Whether you are a writer looking for plagiarized copies of your work or a teacher/professor checking academic papers for plagiarism, Google is your friend.

Google provides, by far, the easiest way to perform quick plagiarism checks, whether to find if a work is plagiarized or has been the victim of plagiarism, it does so for free and it does it in a very robust way.

Though there are a lot of great tools out there with many great uses, Google remains my first stop for plagiarism checks in most cases as it is simply faster, cheaper and more accurate than most other tools.

Though you shouldn’t use it exclusively and definitely should not shy away from using additional tools, you need Google in your arsenal and you need to learn how to use it well. Otherwise, you may find yourself spending more time and money than needed while not getting the results you desire.

Why Google

When deciding where to start with your plagiarism check, consider the five following reasons to start with Google:

1. Human Analysis is Best: It is pretty trivial for a human to find a statistically improbable phrase that is likely to be reused. Some plagiarism checkers don’t ignore quoted and cited content and all search for content that is likely repeated without plagiarism. This means a few seconds spent on the front end finding a good phrase can save hours on the backend filtering through false positives. Furthermore, over-reliance on more automated systems can result in users taking the results as gospel and not performing adequate human evaluation. This can be a tremendous mistake.
2. Immediate, Accessible and Free: Even a complicated Google search is returned within a few seconds. Some take days to process matches while even the faster ones usually take a few minutes, this hinders their usefulness in checking hunches. Also, Google is free to use and is available anywhere you have an Internet connection, even via your phone. The service that fits in your schedule and budget is the one you will use and if you don’t use a plagiarism checker, it can do no good at all.
3. Accuracy: In my experience, Google produces far fewer false positives than even more advanced plagiarism checkers. It also has a very large database with billions of pages, including PDFs, Word files and other non-HTML formatted content. It also updates in very close to real time with Google News and blog search, making it great for finding instances of plagiarism that take place quick after publication.
4. It’s What You Care About: If your work is plagiarized and the plagiarism isn’t in Google, does it exist? It’s a valid question and, if you’re a content creator worried about SEO, the answer is probably no. Other checkers that don’t work off Google’s database may cause you to spend time and resources on leads that don’t matter. Other databases are usually slower to update. Also, Google tends to do a good job of prioritizing matches for you, starting with those that are more important. Finally, Google, in my experience, is the most popular means for students to plagiarize their work, making it a logical tool to backtrack any suspected plagiarism.
5. It’s Dead Simple: Everyone knows how to do a Google search. Not everyone knows how to format a paper for submission to another service. It’s a method anyone can use with almost no training at all, including those easily intimidated by technology.

In short, Google is easy to use, very fast and provides very accurate, broad results for the total price of free. Though it isn’t the perfect plagiarism checker by any stretch. When others ask me to quickly check a work for them, it is where I usually start. If something trips my sensors, I will often times use another checker, such as Plagium or CopyScape to drill down deeper.

In short, there is no intended slight in this of other plagiarism checkers, in fact, there are many legitimate needs that they are needed to fill.

Google’s Limitations

As great as Google is, there are still limitations to what it can do and those limitations are often filled very well through other services. Consider the following:

1. Organization and Resolution Assistance: Google simply provides results, it is up to you to organize them and take action on them. Services like Attributor and iCopyright Conductor, which are aimed at larger content creators, and Turnitin and SafeAssign, which are aimed at schools, provide that organization. This makes managing large case loads much more bearable.
2. Additional Sources: Plagiarism checkers that specialize in academic environments, including Turnitin, include additional databases that are not available to Google including private article databases and research paper.
3. Full-Work Matching: Though Google is great for quick checks and finding potential matching pages, determining what content is matching and which isn’t is a headache by hand. More robust checkers will highlight the duplicate content and make it easy to see at-a-glance what has been copied. Plagiarism checkers such as Copyscape, which is based on Google, and Plagium are natural additions to Google in this area. Also, collusion detection such as WCopyFind can check two suspect documents, such as one Google suspects, and highlight matching portions.

