Paper books like that one were not simple to steal, because of the guards in the bookstores and the valuable effort of retyping, mastering, printing, binding and distributing. In the digital era you can get an Ebook, crack or OCR it if protected, and copy-pasting it.



The main client for Ebook-stealing tools are webmasters, in particular those with an interest for decent search engine ranking. In order to please the search engines and acquire deep indexing, high relevance and top ranking, a lot of relevant content must be written (or copied).

When I was into science there was a phrase "Publish or perish", that expressed more or less the same. Quantity instead of quality. I guess most of us would like to have time to write short and juicy articles instead of Google-friendly mumbo-jumbo.

Machine-writing is a relatively fresh activity. And I am not talking of simple copy-pasting, but a more sophisticated text-generation breed of specialized software. Some simple plans take a number of words and just mix them, like Ktumbler. Others can generate random English-like phrases, like the "Web Economy Bullshit Generator", or sensible good English phrases by the thousand, like Phrase Generator in Synonymizer.

But phrases are not substitute for longer text, and lots of lazy or greedy webmasters are tempted to copy-paste from the web, which is easier and faster than thinking. A much criticized brand of website ranking systems, Cloaking, copies large amounts of relevant, well ranked text from the web, and shows it to the search engine spiders. In this way, they pretend to have more and superior content than any other site. And the best of it, when the visitor is a human, they hide the stolen goods and show some innocent words. Cloaking refers to that ability, and it is achieved by IP detection and comparison with known spider data.

Finally, the synonym zing and text-mixing tools modify the original texts beyond recognition. Like facial surgery after committing a crime.

However, I am afraid that there is a little copyright issue... The problem is that nobody knows exactly what the limits for automated text surgery are.

To synonymies or otherwise disguise a source text is morally wrong, most of us would agree. But it has limits. If I say "My Kingdom for an equine", or "After me, the big rain", or "Let's there be illumination", you will understand that synonyms cannot be forbidden. There are also many situations in which overprotective legislation blocks creativity and innovation.

I am tempted to emulate Abbie Hoffman and discuss the morality of copyright and the whole issue of intellectual property. However, those are deep waters.

My point is that there is no established parameter to define plagiarism in texts. What if I substitute "2" for "two" and Goog for Google, as I do to avoid being noticed by them? And Yah for Yahoo, not to forget the pioneer? Or if I change just one word in a phrase? What if I just mix the phrases in a text? Goog will probably still consider that the keyword density is correct for top ranking, minus a correction to account for the fact than the start of a file is more important than the end.

Many Plagiarism Detection services can compare any submitted text with a large library (mostly, the WWW) and decide if there is enough similarity with a certain source. They usually do not disclose their algorithm, but assure “it comprises proprietary technology” and “detects digital signature of the authors”. A leader in this field says "Copyscape looks for pages containing sizeable chunks of identical text". Nobody knows how that translates into numbers.

Google and the other search engines are against "duplicated content", but they do not define it.

The availability of "text de-authoring tools" makes the intellectual property issue very blurry to any attorney willing to evaluate the existence of a crime. And as a collateral effect, the modified text will not be detected by the anti-plagiarism tools, which mostly search for exact text coincidences.