Yours is the fourth translation of Dr. Fang's essay to have been sent to me. Three have been from people who believe that Dr. Fang is guilty of plagiarism; one was from a friend of Dr. Fang's who claimed that the translation he sent me proved that Dr. Fang was not guilty of plagiarism. In fact, all of the translations, including the one from Dr. Fang's friend, are extremely similar in langauge and all lay out an identical argument using exactly the same examples. Much of the language, all of the argument, and the vast majority of the examples are drawn verbatim from my essay, which is not cited as a source of the argument, the language or the examples. I am now, therefore, convinced that Dr. Fang has plagiarized my work. [（方文的）語言，所有的論點，大多數的例子都是從我的文章取來，但卻不引用我。因此，我現在鄭重宣布方博士抄襲/剽竊了我的著作。]
Let me add two important points. One is that under international copyright law, not only is the exact language of an essay protected, but so is the structure of the argument and the set of examples used to bolster the argument [根據國際版權法，不僅文章的語言受保護，論點結構及用于支持論點的例子都受保護]. Devising the argument and marshalling the evidence to support it is, after all, just as much a form of intellectual work yielding unique intellectual property as is the crafting of the specific words used to convey the argument. The second point that I want to reiterate is that the Dr. Fang's claim that popularizations are exempt from copyright is absolutely false [方的普及就可不受版權法制約的說法是完全錯誤的]. An individual who popularizes science (or any other subject) is under just as much obligation as is the original scholar to cite his or her sources or provide other means for the reader to determine what original sources were used in writing the popularization. As an example, you can look at the popular blog on creativity that I write with my wife Michele Root-Bernstein on the Psychology Today website: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
