own ideas. In the legal community, taking text from other contracts is such a common practice that no one who knows anything about contracts would believe that SV was trying to pass off this text as their own. In fact, the opposite would be presumed. Also, there is no stealing where there is no ownership of the words to begin with. As I've hinted at earlier, it is likely that CCP did not write the words from scratch. In fact, they probably pulled it from other sources as well. Even if they did write it from scratch, CCP would have to claim to own the words.
I wrote all that out not to discredit your definition, but to show how the word simply isn't properly applied to this situation. Using the word plagiarism is simply inaccurate.
This argument is so silly, stop trying to give absurd reasons as to why its not plagiqrism. Yes, yes, yes, all lawyers have standard legal documents that they add in clients' names and other information that they will use throughout their careers. Yes people use others' legal documents without credit and it is somewhat the norm. But that doesn't mean its not plagiarism. Best of all, in this instance we know where it was copied from.
This argument is so silly, stop trying to give absurd reasons as to why its not plagiqrism. Yes, yes, yes, all lawyers have standard legal documents that they add in clients' names and other information that they will use throughout their careers. Yes people use others' legal documents without credit and it is somewhat the norm. But that doesn't mean its not plagiarism. Best of all, in this instance we know where it was copied from.
Why not reply substantively? You didn't back up your conclusion at all or refute the reasoning I used when I backed up my conclusion.
Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Did SV copy CCP's contract? Yes. Did they do a sloppy job? Yes. This is sloppy copying. This is not plagiarism. Sloppy copying isn't automatically plagiarism. Inherent in "plagiarism" is wrongdoing. SV did no wrong here. By saying they plagiarised, it is implied that SV did wrong. They didn't.
Are you saying that they plagiarised but that it was perfectly okay to do? If so, then it's not even plagiarism to begin with. If you're not saying that, then are you saying they plagiarised and that they did wrong? Then you would be wrong that they are wrong.
This argument is so silly, stop trying to give absurd reasons as to why its not plagiqrism. Yes, yes, yes, all lawyers have standard legal documents that they add in clients' names and other information that they will use throughout their careers. Yes people use others' legal documents without credit and it is somewhat the norm. But that doesn't mean its not plagiarism. Best of all, in this instance we know where it was copied from.
Why not reply substantively? You didn't back up your conclusion at all or refute the reasoning I used when I backed up my conclusion.
Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Did SV copy CCP's contract? Yes. Did they do a sloppy job? Yes. This is sloppy copying. This is not plagiarism. Sloppy copying isn't automatically plagiarism. Inherent in "plagiarism" is wrongdoing. SV did no wrong here. By saying they plagiarised, it is implied that SV did wrong. They didn't.
Are you saying that they plagiarised but that it was perfectly okay to do? If so, then it's not even plagiarism to begin with. If you're not saying that, then are you saying they plagiarised and that they did wrong? Then you would be wrong that they are wrong.
What exactly is your definition of plagiarism?
Someone just posted the definition of plagiarism. Just because you don't agree with the definition of a word doesn't mean that the meaning of the word changes. Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work. Period. There is no grey area or wiggle room. Thats what it is.
Its pretty funny. Looks like Oil companies weren't the only ones copy and pasting their documents. They did it for their 'safety' reports, seems mortal did it for the ToS
Someone just posted the definition of plagiarism. Just because you don't agree with the definition of a word doesn't mean that the meaning of the word changes. Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work. Period. There is no grey area or wiggle room. Thats what it is.
I didn't disagree with the definition at all. You should read my reply to it. I am fine with the definition as the definition of plagiarism. I showed how it didn't apply to this situation. No one has yet to show how the word does apply, or show how I was wrong about it not applying.
Also, "Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work. Period," isn't what the definition says. That is very far from it. This quote is your definition, not the one quoted above. If "Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work" is the definition of plagiarism, then of course this is plagiarism, since SV obviously did some copying. But there is more to the word than that. Much, much more. If you go read the definition, you would see plagiarism is far more than just copying.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
As far as Im concerned that definition fits perfectly. But Im not getting into the argument. Dont really care all that much.
