Note 1:  Thus, it is important to explore the potential of using current technology to identify and deter plagiarism. Note 2: Thus, students in the 2nd and subsequent semesters may have ha a stronger belief that plagiarism would be detected than did the students in the 1st semester. If the students in the 2nd ans subsequent semesters believed more strongly that plagiarism could be detected. Note 3: The subsequent reduction in the last 3 semesters may indicate that, in general, the students were convinced.

Note 1: Widespread access to the Internet and other electronic media has served as something of a double-edged sword with respect to plagiarism; the Web allows students to plagiarism with cut-and-paste ease, but also allows academics to more easily identify the source of the plagiarized material when plagiarism is suspected(Lyon, Barrett, and Malcolm 2006). Note 2: The Internet allow suspicious student writing to be more quickly compared to other sources using a standard internet search engine, leaving the detection of suspicious writing as the principle challenge. Note 3:  given that some systems now permit students to upload their own writing to check for plagiarism in advance of submitting assignments, rates of unintentional plagiarism may drop, making the remaining intentional plagiarism easier to detect. Note 4: Others argue that the adoption of a plagiarism-detection system will not only aid faculty in detecting plagiarism, but will serve as a deterrent to plagiarism in the first place. Note 5: For example, Kraemer (2008) has argued that students who are made aware that plagiarism-detection technologies are in use should, at a minimum, avoid intentionally copying from other sources because of the near certainty that they will be caught. Further, for those students who may unintentionally plagiarize out of ignorance about the rule of citation, the use of plagiarism-detection software may motivate them to better inform themselves about citations and to double-check their own papers for unintentional plagiarism.

Note 1: Most researchers conclude that digital plagiarism - Internet pr computer-driven copying without attribution - is rampant(e.g., Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; Walker, 2010) and has been for some time. Note 2: In short, computer technology and the Internet now make plagiarism an easy enterprise. A major implication of this state of affairs is that faculty will need to be more diligent in their efforts to mitigate the practice, especially those who educate large number of students (Ledwith & Risquez, 2008) Note 3:  Consequently,plagiarism detection systems offer educational research a direct empirical measurement of the behavior rather than speculation based on hearsay. Note 4: In addition to catching plagiarism when it occurs, detection systems also can be useful in deterring plagiarism outright. Note 5: a large body of evidence suggests that this software can be  an effective tool in detecting plagiarism(e.g., Batane, 2010; Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010; Tackett et al, 2010; Walker, 2010). 

Ten C's Rating: Currency: 13 Content:11 Authority:9 Navigation:9 Experience:10 Multimedia:3 Treatment: 10 Access:5 Miscellaneous:10 Total: 80 Good This articles explains the continuous rise of identity theft over the internet.

Ten C's Rating: Currency: 13 Content:14 Authority:9 Navigation:9 Experience:10 Multimedia:5 Treatment: 10 Access:5 Miscellaneous:10 Total: 85 Good

Ten C's Rating: Currency: 15 Content:12 Authority:10 Navigation:10 Experience:10 Multimedia:5 Treatment: 10 Access:5 Miscellaneous:10 Total: 87 Good

This article explains that copyright laws stretch out across vast media industires.

For example, the standards of copyright protection in developing economies should be appropriate for the level of economic development in order to account for the different weighting of the costs and benefits of copyright protection.

Note 1: Stealing someone's identity in the world of Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and other social networks - allied with a sea of easily obtained name, address and associated data from a wealth of free and low-cost online sources - is now so easy that cybercriminals are even offering DIY kits to novice criminals. If that wasn't enough, online underground I forums now act as a 'carder forums' where cybercriminals buy, sell and exchange identity and payment card sets for as little as $2.00 a time - rising to $6.00 if the identity on sale is that of an apparent high-flyer (e.g. a platinum card holder) located in the UK or premium income parts of the US such as New York City and Florida. Note 2: The carder forums - and the criminals who exchange data on them - have become highly sophisticated in the last few years, expanding their data-harvesting programs to encompass both legitimate and fraudulent e-commerce websites, as well as bribing members of low-paid staff in outsourced call centres, for whom $500 for a copy of their employer's database, or partial database, may be a highly enticing prospect. Note 3: Fraudulent websites are subtler. Since most savvy Internet shoppers now use price-comparison sites to seek out the best price on their travel tickets, CDs, DVDs and other essentials to their modern lifestyle, cybercriminals are known to create entirely bogus Web portals - suitably meta-tagged to allow Google and Yahoo to spider/screen scrape their data - designed to harvest customer card details and other credentials. Note 4:

