After listening to the radio show by NPR on "Digital Sampling: Creativity or Criminality," and the reading the article "Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age," I have to separate conclusions on both. For the digital sampling radio dialogue that we as a class listened to everything seemed to boil down to wether or not someone who held the copyrights was getting paid for people using them or not. More than once it was brought up during these arguments, that it wasn't the artists themselves who were being outraged by sampling but the corporations who own the copyrights to the sample in question. Therefore I have ultimately concluded that the real issue here is not wether it is ethical to use a digital sample or not but wether or not a big wig somewhere will be able to profit off of it. As it was also stated in one of the several arguments throughout this segment, sometimes sampling actually helps revitalize the career or individual from whom which the original track came.
 In the article "Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age," an entirely different point was being made. The general meaning behind this article seemed to be that the definitions and general academic awareness of what plagiarism is and what constitutes an act of plagiarism seem to be becoming more loosely applied by the younger generations of students. In several examples the writer shows how the morality or plagiarism seems to be nothing more than something lazy students snicker at as they rush to finish research papers that require adequate recognition of other peoples work. It should be noted that the evidence provided in this article seems to heavily imply that the lack of proper citation is due to students becoming increasingly lazy and not simply that more often than not they are expected to know how to properly cite works that are not their own.