Interesting. I didn't get to this thread until now and I've just read the exchange of views between Keiva and MaxQ (with suitable interjections from the Ithacan ideologue) with interest. To me, it seems that the argument (using the legal definition) was actually about legal definitions.
While I agree that the principal victim must be the actual author of the plagiarised text in every case, it is hard to come to the conclusion that the reader is a victim if the plagiarised text actually contributes to the well-being of the reader. In that case, the only fraud being perpetrated is that of uncited authorship; the high quality of the overall information presented to the reader may well override the small cost to the reader of not knowing that some (or all) of the text was plagiarised.
I can cite at least one
kind of example. I was reading a magazine the other day in which a number of tips on stain removal were presented. Because of the wording of one of them, I knew that it had come from another source, although I'm not altogether certain that
that souce was original, either. However, the tips are good ones. I benefit from being able to use them while the cost to me of not knowing whether the columnist was, in fact, the author of the text I was reading is precisely zilch.
On the other hand, the example mentioned above relating to student plagiarism is also interesting. The victim there is really the plagiarist, no matter what the grade awarded, isn't it? Although there may be some slight disbenefit to the original author, I feel that the student doing the plagiarising is missing out most of all. Beside, most academics can spot outright plagiarism at 50 paces, can't they, even if they can't positively prove it.
Not arguing the legal definition (or supporting plagiarism, either), just commenting on outcomes ...
I also have to congratulate Maxy on organising his life and work flow well enough to assign Job numbers to his posts on the Board!
