Thanos and Hela, NOT sitting in a tree

OK, stupid post today. Stupid in the sense that it really has no meaning in the real world and only matters to a bunch of characters in a fictional universe, and nerds like myself.

I want to talk about Thanos.

Now, I’ll preface this post with this: I don’t read comics. I have read a comic or two, and even read one of the Green Lantern crossovers (I think it was Darkest Night, but I’m not sure). However, I’m not an avid reader. Do you know how much comics cost? Continue reading

Time Travel

There’s not really going to be much here about time travel. I was shooting for posting something every month… but I missed January by like a day or two. So I’m technically posting this for January, even though it’s already February.

With that said…

Time travel is impossible. Unless you consider the natural progression through a day, week, year etc. to be traveling forward in time; albeit at a rate of 1x normal time, or normal speed.

Which isn’t very fun.

Sometimes I wish I lived in TV time. Just think:

There’s my house. Here I come walking into my house after after long, hard day at the office. Shenanigans ensue, I’m sure, but at least I got to bypass actually being at work. TV time works like this: the important moments for your character are lived, while the unimportant events, activities, and other moments are simply eluded to. You don’t actually have to waste time experiencing them… of course, I guess you did experience them… because, after all, they have affected you in some way. You come in the house exhausted from working in your office, with your boss and coworkers, with crazy things happening  (which you’ll probably explain to another character later). It has affected you, so maybe you did experience it, just off camera? OK, so, this isn’t perfect. TV time is just a trick, I know.


Movie time is a little bit better in some respects. Going on a long trip? Get on the plane and arrive at your destination minutes later. But unless your plane ride was uneventful, you’d still be affected by that loud snoring guy, or the kid kicking the back of your seat, or the lady who spilled her peanuts everywhere.

Ok, so…

It’s all another trick.

Book time would be horrible. You’d spend hours on sights, sounds, feelings, and thoughts which, in the real world, would take just minutes for your brain to process.

Video game time would be just as bad as TV and movie time. You’d spend an hour or more fighting aliens or assembling blocks only for a quick cut scene before arriving at your next mission. You do all that work and don’t even get a break! That’s actually worse than TV time.

If I had to pick one aspect of time from TV, movies, games, and even books it would be the flashback. Sure, I can reminisce about times long past. I can even be nostalgic with friends and family, and possibly get a different viewpoint or have someone fill in the blanks (now that it’s years later and, hey, you can’t get mad about something that happened years ago. It’s over. Long gone. In the past. No big deal…)

But a flashback is so much more. The characters are actually reliving a certain moment of their lives. Sometimes it’s a moment no one really remembers that well and everyone can piece it back together. It’s better than a lasting memory, a picture, or even a video. Flashbacks would be cool.

But, oh well.

Time travel isn’t possible. In all actuality, time isn’t even really a thing. Sure, Einstein called it the “fabric of space-time,” but that was just a way to visualize gravity’s effect on localized objects from different reference points as related to the apparent passage of time for those objects. 


OK then. Time for me to go. I’ve got one of those long days coming up. My theme song isn’t playing yet, so it seems like I won’t be able to skip to my return home for the day.


-Diggs out

P.S. – I like science and I watch a lot of science videos on YouTube… but can anyone tell me if I was remotely close about the Einstein stuff. I think I am, but I could be wrong. After all, I’m no scientist.

Everything I learned, I learned OUTSIDE of a Classroom…

The title is true. And this is proof.

This is satire, I suppose, but it’s also a bit real. I have this notebook where I jot things down (it is NOT a diary!) and there is a section related to things I learned in school. I haven’t been keeping it for more than a few years, now. So, it’s not full by any means. As I remember or think about where I figured something out, or who taught me, I jot it down.

Things like…

In middle school I learned:

  1. Adults suck
  2. kids suck
  3. people suck
  4. Learn something long enough to get use out of it, then forget it

In college I learned:

  1. The source of my comics was being bored in class in high school
  2. Understanding things isn’t required: just spit back at the teacher whatever they want to hear
  3. How to open a little bag of chips so I don’t get my hands all dirty from reaching inside

See, really important things.

And yes, I understand that I have actually taken a “biology class” many times in my life before college, so I would have a hard time remembering where I learned about cells, reproduction, viruses, and all that biological stuff. I would get it in elementary school, get more of it in middle school, actually be expected to know it in high school, and then be expected to understand it in college. When, exactly, did I learn what a “zygote” is? Who knows.

