Well, the whole thing's kinda meta, isn't it? The content isn't on either site, it's just, really, the content identifiers. Not even that, this is about a sorting of identifiers against arbitrary strings of text. Whatever distinctions we have here are gonna appear incredibly small (and petty), but it's really the bread and butter of search.

Both are map makers in a sense, providing guides to what they didn't create, but still spent plenty of effort to make that guide. In the literal, map-making world, the artifact is the printed map. In that world, the way to check for copyright infringement is to see if mapping errors are duplicated as well.

The presumption being that if the errors were copied, then so was the good data.

Short-term, the benefit was that users would get discounts on high-quality data, as they only had to pay for the efforts of the map-copy, not the original map data acquisition. Of course, then you're just waiting for the quality to drop, as there's less and less incentive to actually do the map-making work. The margins go down, and the original sources have to update their maps less often to keep their costs low enough to be competitive.

There isn't a printed page with web search; the product is the output of a continuously-running dataset & algorithm.

But, I'm gonna ask, in the web-search world, how do you define copying and how do you test for it? If you don't think there is a valid definition, please don't count yourself the same as the group who thinks that there is a valid definition and this isn't it. They're two separate things.

(I've framed the question how I see it, and I work for Google, but I'm obviously no official speaker -- I've only been here a few months, and don't work in search quality. This is (almost definitionally) a fanboi war of sorts, and I wanted to stay out. I probably should have :( )