剽窃存在于过去,现在是现在。与之相关的有消极和积极的内涵。本文批判性分析的文章电影的演讲。有一些矛盾的元素和电影和文章的一些相似之处,也有不同的参数样式。本文认为,为建设更美好的知识进步和文化发展,文化必须允许剽窃技术民主化。挑衅倡导剽窃。这部电影是挑衅反对它,尽管它还考虑其他站点一样。首先定义了抄袭的东西”被视为语言的盗窃,想法,和图像的不到人才,经常增强个人财富和声望”然后走到重新定义,指出剽窃确实必要确保文化是分布式的。有作者的作品永远不会理解或使用或重新定义在其他学科如果没有剽窃者。改善”的想法。单词的意义参与改进。剽窃是必要的。所使用的词的类型和意义传达了剽窃的两个极端。一个是定义原型的理解剽窃和另一个极端是,认为剽窃是文化进步的必要条件。
Plagiarism existed in the past and it is present now. There are negative and positive connotations associated with it. This essay critically analyzes the CAE article with the movie “Press Pause Play” presentations. There are some elements of contradiction and some similarities in the movie and the article and there are also different argument styles adopted. The essay argues that for the greater good of knowledge progress and cultural development, plagiarism and technological democratization of culture must be allowed. CAE is being provocative advocating for plagiarism. The movie is provocative in opposing it, although it also considered the other stand point just as equally. CAE at first defines plagiarism as something that “has been viewed as the theft of language, ideas, and images by the less than talented, often for the enhancement of personal fortune or prestige” and then goes onto redefine it stating that plagiarism is indeed necessary to ensure that culture is distributed. There are works of authors that would never have been understood or used or redefined across other disciplines if not for the plagiarist. “Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. The type of words that are used and the meanings conveyed presents plagiarism from two extremes. One is that of defining the archetypal understanding of plagiarism and the other extreme is that of viewing plagiarism as necessary for cultural progress.