However the fact they just copy and pasted a terms of service agreement is really something I would expect would happen if a few college kids made an mmorpg while drinking beers. Pretty sloppy, lazy, and sad.
This is a comment for everyone in this thread. If you're going to say this is plagiarism, then you should be able to pick a definition then use that definition to show this is plagiarism. The word plagiarism is a loaded word. It implies wrongdoing, stealing, bad conduct, and so forth. Plagiarism isn't just "copying." I think what's happening in this thread is that a bunch of people thought plagiarism was just copying and are trying to defend that incorrect notion.
Someone gave a definition of plagiarism and I showed how it wasn't applicable here. Another person said plagiarism is just copying and I agreed that if that is the working definition for this thread, then of course SV just copied here. It all depends on how you define the word.
I'm not missing any point any more than you are missing mine. My point is that what SV did here with this contract is at best completely acceptable. At worst, it is sloppy, but still not wrong at all.
I am not defending anything other than the singular, small point I just typed above. If you read my posts, you'll see this is clear. I have not hinted at defending SV in any way other than to say that this sloppy copy and paste job is not "wrong" for a company to do. In fact, it is standard practice.
Am I missing the point that SV is a shitty company that sucks out the ass completely? No. I don't even address that issue nor do I give a crap. I've never played a game by them nor will i ever try Mortal Online. I'm speaking only to whether this was wrong of them to do, or any company to do, and the answer is no.
It sounds like you already have plenty of examples of how SV sucks. This isn't one of them.
Umm, yeah -- it is. Their slipshod approach to this pretty much exemplifies just how much they suck.
I've been watching the SV drama unfold from the sidelines for a while and this only confirms for me, how truly incompetent these guys are. Frankly, I can't wait to see what happens next in this theater of misery.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
As far as Im concerned that definition fits perfectly. But Im not getting into the argument. Dont really care all that much.
However the fact they just copy and pasted a terms of service agreement is really something I would expect would happen if a few college kids made an mmorpg while drinking beers. Pretty sloppy, lazy, and sad.
Ah, you know it was unauthoried? Would you care to show how you know that? Did you examine both documents to see if it really is "close imitation..." or was it just a few paragraphs borrowed? If it's not the entire document that was lifted, then is it really close imitation? Not even close. Is using some language from one contract in your contract representing the words as SV's original work? I bet SV did not and would not represent the work as their own. Most people who writes contracts, unless written from scratch, wouldn't.
If you're going to use a definition, then you have to use the entire definition and can't ignore bits and pieces of it. I'm not saying you ignored bits and pieces, but you didn't explain how it fits at all to begin with.
The word simply doesn't apply to the situation, because the definition doesn't fit. It's that easy. You guys/girls are starting from the assumption that this is plagiarism then justifying it after, even if the assumption can't be backed up without defining plagiarism simply as copying.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
As far as Im concerned that definition fits perfectly. But Im not getting into the argument. Dont really care all that much.
However the fact they just copy and pasted a terms of service agreement is really something I would expect would happen if a few college kids made an mmorpg while drinking beers. Pretty sloppy, lazy, and sad.
Ah, you know it was unauthoried? Would you care to show how you know that? Did you examine both documents to see if it really is "close imitation..." or was it just a few paragraphs borrowed? If it's not the entire document that was lifted, then is it really close imitation? Not even close. Is using some language from one contract in your contract representing the words as SV's original work? I bet SV did not and would not represent the work as their own. Most people who writes contracts, unless written from scratch, wouldn't.
If you're going to use a definition, then you have to use the entire definition and can't ignore bits and pieces of it. I'm not saying you ignored bits and pieces, but you didn't explain how it fits at all to begin with.
The word simply doesn't apply to the situation, because the definition doesn't fit. It's that easy. You guys/girls are starting from the assumption that this is plagiarism then justifying it after, even if the assumption can't be backed up without defining plagiarism simply as copying.
