Here is a simple scenario:

A speech teacher teaching Introduction to Public Speaking assigns pupils in two different classes to present a speech in which they put forth their own ideas. Patrick is in her first period class and Barry is in her second period class. They are friends. As it happens, these friends have common interests and opinions and choose the same subject for their speeches: The power of words.

No problem there. You cannot plagiarize subject matter. In discussing their speeches both students think it would be cool to include the phrase "we find these words to be self-evident."

No real problem there. Each might cite the source of the words but the words are so common and the source for these words are so well known that they need not actually mention where the words came from. It is a speech after all and not a research paper.

However, while "riffing" off each other Patrick comes up with some words he really likes. Barry says he likes those words too. Can he use them. Patrick says sure.

No problem there. Patrick has given Barry his permission. They are friends after all and there is no copyright infringement, a legal term which refers to appropriating or copying someone else's work without express permission. It is agreed. They are simply sharing.

Speech day comes. Patrick gives his speech first. Upon delivery of his speech, his speech is orally published. It's his. Anyone who subsequently gives the speech without his permission has violated the rules-- or in the larger world, the law.

The teacher is liked Patrick's speech. Not only does Patrick have a compelling personality which he is able to project, but all the stuff she has taught him -- how to organize a speech using a hook at the beginning and a summary at the end, how to stay on point, how to project his voice, how to vary his gaze, how to mainly look at the middle distance of an audience to appear that you are including more people, how to use cadence and repetition for effect -- Patrick gets it all. Good job! He gets an A. After all, given a certain personality type, good public speakers are built not born.

No problem there.

Now on the the second period class where Barry also delivers a terrific speech. He too has master all the ingredients. How to organize a speech using a hook at the beginning and a summary at the end, how to stay on point, how to project his voice, how to vary his gaze, how to mainly look at the middle distance of an audience to appear that you are including more people, how to use cadence and repetition for effect. He's got it down. There is just one problem. The important and powerful words of his speech are ones that the teacher has already heard from Patrick. They are essentially the same words as a Patrick used at the most powerful part of this own speech, the theme of which was also the power of words. Ah yes. Words are indeed powerful. Unfortunately, Barry did not credit his friend Patrick. He presented the words as his own.

BIG PROBLEM! Barry gets an F because he plagiarized by passing Patrick's words off has his own without attribution. The teacher now has to confront Patrick who is also guilty of academic dishonesty if he knowingly allowed Barry to pass off his words as his own. These boys have broken no law, but they are both complicit in participating in that ethical lapse called plagiarism.

But who was hurt you may ask? The answer is that all the other students who did their own work are harmed by comparison.

But, you may be saying, what if Patrick was acting as a sort of speech writer for Barry? The answer is that then Patrick would have to give his words wholly over to Barry and would not be allowed to give the speech as his own. Instead, the speech would be Barry's. Patrick could never give the speech. The speech would just be Barry's.

I, using your own words (is it plagarism?) think you are too cowardly to respond to my last post.

wontgetfooledagain: "Hillary Clinton gave authority to the President to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing the inspectors into Iraq."

Um, that's not true at all. Bush didn't need anybody's permission to "intimidate" Hussein, nor did that vote provide the necessary authority to allow inspectors into the country.

Making things up as you go, are you?

make sure you explain that to everyone who watches the YouTube clip.

AKA Smith: "I will try to explain yet again. Deval Patrick giving Obama permission does not absolve Obama from plagiarism. That is because Obama did not tell the audience that the words were Patrick's."

Yes, according to your selectively chosen and self-serving definition, which you have settled on to the exclusion of all others just so you can keep your lame defense of Hillary Clinton going instead of being an honest person and admitting that her attack on Obama for three lines of a speech was a pointless distraction designed for the cynical purpose of winning "gotcha" points during a time of her candidacy's desperation.

I would consider a dictonary's definition of plagiarism more reliable than Wikipedia's, but if your point is that Obama did not use attribution, then you are logically required to admit that Hillary Clinton did not use attribution either.

Attribution is not required if the departure from the original text is great enough and the ideas being used are not particularly original in and of themselves.

In this instance, I don't give a damn about Hillary Clinton. If you paid attention to my word choices, you would realize that. It's the principle of the thing. That is what you and others are not getting. I care about the issue of plagiarism itself.

start a fucking club about it.

you have your self important snoot extended so far up hillary clinton's ass that you could see the light of day if you tried.