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）语言，所有的论点，大多数的例子都是从我的文章取来，但却不引用我。因此，我现在郑重宣布方博士抄袭/剽窃了我的著作。]
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 [根据国际版权法，不仅文章的语言受保护，论点结构及用于支持论点的例子都受保护]. 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权法制约的说法是完全错误的]. 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
乌有之乡 WYZXWK.COM