In short, these tools have a time and a place. I still recommend them highly and use them widely depending on the project and situation. However, they do some of their best work after Google or another search engine has alerted the searcher to the possibility of plagiarism and a deeper look is needed to determine how significant the potential infraction is.

Bottom Line

When someone asks me to check and see if a work is plagiarized, especially if they are wanting me to see if the work appears anywhere else on the Web, I usually turn to Google first. Though other checkers are great, Google simply does the best job of letting me know how much copying the work has seen, who the most important infringers/likely sources are and if further research is needed.

Uunless Google alerts me that there is a likely problem, I know that other services will most likely be a waste of time that will possibly have me swimming through false positives or simply waiting for results. All in all, it is time lost that could be better spent elsewhere.

For most searches, Google is my primary tool of choice. Though it isn’t usually the last word on whether or not a work has been plagiarized, it tells me what I need to know and helps me better determine what I need to do next. It is my first choice for plagiarism checker, the default tool I reach for, but that doesn’t make it the only one I use.

Regardless, learning how to use Google for plagiarism detection and learning how to use it well should be the first priority for anyone wanting to find duplicate content, whether of their own work or to detect plagiarism in other’s. Without it, you won’t be as effective at plagiarism detection nor as able to perform the task.

Simply put, relying on a plagiarism checker to make decisions for you is a poor move, especially with the danger of false positives. Human judgement is the best and Google lets you exercise it some before bringing in the bigger guns.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: $1.5m Fine for Illegal Game Upload

First off, an Australian man has been ordered to pay Nintendo $1.5 million and cover $100,000 in court costs for uploading a copy of Mario Bros Wii to a file sharing site a week before the game’s release. The site in question was shut down quickly but the game was downloaded “many thousands of times” before then.

2: More Posner Plagiarism

Next up today, Gerald Posner, a reporter for the Daily Beast, has been hit with two back-to-back allegations of plagiarism, accusations that have apparently cost Posner his job. Posner stands accused of having lifted passages from The Miami Herald as well as a Texas attorney among others.

3: Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Reprint Under Way, Bucking German Ban

Finally today, the copyright on Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf” is due to fall out of copyright in 2015 and plans are already underway to reprint the controversial work. The state of Bavaria currently holds the copyright to the work and has banned all reprints, including for academic purposes, and publication is still banned in Germany, copyrighted or not. Bavaria has expressed concern that the book could be used for neo-nazi propaganda, a concern researchers are saying they hope to counter in advance.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

It is Monday Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

That’s right, for this week, and likely from here on out, the show will be going up on Friday rather than Monday. With the new recording time, Wednesdays at 6:00 PM ET, which you can now watch live on UStream, I felt it was important to get the podcast up earlier so the news would be more relevant.

On that note, it was something of a slow week for copyright news but there was still some big updates to be found including an update from China and it’s leading search engine, Baidu, more on Google Book Search and even a little bit about the Super Bowl.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• Baidu Not Liable for Copyright Infringement
• Revised Google Book Search Deal Faces Renewed Opposition
• British Newspapers Find Copyright Trouble
• Microsoft Goes After a Bittorrent Tracker
• NFL Gives in on “Who Dat” Claims
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Justice Dept to Google Books: Close, But No Cigar

First off today the Department of Justice has finally made its opinion of the revised Google Book Search settlement known and, though it found a lot of improvements in the revised deal, it still expressed grave concerns, especially that the settlement goes far beyond the scope of resolving past actions. This casts the revised settlement into doubt and makes the future of this case very uncertain.

2: AFACT Demands Govt Curb Online Piracy

Next up, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has asked the government to step in following a recent court ruling which found that Australian ISP iiNet was not liable for infringement by its users and had no obligation to step in. Members of the government have said that they are monitoring the situation closely and are reviewing the situation.

3: Bruce Springsteen Sues NYC Pub for Copyright Infringement

Finally today, ASCAP has filed a suit against Connolly’s Pub in New York City saying that the pub had bands cover Bruce Springsteen songs but failed to pay the proper licensing fees. Springsteen however, though listed as a co-defendant, has said he had nothing to do with the lawsuit and has requested that his name be removed from it.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

Earlier this week, blogger and media mogul Mark Cuban, who owns HDNet and famously sold broadcast.com to Yahoo! for nearly $6 billion in 1999, had some choice words for content aggregators such as Google News when discussing the issue as part of a panel.

