I take it you did not attend the University of Colorado.
I was involved in a plagiarism case about eight years ago against a graduate student who copied an article I wrote and passed it off as her own work. So I understand what is "plagiarism" and what is "fair use."
All of this hairsplitting begs the question that Finklestein slammed Peters' work as "all lies" on his own authority, without bothering to go to the trouble of following up on her research.
When I was a law student there, a student was expelled for claiming, as his reason for missing a mandatory class session, that he was sick, when in fact he was out of town. It was harsh, but no quarter was given -- he was expelled.
Per our discussion here, there are obviously 2 different levels; one, whether Dershowitz plagiarized, and two; whether Peters' work is a "fraud", as alleged.
I was not commenting on the second level as a substantive charge, as I hope I made clear. In all the cites I provided, all I saw from Finkelstein himself was a misattribution of a quote ("He's handcuffed to Peters in a more serious breach of scholarship when he plagiarizes her erroneous citation of a British consular official's supposedly first-person description to Lord Canning of an instance of anti-Semitism in Jerusalem. The description was not Young's, but a memorandum by one A. Benisch, which Young was forwarding.")
It was a big deal for Finkelstein, but I'm not knowledgeable about its importance or whether it by itself proves his charge that Peters' work is a fraud.