But here, from Facebook, is a list of more important things I learned growing up. Real lessons that can serve me well in my travels through life… that is, if I become an animated character in a fairy tale.

What I learned from Disney.
March 11, 2010 at 11:15pm
Everyone learned something from Disney over the years.
Here are the things I learned from Disney movies:

Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. Cause if you don’t you’ll drown.

Keep moving forward… in time… and try to live with your future family cause your old life sucks.

It’s better to just be me than trade my voice for being a land dweller with a wicked half octopus, half fat lady.

Indians aren’t ignorant savages. Could ignorant savages talk to trees and change history? I think not.

Don’t eat peaches with little glowing, green bugs in them. You’ll turn into claymation.

Never give up, never surrender (was that even Disney?)

If you touch stuff you weren’t told you can touch, the giant tiger made of sand will eat you alive. Hope your monkey grabbed the lamp!

You can be ugly with a big hump on your back, but nobody cares at Mardi Gras… you just ain’t gettin no beads.

You can be goofy and get two movies.

It doesn’t matter where you move to, your pets will find you.

Toys are alive.

After shrinking your kids with a shrink ray, keep the shrink ray and shrink other things. Then, pop that baby in reverse and make things big. The fun never ends!

You don’t have to be a god to be a hero. You just have to be part god with a good goat to train you.

Women can fight in the army. Of course, in China you better save the whole **** city cause aparently the punishment for trying to join the army is death by beheading!

If you let your stuffed bear, rabbit, donkey, pigglet, and rubber tiger loose in the wild, apparently you can be a boy forever.

If you are raised by apes you will actually think you are an ape. Even though you won’t have hair like apes, the vocals like apes, or hands on your feet like apes.

101 dalmations aren’t enough. You need 102.

Make sure you are really moving away from your home town BEFORE you play pranks on everyone in the town.

There really are monsters in your closet. Deal with it.

You can train a ferocious alien to be good if you seclude him on an island with a crazy little girl and play him Elvis music all the time.

Don’t become a pirate.

I can actually get away with stealing the Declaration of Independence if I say it’s a secret treasure map.

There might be distant lands hidden in the back of old people’s wardrobes. There might be…

Cooking is not a science or art, it is a universal language that is so basic even rats can do it.

You really can have the best of both worlds… just not at the same time… and you better invest in some wigs… and your friends need to be VERY understanding…

If I tie millions of balloons to my house I can FLY!

What did you learn from Disney?

The Terminator Timeline You Got Wrong

I’ll bet you know everything about the Terminator movies, right? You know that…


the machines, a.k.a. Skynet, sent a T-800 robot to the past to kill Sarah Connor so she will never give birth to John Connor; the leader of the Resistance. However, the Resistance, specifically John, send Kyle Reese back in time to stop the terminator. He saves Sarah.

Then, the machines send back another terminator, a T-1000, to kill John Connor. However, the Resistance also sends back someone… or rather, something… a¬†reprogrammed T-800 terminator¬†robot! But this time, Arnold- I mean, the T-800 robot’s purpose is to save John Connor. They also destroy data (as well as the building) for Skynet housed in the facilities of Cyberdyne Systems. The man behind Skynet, Miles Bennet Dyson,¬†is also killed.

The world is safe, right?

John gets a little older, Sarah dies while fighting another dangerous adversary for which humanity has no defense… cancer…? Ok, sure, we didn’t need her anymore anyway. A third terminator, the T-X,¬†is sent back in time to kill other important members of the Resistance. John’s wife, Kate sends another terminator robot, the T-850,¬†to save John. The¬†T-X¬† is a combination of the original T-800 (containing a metal endoskeleton) and the T-1000 (using the same mimetic poly alloy for the skin), so she’s totally badass. Oh ya, and she’s a she, but can be a he if she chooses to be a he, which she does… or, he does… I think I got lost, hold on.

In the end (which if you really do know anything about the Terminator movies you know is really just the beginning of the machine uprising), John and Kate are locked in a nuclear bunker by the Arnoldnator to save them from the nuclear apocalypse happening out side, know as Judgment Day. With John safe, he can start the Resistance and begin the fighting that started the whole franchise. Yay Hollywood!

And that’s where I stop. The fourth movie was stupid. The new one? Well, it’s not out yet. How am I supposed to know what happens in it? Actually according to Wikipedia, it’s going to be a whole mess of time travel and terminator bots. However, my theory still stands.