Oh my God. Seriously man. Does it really matter?
I guess EvE said, " Sure by all means, copy our ToS and use it and make sure you forget to edit it properly."
I have no doubt that conversation actually happened. You are just so totally correct. You win.
As far as how ToS's are made I dont freggin know. I dont really care. Maybe they all just copy and paste one anothers. But I doubt it. I have a high doubt that EvE's reads just like WoWs or Rifts, or otherwise. But have it your way. Sheesh.
I guess EvE said " Sure by all means, copy our ToS and use it and make sure you forget to edit it properly."
I have no doubt that conversation actually happened. You are just so totally correct. You win.
As far as how ToS's are made I dont freggin know. I dont really care. Maybe they all just copy and paste one anothers. But I doubt it. I have a high doubt that EvE's reads just like WoWs or Rifts, or otherwise. But have it your way. Sheesh.
I'm totally calm right now in real life, and I'm not upset at all. Any hostility in my posts is unintended. I just get to the point. Does it really matter? The issue itself doesn't matter to me at all. What does matter to me is having good conversations and discussions with people where the people back up what they say and make thoughtful posts. There's yet to be one person here to really give a thoughtful reply. Two non-simple definitions have been given, but no one has explained how they apply. Why copy and paste a lengthy definition if all that can be backed up is "that it's copying." Yeah, of course there was some copying. Plagiarism is much more than that.
Do I care about what is or isn't plagiarism in the abstract? No. Do I care about the substance of this issue? Not at all. Do I care about the critical thinking skills of people I engage in conversation with online? Yeah. Having good, non hostile conversations is fun to me. You see this conversation as if I'm trying to win, and I don't see conversations like that. I enjoy thoughtful back and forths with people.
If you or anyone wants to "win" though, then why not successfully explain in detail how every phrase in the definition of plagiarism applies in this case? Then the word fits and you guys are all right. I don't think that will happen though, unless the definition chosen is "copying." Minus the hostility and we can actually have a good conversation.
The more I think about this... the more things make sense.
We all know that there are many instances where "banned" people are back playing again. We all know that SV is in need of money. Are we therefore making a false assumption that this was unintended? I mean... in their world (which has only the faintest resemblance to reality) is it not possible that they thought it was a good idea to ban peoples account in OTHER games? This would presumably A) Punish the cheater Retain revenue for StarVault C) Deprive a competitor of funds...
Maybe they sat around and actually congratulated themselves on coming up with a win-win-win scenario....
Tin foil hats! F**king lol.
Personally I and any average person could not care less about a typo, what I do care about is the fact that since it was posted here, it was probably dug up by someone who doesnt even play the game looking through their entire terms of service. If that is the case, I find it utterly hilarious.
EDIT: and how do any of you know that CCP didn't copy and paste their TOS from another game?
And finally where is your proof that it even was copy pasted? It may simply not be proof read. I know that when Ive written things out and my mind has drifted I've written typo's. Maybe the writer had been playing EVE beforehand and had it in his head, and when Mortal Online came up to be written they wrote Eve Online without thinking? That seems reasonable to me.
Comments
Ah, my mistake.
Actually, plagarism isn't a legal term at all. It is strictly a term of writing, literature and rhetoric. This is certainly plagarism. It may not be (and probably isn't) copyright infringment, etc, but it is the very basis of plagarism with no doubt, unless they wrote this themselves and happened to put "CCP" in mistakenly.
And I have no opinion of the quality of the game.
Then your definition of plagiarism is different than mine.
verb ?pl?-j?-?r?z also -j?-?-pla·gia·rize
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
Sounds like plagiarism to me. Probably not illegal, but plagiarism nonetheless.
God I love SV, it reminds me of the old Far side comics.
Well I guess we all know why SV can not write good code for the game they can not even write their own TOS.