He said that, when thinking about such aggregators, “The word that comes to mind is vampires. When you think about vampires, they just suck on your blood.”

He also encouraged newspapers to block Google News from linking to their content as well as block other aggregators.

While these types of words are often heard from newspaper CEOs and others within the mainstream media, they are more rare coming from those inside the tech industry, such as Cuban. Though he has since posted a more tame clarification of his stance, one which focuses more on the ability to monetize traffic from aggregators, his comments reignited the debate over the role of aggregators, including a rebuttal from TechCrunch, and once again put the role of such sites in the spotlight.

But are aggregators really the problem many in the mainstream media want to believe? The answer, in my view, is more complicated.

Symbiotic Aggregators vs. Parasites

The problem with aggregators is that you can’t paint them with a broad brush. It’s a term that can apply to almost any site these days, including the 3 Count column here on Plagiarism Today, as most sites, including mainstream media sites, do some element of collecting links and news from elsewhere and repackaging it.

Good aggregation, as mentioned in the TechCrunch article, provides not just a valuable service to readers by helping them find interesting news and information, but also to the sites they link to by giving them added exposure. In short, they may be middle men, but they can greatly benefit both sides.

The problem arises when aggregators don’t want to serve as mere middle men, but want to replace the original sites. An example of this is the All Headline News lawsuit, which was recently settled, where the Associated Press accused the service of simply rewriting and republishing breaking news from the AP, thus saving money on reporting.

Where the line is drawn is admittedly murky. Fair use and fair dealing, fortunately, provide a lot of guidance. The idea of “transformative” use is certainly a key element to any “white hat” aggregator and, while the law isn’t perfect (the All Headline News case largely hinged on an archaic “hot news” ruling from 1918), it can help

Still, it’s clear that there is a lot of new tech and new ideas in this particular space and many of the lines haven’t been drawn. That is something that groups like the Fair Syndication Consortium are trying to sort out.

What is An Aggregator Anyways?

The other problem with the aggregator argument is that virtually any site does some level of aggregation. If you use or link to other content, you probably are an aggregator, at least in some capacity.

There are three different ways a site can provide this kind of service:

1. Editor-Driven: A single editor selects stories and publishes them. Includes the 3 Count here and many tech blogs.
2. Crowd-Driven: The selection of stories is handled by a crowd of people. Includes social news sites such as Digg, Reddit, etc.
3. Computer-Driven: The process is handled by an algorithm. Includes Google News, Google and even spam blogs.

Though Cuban singled out Google News, the reality of it is nearly every site does some level of content aggregation and, unless we all stop linking to one another completely and live on islands in the Web, it is the way it is going to stay. Doing as Cuban suggests, blocking links from aggregators that can’t be adequately monetized, opens up the very real danger of no inbound links being allowed.

Most people, myself included, feel that the Web is better, by in large, for the service of “white hat” aggregators. The only problem lies with some who approach it with bad intentions. Those people do need to be dealt with and the law does, by in large, provides a means for doing so though there may still be a need to address certain kinds of aggregation where the law is more gray.

However, that will be a slow process to say the least as the law seems to be eternally behind the technology that is built upon or around it.

Bottom Line

To slam aggregation broadly is to condemn most sites on the Web, or at least part of their presence. Aggregators can be a force for good or for evil.

In the end, if newspapers and magazines felt that aggregation was hurting them they could, with a few lines of code, pull out of Google and Google News completely. They haven’t done so and the few who have tried it have consistently gone back after seeing the impact first hand.

Still, I am eager to hear your thoughts on this topic. As bloggers, artists and other creators, how do you feel about the issue of aggregation? Do you side with Cuban, with me or with someone else?

