Here's the question that lies at the heart of each person's position in this great debate: Mr. content producer values his money _________ I do. 1) less than 2) the same as I think this basic emotional feeling (are most of the people on the content chain rich / do they deserve the money) is the heart of all the other reasons we create for our position on piracy.

Honest inquiry here: The computer in some cars artificially limits the speed of the car - if you found out that was true in a car you liked would you feel the same way about it as the iPhone?

Perhaps scientists keep it to themselves because faith implies poor scientific method. Science is about questioning assumptions and always trying to get closer to the truth - while almost all popular religions preach the opposite.

Even though there was little harm to the Havasupai here this case sets a critically important precedent for the future.

Let me give an example with musical sampling - it's totally different with bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces - because Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them. From the perspective of a first reader it makes no difference - someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing is invisible & the work still exists on it's own. A work exists on its own, and broken down is always recombinations of other things - but it's someone taking credit for it for gain that's the unethical bit. Kids who sample music don't usually have to credit the sample for a listener to distinguish it, so it's a totally different piece. PS: Anyone watch Californication? Were those episodes written and aired before this whole thing?

"Because when you study comparative religion in a serious, academic way, you quickly reach undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications." Absolutely not. You find that many religions have similar ideas. Many languages have nouns. Many human cultures associate similar feelings with moments of intense fear (that time slowing down effect). Etc. We're all human, we have very similar brains, and so the fact that two very similar beings might reach similar conclusions is certainly not "undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications." Please don't be a jerk. Atheists are not children. As for the argument that you can't draw conclusions about something without experiencing it, how do religions come to conclusions about what happens after death? How do car manufacturers come to conclusions about the results of a crash? Not every engineer of a safe vehicle is in a wheelchair. Frankly, imitation is not the only way to draw conclusions, if it was we'd all be hobbling on crutches with an eye-patch and a deaf ear.