  :There's the following to consider: In plagiarism there's always some [[original] lurking, of which the plagiarism embodies an unauthorised duplication. But in forgiary the existence or lack thereof of an original is immaterial. Quite simply, the forgery, in its material embodiment, is not what it purports to be. :I have come to this analysis by studying the Protocols of Zion. We know now, quite conclusively, that it is a plagiarism! But is it a forgery, as it is asserted to be to this day by many? :My view is that the original manuscript - which has since it was handled by Serge Nilus has disappeared - is, or was a forgery, written, allegedly by certain Jews, etc. However, that forgery, having disappeared, what we have remaining is the text (an immaterial thing). It is the meaning, not the physical letters of the alphabet arranged on paper, which constitutes the plagiarism. :So a forgery requires just what the word embodies - a [forge]]. One cannot divorce the forgery from its physical embodyment and still have the crime.  :All this becomes confused more by our modern technological computer revolution which makes duplication incredibly easier than ever before. :But CD's are forged, not plagiarized these days - just like paper money that has not actually rolled off its government's printing press. Things are easily confused here. And this is way. The very nature of money require all particular denominations to look the same, more or less. And so the crime of forgery is not the resemblance, or lack thereof, but merely its inauthenticity - and that's fundamenta lly tied to its physical embodiment. That's not at all the case with plagiarism, however. If one were to translate a plagiarism into another language, the crime of plagiarism would persist. But one cannot so alter a forgery. :::So I think it is duplication which distinguishes the two. Again, plagiarism implies an original of which it is a copy, in whole, or in part. :::But in forgery there is no other original, or the item presented is an original so to speak. And since the question boils down to this authenticity of an original presented, how can there be a crime without a body??? And that's why the material embodiment in the case of forgery is so fundamental. In other words, no forgery of monetary currency has taken place until such time as the forged plates have been created.  