Standard definitions don't apply in every context. Context can alter definitions or simply render them inapplicable. As I've already explained, that's what is going on here. Using the word plagiarism in this context is simply inaccurate or misleading. It doesn't apply.
With the word plagiarism is a connotation that plagiarism is morally wrong or inappropriate. That connotation is just as commonly associated with the word as the definition you quoted. Yet what they did here is completely fine and not wrong. Also, in your definition, it's required that one try to "pass off" the ideas as one's own ideas. In the legal community, taking text from other contracts is such a common practice that no one who knows anything about contracts would believe that SV was trying to pass off this text as their own. In fact, the opposite would be presumed. Also, there is no stealing where there is no ownership of the words to begin with. As I've hinted at earlier, it is likely that CCP did not write the words from scratch. In fact, they probably pulled it from other sources as well. Even if they did write it from scratch, CCP would have to claim to own the words.
I wrote all that out not to discredit your definition, but to show how the word simply isn't properly applied to this situation. Using the word plagiarism is simply inaccurate.
Hopefully CCP wins a lawsuit against SV for plagiarism and end ups aquiring Mortal Online. It would do Mortal a lot of good to have some decent programers.
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
For all we know EVE stole thier EULA from somebody else....and remembered to change the name of the game.
CCP has shifted focus back to Flying in Space, not Walking on Planets, so they wouldn't do much with Mortal Online even if they owned it.
Yes, but Mortal has "Rocket Pigs" (tm) which very well could be ome new DLC, cash shop item in Eve. These could NOT be "game breaking" Rocket Pigs, merely cosmetic.
If CCP sued MO over this- We could finally have a sandbox "pigs in space".
I, for one, really want this to happen.
What's funny is it took people a year to realize this. Lol. It could go on for another year.
This argument is so silly, stop trying to give absurd reasons as to why its not plagiqrism. Yes, yes, yes, all lawyers have standard legal documents that they add in clients' names and other information that they will use throughout their careers. Yes people use others' legal documents without credit and it is somewhat the norm. But that doesn't mean its not plagiarism. Best of all, in this instance we know where it was copied from.
Place Ad Here
Why not reply substantively? You didn't back up your conclusion at all or refute the reasoning I used when I backed up my conclusion.
Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Did SV copy CCP's contract? Yes. Did they do a sloppy job? Yes. This is sloppy copying. This is not plagiarism. Sloppy copying isn't automatically plagiarism. Inherent in "plagiarism" is wrongdoing. SV did no wrong here. By saying they plagiarised, it is implied that SV did wrong. They didn't.
Are you saying that they plagiarised but that it was perfectly okay to do? If so, then it's not even plagiarism to begin with. If you're not saying that, then are you saying they plagiarised and that they did wrong? Then you would be wrong that they are wrong.
What exactly is your definition of plagiarism?
Someone just posted the definition of plagiarism. Just because you don't agree with the definition of a word doesn't mean that the meaning of the word changes. Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work. Period. There is no grey area or wiggle room. Thats what it is.
Its pretty funny. Looks like Oil companies weren't the only ones copy and pasting their documents. They did it for their 'safety' reports, seems mortal did it for the ToS
I didn't disagree with the definition at all. You should read my reply to it. I am fine with the definition as the definition of plagiarism. I showed how it didn't apply to this situation. No one has yet to show how the word does apply, or show how I was wrong about it not applying.
Also, "Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work. Period," isn't what the definition says. That is very far from it. This quote is your definition, not the one quoted above. If "Plagiarism is the copying of someone elses work" is the definition of plagiarism, then of course this is plagiarism, since SV obviously did some copying. But there is more to the word than that. Much, much more. If you go read the definition, you would see plagiarism is far more than just copying.
Plagiarism:
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
As far as Im concerned that definition fits perfectly. But Im not getting into the argument. Dont really care all that much.
However the fact they just copy and pasted a terms of service agreement is really something I would expect would happen if a few college kids made an mmorpg while drinking beers. Pretty sloppy, lazy, and sad.
