Is Plagiarism Wrong?

Yes, obviously IMO. Surprised I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet but the chief reason plagiarism is wrong in my view is that it’s typically employed in situations in which the finished work is used to “certify” the ability to prepare the finished work. By “stealing” that finished work, the plagiarizer is granted credentials that they don’t deserve, thereby rotting their given institution from within by being granted prestige without the expected concomitant skill to match. It’s institutional poison IMO

HN does not have very unified views. I personally don’t care about GPL violations, but I am also not clicking on these stories you’re talking about so I don’t even see these HN discussions.

Intentionally copying the work of someone else, letter by letter, with the goal of getting some kind of reward, can be seen as morally wrong.

But from there down you have a lot of shades of gray, can seven musical notes be taken as plagiarism if you do a different song with a sucession of notes that you didn't know from where they came (for you may be indistingishable from your own creation), or that you never heard before? Or a full phrase, in a different context, or a "common sense" algorythm to solve a common problem with not so many ways to solve it?

When you are not doing a full copy, at some point you reach the level of meme transmission, something that makes us humans, enabled the emergence of civilization and let us to stand on the shoulders of giants. Or worse, with just independent, but similar enough, work, putting laws penalizing that turns creation into a potential trap for whoever that doesn't have an army of lawyers already.

Lots of knowledge (I’d say most) was handed out to modern us as a result of what today would be called plagiarists. It’s true, there was no grant system in the European Middle Ages and I guess the smart folk in Baghdad were also not that interested in being original or being seen as inventors/creators.

Yes, plagiarism is wrong.

The author starts by telling how he, as a child, confused the directions of "write a poem" and "write down a poem". He then doubles down on this mistake, rather than concluding that English is weird.

The author conflates legality and morality, stating that any group that establishes extralegal moral norms needs to reexamine its assumptions. The author implicitly and incorrectly assumes that laws are the source of morals, rather than existing to incentive moral behavior.

The author fails to consider the effect of reputation. Reputation is a heuristic that is used to determine how likely something is, given how trustworthy the speaker is on the subject. If a researcher in an esoteric field, having contributed several results to the field, suggests a new way to interpret the field, that suggests that the idea has already been reasonably vetted. A crank email, on the other hand, may present similarly novel ideas, but they have not been vetted. Plagiarism inappropriately assigns reputation, subverting this heuristic.

The author's metaphor of the apple tree has some rather unfortunate implications. By the logic given, a person should plant apple trees farther from the property line, so that all apples fall well away from public roads. In scientific discovery, this would mean hiding one's findings, refusing to publish other than to state that a discovery has been made. This was the method that was in use through the 16th century, and resulted in much slower rate of progress. Read, for instance, the multiple discoveries of the Cardano Formula.

In short, the author's case that plagiarism should be abandoned as a concept is severely flawed.