Obviously there is a lot of room for debate and discussion of this issue and I hope to start at least a small side conversation on the topic here.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: iiNet Slays Hollywood in Landmark Piracy Case

First off today, Australian ISP iiNet has won their battle with Hollywood studios over their alleged liability for copyright infringement by its subscribers. The studios had sued the ISP in one of the most bizarre legal cases in recent memory but the judge ruled that, under current Australian law, the ISP has not legal liability for infringement by its users, similar to laws here in the U.S.

2: Men At Work Lose Plagiarism Case in Australia

Next up today, the Australian band Men At Work have lost their case against Larrikin Music, who had claimed that the flute riff from the famous Men At Work song “Down Under” was lifted from “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree”, written by Marion Sinclair in 1934, which they hold the rights to. The court agreed and has ordered damages to be paid though the exact amount is undetermined at this time.

3: Maori Flag Copyright Not About Money – Designer

Finally today, Linda Munn, the creator of the Maori flag is denying that she is enforcing copyright in her design for money but rather to protect the flag from exploitation. The Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand and Munn had created the flag as a symbol for them. She also denied that Maori Party MP Hone Harawira was earning money from the flag.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

photo credit: WallTea

Feeding Google’s insatiable appetite for content is on of the main reasons why infringers scrape and plagiarize content and also one of the biggest reasons why it is important to monitor and, in many cases, defend against it.

The logic is simple enough, the more copies of a work that appear, especially without proper attribution, the less likely that the search engines will give credit to the original source. This can erode search engine performance, especially for smaller and less-established sites or those in highly-competitive fields.

However, duplicate content doesn’t just come from plagiarists and spammers, it also comes from oneself and our own actions when dealing with our own content. Some of it is errors within our site, some of it is in how we approach social networking and social news.

So even as we are enforcing our rights elsewhere, we have to be careful about how we use our own works. Though it might not be infringement, it can certainly have a very negative impact on you and your site and is worth dealing with all the same.

Starting at Home

The first steps to dealing with duplicate content have to start on your own site or blog. Many people don’t realize how many opportunities there are to create duplicate content on your site, even by pure accident.

Consider the following examples from a simple blog:

1. Tag Pages: Tag pages have much of the same content as individual post pages and are generated by most blogging applications.
2. Archive Pages: Monthly, yearly and other archive pages, similar to tag pages, have the same content, or significant portions of it, repeated.
3. Category Pages: As with Archives and Tags, category pages repeat content.
4. Printable Pages: Many themes include printable versions of content pages that can be indexed as duplicates.
5. Comment Pages: Finally, depending on the way comments are set up, a separate page with duplicate content can be created for the version with comments.

Depending on how your blog is set up, it is entirely possible that your article appears six times or more on your site. Google, and other search engines, have to make a decision about which page is the best page and link to it. However, it doesn’t always make the right decision and, in extreme cases, can even decide that the site is spamming and either lower its ranking or remove it.

Thus, it is important to make sure that you keep this duplicate content to a minimum and do your part to let the search engines know what you want them to link to. Here are a few tips:

1. Show Summaries: When possible, only use article summaries and link to the full article. There is no reason for your tag, archive or category pages to display the full text of every entry.
2. Use Robots.txt: Use your robots.txt file to prevent search engines from indexing unneeded pages, such as your printable pages. However, use caution with this method.
3. Use Canonical Tag: Google, Yahoo and Bing all support the canonical tag, which tells search engines which page is the best to include in the index.

In short, be very clear what versions of your content are ideal and try to keep the duplicates to an absolute minimum. Doing so will greatly help search engines tell which page to link to, helping both you provide a better service.

Away from Home

The other problem with self-defeating content use lies away from the home site. Where once an entire person’s presence was in their home page, now it can be scattered all over the Web, including other sites they run and social networking sites that they integrate with and use.

While it may seem like a great idea to post your content on every site you take part in, it can confuse the search engines. You want your efforts in social media to support your search engine strategy, not replace your original site. However, many people unwittingly do exactly that.

