I thought that at the university level (and in the corporate world) "plagiarism" was the act of copying from a single source, whereas "research" was the act of copying from multiple sources? Neither one required much thought in my experience.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Plagiarism itself has to be re-define now since the line between original and copy version in now blur. I support the views made in the following article: Time To Think Differently About Plagiarism??(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=544&doc_id=147992&)

...Not all of us fall under your stereo-typical classification.
Thanks anyways though.

It's true that. Imagine submitting a paper (written all by yourself) and then seeing that it was flagged up in some places as being plagiarised (as this is how the system works). I'd take it off, change some things round and re-submit it again. I don't want the teachers thinking that i'm plagiarising. 

However, there is one surefire way to get around this and to be fair this method has been in use for a while now. Submit a paper and digital copy to the teacher and then the teacher submits this into their plagiarism database. I don't know why they put the power in the hands of the students to begin with... though to be fair lecturers and teachers are hideously overworked and underpaid... it's quite a broken system really.