This is a comment for everyone in this thread. If you're going to say this is plagiarism, then you should be able to pick a definition then use that definition to show this is plagiarism. The word plagiarism is a loaded word. It implies wrongdoing, stealing, bad conduct, and so forth. Plagiarism isn't just "copying." I think what's happening in this thread is that a bunch of people thought plagiarism was just copying and are trying to defend that incorrect notion.
Someone gave a definition of plagiarism and I showed how it wasn't applicable here. Another person said plagiarism is just copying and I agreed that if that is the working definition for this thread, then of course SV just copied here. It all depends on how you define the word.
Umm, yeah -- it is. Their slipshod approach to this pretty much exemplifies just how much they suck.
I've been watching the SV drama unfold from the sidelines for a while and this only confirms for me, how truly incompetent these guys are. Frankly, I can't wait to see what happens next in this theater of misery.
Ah, you know it was unauthoried? Would you care to show how you know that? Did you examine both documents to see if it really is "close imitation..." or was it just a few paragraphs borrowed? If it's not the entire document that was lifted, then is it really close imitation? Not even close. Is using some language from one contract in your contract representing the words as SV's original work? I bet SV did not and would not represent the work as their own. Most people who writes contracts, unless written from scratch, wouldn't.
If you're going to use a definition, then you have to use the entire definition and can't ignore bits and pieces of it. I'm not saying you ignored bits and pieces, but you didn't explain how it fits at all to begin with.
The word simply doesn't apply to the situation, because the definition doesn't fit. It's that easy. You guys/girls are starting from the assumption that this is plagiarism then justifying it after, even if the assumption can't be backed up without defining plagiarism simply as copying.
Oh my God. Seriously man. Does it really matter?
I guess EvE said, " Sure by all means, copy our ToS and use it and make sure you forget to edit it properly."
I have no doubt that conversation actually happened. You are just so totally correct. You win.
As far as how ToS's are made I dont freggin know. I dont really care. Maybe they all just copy and paste one anothers. But I doubt it. I have a high doubt that EvE's reads just like WoWs or Rifts, or otherwise. But have it your way. Sheesh.
I'm totally calm right now in real life, and I'm not upset at all. Any hostility in my posts is unintended. I just get to the point. Does it really matter? The issue itself doesn't matter to me at all. What does matter to me is having good conversations and discussions with people where the people back up what they say and make thoughtful posts. There's yet to be one person here to really give a thoughtful reply. Two non-simple definitions have been given, but no one has explained how they apply. Why copy and paste a lengthy definition if all that can be backed up is "that it's copying." Yeah, of course there was some copying. Plagiarism is much more than that.
Do I care about what is or isn't plagiarism in the abstract? No. Do I care about the substance of this issue? Not at all. Do I care about the critical thinking skills of people I engage in conversation with online? Yeah. Having good, non hostile conversations is fun to me. You see this conversation as if I'm trying to win, and I don't see conversations like that. I enjoy thoughtful back and forths with people.
If you or anyone wants to "win" though, then why not successfully explain in detail how every phrase in the definition of plagiarism applies in this case? Then the word fits and you guys are all right. I don't think that will happen though, unless the definition chosen is "copying." Minus the hostility and we can actually have a good conversation.
Tin foil hats! F**king lol.
Personally I and any average person could not care less about a typo, what I do care about is the fact that since it was posted here, it was probably dug up by someone who doesnt even play the game looking through their entire terms of service. If that is the case, I find it utterly hilarious.
EDIT: and how do any of you know that CCP didn't copy and paste their TOS from another game?
And finally where is your proof that it even was copy pasted? It may simply not be proof read. I know that when Ive written things out and my mind has drifted I've written typo's. Maybe the writer had been playing EVE beforehand and had it in his head, and when Mortal Online came up to be written they wrote Eve Online without thinking? That seems reasonable to me.
I'm sure someone has sent in a petition to atleast point CCP's head in this direction.