Here are a few ways to avoid that:

1. Unique Content for Each Site: If you run multiple sites, you need to have unique content for each. You can use snippets of content to cross promote and certainly link between them, but don’t repost everything. It confuses search engines and readers alike.
2. Use Snippets: When posting your content on other sites, use snippets and link to the original works. The likelihood of this replacing your content, in human or search engine eyes, is slim to none.
3. Require Links: Whenever any content of yours appears on another site, even in snippet form, request links back to the original, specifically SE-friendly ones.

In short, be careful how you use your content. Though linked use isn’t likely to hurt you with the search engines, if you aren’t careful you can really eat up your own site by spreading your work too thin, too carelessly.

Bottom Line

When we think of content reuse, we think of what others do with our work. However, the fact is we are all the biggest reusers of our own work and, perhaps, the most important.

Though we can and should track how others use our content, as well as prevent uses that are against our wishes, it is also important to keep an eye on ourselves and make sure that our actions are working for us and with our strategy.

As with anything else in life, the best place to start your content strategy is by looking at yourself and your own actions, after all, you are your own biggest customer.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Will Your Big-Screen Super Bowl Party Violate Copyright Law?

First off today, Ars Technica has a great examination of the myth that showing the Super Bowl on an ultra-large TV, greater than 55 inches, may be a violation of copyright law. The conclusion is that while the law does mention TVs above a certain size as being infringing, it only covers large establishments, not private homes as there is no public performance. So enjoy the game.

2: Who Dat Nation 1, NFL 0 in Merchandise Fight

Next up, in an update to a story reported last week,the NFL has backed off its claims over the term “Who Dat”, a popular chant for Saints fans. As the Saints head to the Super Bowl, the NFL had sent cease and desist letters to shop owners printing the phrase on T-shirts but now the NFL is saying that it is only an issue if it used with other Saints trademarks, such as their name and logo.

3: UK ISP Talk Talk: Copyright Bill Will Increase Piracy

Finally today, UK ISP Talk Talk has said that Britain’s Digital Economy Bill will actually increase piracy by driving it further underground. The bill, which may require ISPs to disconnect alleged file sharers after several warnings, will only hasten the transition away from P2P and the use of technology to hide sharing activities according to the service. The bill is still being debated.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

It is Monday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It was a busy week for copyright news as we have a major revelation in the Jammie Thomas case, news about a criminal investigation against Shepard Fairey and a $32 million judgement against two Web hosts who were accused of hosting sites that sold counterfeit goods.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• Thomas Verdict Reduced
• Shepard Fairey Faces a Criminal Investigation
• Swedish Music Fans Turn Away From Piracy
• Chinese Sites Pledge to Battle Piracy
• Pants and Attorneys on the Ground
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Class Action vs. Record Labels Over Peer-to-Peer Suits Hanging Bby a Thread

First off today, the lawsuit Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corp, which saw a wrongly accused file sharer attempt to start a class action suit against the record labels for their legal practices seems to be circling the drain. Though Andersen won a $103,175 judgement for attorney’s fees, she attempted to counter sue. However, that countersuit is running into problems as the judge has already granted a summary judgement in favor of the labels on the issue of wrongful investigation and has denied the suit class action status, making it unlikely to move forward. An amended petition for class status is expected soon.

2: Reading Post Wins Landmark Copyright Battle

Next up today, British newspaper the Reading Post won a copyright battle with a photographer whose images were used in the paper without permission. The images, which were of graffiti and vandals in abandoned buildings, were given to the paper by the police hoping that their printing would generate leads. The court tossed out the photographer’s suit, refusing to enforce the copyright of the work on the grounds it “incites or encourages” others to act in a way that is “immoral, scandalous or contrary to family life.”

3: Census of Files Available via BitTorrent

Finally today, Sauhard Sahi, a Princeton senior, decided to perform a census of bittorrent files to see what kinds of content was being shared. He found that, based on his sample of 1021 works, that some 99% of the files were likely infringing. Though the results are somewhat mitigated by the fact he was looking at files shared, not downloaded, and could not determine the legality of every work effectively, it is an interesting glimpse at what is being swapped on the file sharing network.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr