aelopix

If you separate people to the people who would never steal in the real world (whatever the reasons are) you will have a quite big number, and the majority of the population. Of these people, if you take the part that would steal on the internet, I am pretty sure the number will be big enough to prove that most of them never cared about the "fairness" or "doing the right thing" before and the only reason their behaviour "changed" in the internet are the penalties. So basically most people follow the rule "you get nothing for free, unless you can". ( I am not saying this for everyone, just the people who are trying to justify the digital stealing)

Your personal thoughts and the way you view Piracy has nothing to do with reality. The basic idea of fairness (about economic transactions) is "you get nothing for free"; this may seem unfair but is the same thing as "you always earn something for your work". People often distinguish different situations in order to "justify" some of their actions, including the idea "stealing from a rich one is not as bad as stealing from a poor one". It has nothing to do with how difficult is to find something nor how expensive it is, the basic rule is ALWAYS the same, you get nothing for free. If it's difficult to find a rare album then it's "fair" to steal it? (even if the owner's rich) If it's too expensive to buy a Ferrari then it's "fair" to steal one? the company will still be rich anyway. When it comes to the internet, people tried to be more sophisticated about rules and create new ones. If you can't understand that a physical product is the same as a digital product, that proves that the only reason people obey the rules in the real word is because of the punishments, and when it comes to internet and there are not punishments people see "fairness" in stealing. It is the penalties that made piracy a controversial issue (for some people) not the physical-digital products. I, personally, download everything from the internet, but at least I acknowledge the fact that is not fair for someone, even a bit.

Alexander's epithet makes the question easy.

Taking an idea and create something new from it is one thing, and copying is another. Sure, maybe Romans had a bit different civilization than Greeks but that's all. Nothing innovative, just Greek ideas presented in a different way. We distinguish Rome and Greece for these changes in Greek culture after the Romans, and the newly created fusion of Greek ideas and Roman practice in the Roman empire. Many said that the Roman empire lasted for over thousand years, but the thing is that the real Roman empire lasted 450 years, the later continuation of "Roman" empire that lasted over thousand years was purely Greek, that's why modern historians changed the term of Roman empire and call it Byzantine empire. And after the collapse of Byzantine empire, Greek scholars migrated to western Europe and brought with them old texts and new knowledge and gave rise to the renaissance. Greeks had been innovators and they spread their ideas to Europe. Romans were something in between.