Even though you say at the beginning that not everyone knows what plagiarism is, this article somehow manages to make it less clear what exactly plagiarism is. You raise more questions than you provide answers.

That is because this article makes several equivocation fallacies. It equivocates plagiarism, copyright infringement, and duplicate content. Ironically, I think those fallacies are actually the most common misconceptions about plagiarism.

The source for your first point self-admittedly counts reposts (e.g. retweets) as "plagiarism". (The purpose of the infographic is to advertise a plagiarism detection service, and the purpose of a plagiarism detection service is to flag duplicate content so the user can decide if it is a problem, so of course the infographic shows off how well the service can detect duplicate content. Duplicate content ≠ plagiarism.) Unless you think retweets are the same kind of societal ill as ripped off doctoral theses, you have no basis for saying plagiarism is as big of a problem as you think it is. If you do think they are the same, then you are effectively arguing that ripped off doctoral theses are no big deal, because I am much likelier to believe that than to believe that retweets are a big moral problem that must be dealt with.

Your second point opens with the implication that plagiarism is illegal (the meaning of "unaware of breaking the law"), which is flat-out wrong. Copyright infringement is illegal. Copyright infringement ≠ plagiarism. You make the same equivocation fallacy in the sentence "... politicians, who plagiarised their doctoral theses prove that stealing someone else's intellectual property ...". Intellectual property theft = copyright infringement. Copyright infringement ≠ plagiarism. But I guess your main point here is that several people in positions of influence have plagiarized significant intellectual content. The thing is, if you promise to clear up misconceptions about plagiarism, then I am more interested in understanding what exactly plagiarism is than in being reminded of the obvious fact that anyone can plagiarize.

It is hard to tell what exactly you mean in point 3, but you seem to equivocate between unintentional plagiarism and coincidental similarity. If I take your advice seriously and if I agree with you about what a problem plagiarism is, then I will be afraid to write anything because one of the billions of people in history has probably already said something similar.

I cannot even tell where you are going with point 4. But I will note that unless you equivocate between plagiarism and copyright infringement, point 4 is irrelevant.

I don't know what it means to say 63% of the content on the internet is plagiarized. If someone uploads a 10 gig Game of Thrones episode and someone else writes a million pages of text that isn't plagiarized but is only 1 gig, is 88.88% of the internet plagiarized because the video is a bigger file? Those percentages given seem to suspiciously match with how much more video was added to the internet over time. I'm too lazy to get those numbers for comparison though.

You only say plagiarism is a problem because a lot of people do it and it is against the law- or is that copyright infringement? Either way, how do either of those make it a problem? You could say the same thing about marijuana or being gay and having a drivers license in Russia. A lot of people do it and its against the law. I'm not saying plagiarism isn't a problem, I'm just saying the reasoning here is kind of silly. Honestly, if 63% of the internet is plagiarized and that isn't due to counting large video files as most of the internet, then there's probably something wrong with what is copyrighted/ considered plagiarism (You use the two words interchangeably so I will too.).

Also, on a different note didn't copyright laws used to have some time limit that was changed in the last century to accommodate ownership of art by large corporations? I'm vague on that one, maybe someone who knows more than me can tell me.

You didn't mention what proper citation includes which allows for even more ambiguity in the interpretation of this article. Is it just saying where you got something from? Is it claiming fair use? Is it citing it in mla/apa format? As far as giving credit to something, the work cited system just frankly seems outdated. Maybe I'm young and stupid and don't like traditional rules, but if I have the name to something and a link at worst it will take me two minutes to find it on Google. I don't care what date the person who quoted the source accessed it, what publisher made the source possible, what the catering service the author likes, etc (I do recognize scientific papers are exceptions, everything has to be recorded with precision as it helps determine the validity of scientific data. Other types of things I just don't get. Saying where you got it from should be enough without adding why, how, and when.). In an academic setting if you link to a website and give credit to the author that is not enough and you get in trouble for plagiarism. On the internet, no one is going to mess with MLA or APA because the majority of the population doesn't care about that stuff. If credit is attributed without "citation" is that plagiarism? I've written forum posts on here where I paraphrase information I read and give a link to a website. I could be plagiarizing because I just posted a link and none of the other crap. If 63% of the internet being plagiarism is due to people like me posting links to website without using formal notation then plagiarism is not a problem. I'm not convinced its a problem because its not defined.

Overall, this article is too vague to really be informative or helpful.