So, that’s the story of John Connor. He leads a resistance movement which causes the machines to send a terminator robot back in time to stop him (three times…) so Skynet can take over the planet and destroy all humans. The Resistance sends back Kyle so the machines send back a terminator to stop him… wait, what?

I’ll bet you never thought about that did you?

There are many theories about time travel (including the theory that time travel will never and cannot exist) but we’re going to go with a cyclical theory. Meaning, something will happen in the future to cause someone to go into the past, which leads to events that cause that same future in which someone goes to the past to influence events to lead to the future where someone goes into the past to affect the future so the person in the future will go into the past.

Did I lose you?

The way we have been thinking about the Terminator movies is that the machines wanted to kill John Connor before he could lead any sort of resistance against them. So they send machines back to kill Sarah and then John, with the Resistance sending people or machines back to save Sarah and John. But the reality is quite more complex.

Who is John’s father?

That’s right. Kyle Reese, the man who was sent back in time to save Sarah Connor from the T-800 ends up sleeping with Sarah, and she in turn becomes pregnant with John. If Kyle hadn’t have gone back in time, John would never exist. And if John never existed, then the Resistance would never exist. If the Resistance never existed, then the machine would never had to send a T-800 back in time to kill Sarah because she would never had had John. And even if¬†she¬†did have a child¬†he wouldn’t mean anything as far as history is concerned, because he’s not that child of Sarah’s.

Yes, I am assuming that John would only have about a one-millisecond-window in time when he could have been conceived. Even one millisecond earlier or later, different sperm hits a different egg and you end up with a different genetic composition that makes a completely different person. But also, if Sarah was never attacked by a T-800, she would never have a reason to stop Judgment Day. So even if she did have a kid at a different time, and she named him “John” she would never have trained him or even known to tell him about Skynet, Judgment Day, Arnold-apocalypse, or any of it. As far as she knew, she’s baking a cake for John’s birthday and BAM! nuclear fallout.

Which makes you wonder if a computer program which is self aware and very very very very good at gathering, deciphering, and using immense amounts of data to it’s advantage¬†could be capable of seeing this coming. Isn’t Skynet capable of gathering all the worlds news and information to realize that it actually already sent back three robots to try and kill John Connor? Wouldn’t Skynet be able to collect DNA samples, even as trace particulates from the battle field, to determine that Kyle is John’s father? Wouldn’t it know about plans for the Resistance to send back Kyle, considering they would have to for him to get Sarah pregnant, which would start this whole thing – which actually started because Skynet itself was going to send back a robot to kill Sarah to ensure that she would never have John?

What if…

The resistance sent back Kyle Reese to destroy Skynet? And Skynet sends back the Terminator, not to kill Sarah but to stop Kyle. Kyle finds and partners with Sarah, who the Terminator now wants to kill because she is a high priority target (regardless if she is dead in the future the Terminator is from)… So really, Skynet didn’t start all this mess. The Resistance did!

Which, now that I think about it is of little consequence, because if no one had gone back in time then Judgment Day would have happened sooner and the world would still be overrun by Termi-schwartzes.

So I guess none of this really matters.

-Diggs Out

Best Digital Piracy Analogy

So I’m just sitting on the toi- couch. And I’m taking this survey asking about technology and media. One question asks what I think of digital piracy.

“Do you consider digital piracy to be as bad as shoplifting?”

Negating my past actions (being from the age of Napster), I “Strongly Agreed.” For some reason this question made me ponder the actual thought of what shoplifting entails and how digital piracy compares to it. I thought back to every argument I’ve ever had with stupid teenagers (and some stupid adults) on this topic. I could never really make my argument stick, though.

I once came up with an argument which involved a never ending supply of chairs. You’d take one and it would duplicate. Just like downloading a song or movie. But the reality of such a situation makes the whole analogy fall apart quickly.

I’ve tried taking the “morals” route, but most people don’t care about what’s right and wrong in this case. After all, who cares about paying a few bucks to a multibillion dollar Hollywood studio who seems to be out to get all of your money for their trivial attempts at entertaining you?

Alas, I finally figured it out! Here’s the best analogy that shows digital piracy is in fact wrong, if not the same as stealing.

First off, lets take a look at what digital piracy entails: a studio makes a movie. They put the movie in digital download form, or on one of those disc thingy’s. You take this video and put it in a format which you can place on all of your devices, stream across your home network, and share with your friends, or strangers on the internet. Technically, you paid for that copy of the movie (or a viewing license to watch that copy of the movie in its intended portal). You may not own the movie itself, but that copy is yours. If you want to back it up in case you lose the original you should be able to, right? If you feel you already paid $20+ for the DVD and shouldn’t have to pay again just to watch it on your iPod, Xbox, or computer you’re not alone. Should you be able to make copies and hand them out to your friends (when they had the opportunity to purchase the DVD just like you did)?

Lets look at WalMart now. Pretend WalMart began making products beyond their special off-brand toilet papers. Lets say they make their own media player: the WalPod. And it only costs $30! Of course, everyone will want a WalPod. Now, being WalMart they have a ton of money to make crap like this. But you decide you’re not paying $30 for something made by WalMart. So you, and most of your friends manage to find a way to circumvent the security protocols at WalMart and begin walking out with one everytime you visit. In fact, since you’re all doing it, other people start doing it as well. Pretty soon, it becomes all the rave to steal WalPods. Like I said earlier, WalMart has lots of money. However, even thought you might not think you’re going to hurt them, the reality is they are moving product (losing product?) and not making any money. They still have to pay people to work on the WalPod: designers, marketing teams, programmers, and such. As time goes on, they begin to pay these people more than they are making off the WalPod.

Now, I know what you’re thinking… “That is obviously wrong, because you are taking something from them without paying for it. Now they can never sell it and lose out on the money it would have brought in if someone would have paid for it. Digital media is not the same thing.”

Well, you’re only half right. It is true that downloading a song leaves the original in tact and still available to sell. But that’s not the similarity between the WalPod and an MP3. The similarity lies in the end result, not the existentialism of the original product.

When you download a song, movie, tv show, video game, or other digital media you have just robbed that content creator of the money you would have paid to access/own that specific digital item. They might still be able to sell the original master file, but not to you. Nor to the other people who pirated that file.

The people who worked (and possibly continue to work) on those digital items will soon be out of a job if the parent company sees that they are paying the workforce more than they are making on that item. What’s worse, people will still have access to that digital media content and neither the parent company nor the content creators will be compensated for producing it.

If that doesn’t make sense you, then you’re probably a teenager… Or just stupid. Sorry.

Diggs out.

    Is it Okay to Download a Pirated Copy of a Game Youve Already Purchased?

    Is it Okay to Download a Pirated Copy of a Game Youve Already Purchased?.

    Once again I come across an article discussing the legality of downloading software from various sources on the Internet. As I read the article above I already had my own view on downloading content through “other” channels. As I read through the comments, I came across very few arguments I have never heard before. All-in-all, my personal thoughts about the matter didn’t change. I always get frustrated with people who take the supporting side, for many reasons; which I will bring up here. But first, let’s go over a few things.

    Thing 1: the Evil Studios just want more Money

    The MPAA, RIAA, and everyone else with billion dollar content¬†claims piracy is ruining their business and destroying them financially. This is simply not true. Sure, if all those pirates out there bought their copies instead of downloading free copies the studios would have more money. Since those people aren’t, however, it would seem the studios are losing the money those persons would have given them. The key word here is IF – if those people would have bought copies, the studios would have that much more money. However, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have spent any money for that content. The “free is free” mentality usually gets the better of us and leaves us with junk we would never, in a million years, have paid for. So, just because someone downloaded it off the Internet for free¬†doesn’t mean they would have bought it in the first place. These free screenings do promote future releases, regardless of what studios claim. A person who watched Iron Man on some crazy, free movie website and liked it might have¬†decided to see Iron Man 2 in theaters; expecting it to be as good or better than the first. While it’s true the studios want money, it’s not necessarily true they are greedy; at least not more so than any other profitable company. Sometimes it’s about the art, and sometimes it about the business.

    Thing 2: Just because the Studio is Evil, does that make them Wrong?

    I’ll bet there are millions of people out there who have pictures and videos from a concert they attended. There’s likely to be many of those videos on YouTube. When a person or group performs live in a public venue, it’s hard to say, “NO PICTURES!” I want memories I can share with others. So I snap a picture. Even if you had to pay to get into the concert I don’t think anyone will argue with your grainy, distorted, personal copy of a live performance of “Dude looks like a Lady.” And I’m almost positive Aerosmith just don’t care. The big thing¬†studios are against, and rightfully so, is when you make money off of their hard work. And yes, playing music is work; or rather a lot of time spent practicing. Even more work goes into producing an album, a movie or TV show, and even video games. When these studios whine about compensation they are a little justified. They hold the Copy Right on that content. This means they are the ones who decide who gets access, who can make copies, who can hold showings, and who can sell the merchandise. I wish it was as simple as this: if you made a chair and someone else made a chair which looked exactly like yours and people bought it because of that fact, you would be mad and try to stop them… simple. However, this debate is not so simple. While the studios are correct when they say, “stealing is illegal,” most people don’t view digital media as a thing which can be stolen. When you download a copy of a movie off the Internet, the original is still there. Did you really steal it? The same thoughts apply to TV shows, music, e-books, photographs, software/programs, and video games (also software, but different enough to name separately). You’re not taking a copy off of store shelves, robbing them of a product they could have sold. Neither are you compensating the studios for their hard work, however. They put all the hard work, time, and effort into making the movie and you’re essentially saying, “I don’t have to pay you for your hard work. I’m watching the movie for free!” Nevermind the greediness of the studio, taking something without permission is wrong; even if¬†it exists¬†infinitum.

    Thing 3: LIEcenses, Copy Right, and Fairy Dust

    There are tons of people who talk about Copy Right and licensing. None of them ever bother to explain what those are or how they work. This is one reason people feel no shame in watching movies online from places like (not a real site btw). People think that they own the DVD when they buy it. It’s quite natural a thought when you think about it. You go to the store, pickup an item off the shelf, pay the cashier, and it’s yours. But it’s never yours in the sense that the design, name, function, or content now belongs to you. You can’t buy a TV and claim all rights to every TV. You can’t buy a spatula and claim all rights to flat cookware. You can’t buy a car and claim all rights to the motor vehicle. You can’t purchase something and claim it was your idea. Now, I haven’t really heard anyone make this argument, “I bought Lord of the Flies. I wrote Lord of the Flies. I now own the rights¬†to the kids-get-stranded-on-a-deserted-island-and-create-their-own-government¬†storyline.” Nor have I heard someone take credit for the spatula. So, on the surface these analogies do seem out of place. Until we go back to the chair. If I bought a chair, and then made my own chair (for my own use; not to profit from it) I would have made a copy of that chair. I did not deplete the number of items on store shelves. I did, however, rob the company of money. How, you ask? Instead of paying them for another chair I just made a copy. This¬†loss is¬†negligible until everyone starts doing it. Still, the question remains: it is right? Do I have the right to make copies of that chair? Remember, I’m not just making any ol’ chair. I’m precisely copying that specific chair, because that’s the chair I want. The studios tell us they are not selling us a movie; they are selling us a DVD disk which contains the movie and giving us a limited license to have our own private screenings. In essence, we are paying for the right to watch the movie on the disk (along with materials)¬†– we are not paying for the movie¬†on the disk. The DVD even has a disclaimer at the beginning saying it is a federal offense to copy and redistribute the contents of the DVD. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copy Right Act) does allow you to make a copy of DVDs, but only as a replacement, should something happen to your originals. It does not say you can obtain a copy made from someone else’s DVD over the Internet because you scratched yours up. This license also only allows you to watch that movie on a DVD player. If you are buying DVD disks expecting to play them on an iPod you are buying the wrong item. Do I want to pay $15 for a DVD and then another¬†$5 for a copy I can watch on my mobile device? No, I do not. This is why many studios put out DVDs or Blu-Rays which come with a digital copy, or a license to view a streaming copy. Again, though, it’s always a license to view, not to copy nor distribute. They’re not trying to trick you or get more money out of you. Quite frankly, I don’t think the studios understand what is right or wrong any more than the digital peanut gallery fighting about it in blogs and article comments.

    Thing 4: Wherefore art thou, Avengers Blu-Ray

    The article which set me off today has a very specific question. The OP (original poster –¬†for those of you new to the century) paid for the video game and then downloaded it from an illegitimate source – meaning he did not download it from the studio who made it nor the distributor in charge of releasing it. It would seem that any arguments about his actions¬†might be moot. What does it matter? It would be similar to a situation where I give Amazon $500 and then take my neighbors iPad. Amazon got their money, why should they care if I don’t get the iPad from them? Now, this isn’t exactly the same, because my neighbor lost an iPad and I’m probably in jail.¬† But I haven’t told you the whole story yet. [SPOILER ALERT as if you were going to read that article] The OP pre-ordered and paid for the game, but then downloaded the game from the illegitimate source a few days early – before the game was released. It would probably be more similar to say I pre-ordered and paid for the iPad 4, but then got one from a guy at the docks a week early. Now I have the iPad 4 before the intended release date Apple had initially setup. So what if I get a few extra days to play with mine before you get yours? I still paid for it and you will get yours eventually. The bigger issue here is the license. Where did that copy come from? How did you obtain it? Remember, the studio gave you a license to play that DVD, not any copy of that movie where ever you can get it from. The same goes for video games. You actually cannot go to your friend’s house and take his disk media, install it on your computer, but use your key code. When the company sold you the game you had a license for that copy, not any copy you can get your hands on. Disk rentals work (at the disdain of the studios) because only that one copy exists. When you return it you no longer have it and¬†can no longer play it. That license also restricts you from making copies of the disk or software. You cannot copy a DVD to your computer and redistribute it. Neither can you take downloaded software and redistribute it (unless, of course, it is freeware or shareware; two terms I don’t hear too often anymore). That means the person who ripped the DVD and placed it on the Internet violated the terms of the license they bought into when they purchased the DVD. But does that mean you did anything wrong by downloading it? Yes, it does. There are official channels and illegitimate channels. Some of the official channels are free. Likewise,¬†just because it costs money doesn’t mean it’s legit. No matter how you feel about the copy you own or how much money you paid for it, if you aren’t getting it from official channels it’s just not right. The other issue here is this nasty operation known as hacking. The game our OP downloaded early was modified to make it playable. Many video games come with DRM (digital rights management) software embedded into their core. Even though it was originally a legitimate copy of the game, someone had changed the code to remove or bypass the DRM, making an otherwise useless piece of software a working game. This is most likely definitely¬†a no-no according to the terms and conditions of the game’s EULA (end-user license agreement); many of which typically say “you don’t own our code,” and “don’t mess with our code,” and even, “don’t use software which bypasses, restricts, or modifies our code.” So, even though the OP had paid for the game (negating the fact he obtained the game before the official release date) the copy he obtained was an illegal copy because it’s code¬†had been modified. Once again, when you purchase a video, song, e-book, or game you are really only buying the license to view/listen to that specific form of the media through that specific outlet (e.g. If you purchase a movie in iTunes, you can only watch it in iTunes or on your iDevice. You cannot do anything to it to make it playable on your Xbox.)

    Thing 5: Last thing, I promise

    Who do you think you are? Nevermind, I don’t want to get into a philosophical “who am I” debate. (and yes, we are really puny compared to the universe…) The question I want answered does remain, though. We just have to step back to see it all clearly. A person creates a chair. You buy that chair, paying him for the materials he used to construct said chair as well as his time spent working on the chair. Likewise, you pay the plumber for his time working on your throne, even though you’re not purchasing a product from him. It just seems like these people who work on movies, TV shows, books, music, and software deserve to be compensated for their time and effort. These people spend their days and nights filming scenes, acting, writing scripts and books, building props and sets, practicing their art, recording their art, and finalizing their art so the rest of us may enjoy it. Saying things like this is stupid: “art is meant to be done for yourself, not others – do your art for the joy of the art.”¬†That’s like saying, “don’t make iPads¬†for others, people starving in China, make them because you like making iPads.” These people want to make a good movie for you in a similar way that your real estate agent wants to find you a house you love. They’re not gonna do it for free. I’m going to say this and then explain it: just because that lot is full of cars nobody is using doesn’t mean you can just go take one. Now, as I said before, software and digital copies of movies and music exist¬†infinitum. You download a copy and the original is still there; you did not take away from the stock. Neither did you pay for an item which the creators or Copy Right owners do charge for. Right now there are copies of Heroes, Season 2 on a store shelf somewhere. It will cost you money to take that DVD set home. Why would anyone think it’s OK to download that collection off the Internet for free (through Torrents or P2P software and websites)? Ford sells Mustangs: why should they be OK with you obtaining one for free?

    Conclude Already!

    Draw your own conclusions. I believe it’s wrong. It’s hard to argue with people who bring up the fact that it’s out there. If it’s out there, why not download it? However, they don’t realize it’s out there illegally, which is what makes it illegal to download. Even still many people agree that if they own a purchased copy, that entitles them to have other copies of the same content however and where ever. Again, this is a license issue; another thing most people don’t understand. Then there’s the people who understand everything I’ve said, but continue to download stuff for free simply because free beats expensive. Some of them even do it just because they feel the system is so messed up and this is a form of vigilante justice. And finally, there are those out there who are just as greedy as the studios they slander. All they want is the content, whether or not they make any money off it. They just do it because they do. No matter what you say or do, the studios won’t agree with you. And no matter what the studios say or do (unless they start giving stuff away for free as policy) chances are people will always want more for less and play the greed card every time.