Ten C's Rating: Currency: 11 Content:11 Authority:9 Navigation:9 Experience:10 Multimedia:5 Treatment: 10 Access:5 Miscellaneous:10 Total: 80 Good This article explain how frequent and easy it is for companies to steal someone's identity

Note 1: Regardless of this evidence showing that Rohn possessed many different forms of false identification, the court reversed Rohn's conviction because the government was unable to show that Rohn "knowingly possess[ed] with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents"^'' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3).^^ Note 2: n unlawful use because Rohn had not demonstrated a lawful one."^^ The court stated that the government tried to convict Rohn under a statute that Congress did not write, and that because the government did not technically meet all elements of the statute, the conviction had to be overturned. Thus, even though the government had charged an individual who had obviously stolen and used many different identities, the government was unable to convict this individual based on the technical language in the statute. Note 3: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Petitioner, holding that the government must prove that a defendant knew that the "means of identification" he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used did, in fact, belong to another person.'**^  Note 4: Thus, because the government could not prove that the petitioner technically knew that the identification numbers belonged to other people, the Supreme Court reversed the aggravated identity theft charges.'*'

Note 1: Stealing someone's identity in the world of Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and other social networks - allied with a sea of easily obtained name, address and associated data from a wealth of free and low-cost online sources - is now so easy that cybercriminals are even offering DIY kits to novice criminals. If that wasn't enough, online underground forums now act as a 'carder forums' where cybercriminals buy, sell and exchange identity and payment card sets for as little as $2.00 a time - rising to $6.00 if the identity on sale is that of an apparent high-flyer (e.g. a platinum card holder) located in the UK or premium income parts of the US such as New York City and Florida. Note 2: The carder forums - and the criminals who exchange data on them - have become highly sophisticated in the last few years, expanding their data-harvesting programs to encompass both legitimate and fraudulent e-commerce websites, as well as bribing members of low-paid staff in outsourced call centres, for whom $500 for a copy of their employer's database, or partial database, may be a highly enticing prospect. Note 3: There are even reports of some sites supplying users with their required CDs or DVDs (pirate versions, of course) and then selling the identity and card sets via multiple card forums. This is fraud monétisation and identity theft on a one-stop basis.

Article discusses the strategies for copyright lawmakers.

8 During the 112th Congress,  the House and Senate considered two competing measures, the Stop  Online Piracy Act ("SOPA")29 and the Protect IP Act of 2011 ("PIPA").30  SOPA and PIPA were designed to target foreign websites that engage in  copyright violations.31 The bills would allow the Justice Department to seek  court orders requiring U.S. websites to block access to foreign sites offering  pirated material, and would allow copyright owners to seek court orders  preventing such sites from receiving payment services from the U.S.32

8 During the 112th Congress,  the House and Senate considered two competing measures, the Stop  Online Piracy Act ("SOPA")29 and the Protect IP Act of 2011 ("PIPA").30  SOPA and PIPA were designed to target foreign websites that engage in  copyright violations.31 The bills would allow the Justice Department to seek  court orders requiring U.S. websites to block access to foreign sites offering  pirated material, and would allow copyright owners to seek court orders  preventing such sites from receiving payment services from the U.S.32

Ten C's Rating: Currency: 14 Content:11 Authority:9 Navigation:9 Experience:10 Multimedia:5 Treatment: 10 Access:5 Miscellaneous:10 Total: 83 Good The article displays different ways the film industry is struggling.