Although this article brings light to the dynamic of those who own something and those who modify, I still seem to fall in the middle of the overall message I feel the author is trying to portray. Information is available from a variety of different sources from books to the Internet, but to what extend can we take this and use it as a bases to create our own product. Many may argue that nothing is original per-se and that all creation is nothing more than a modification of something else, just as music sometimes has samples of other songs. But I believe to claim something like this is to say that originality has never existed and we as a society have merely “robbed” and modified other things to create our own. Plagiarism would be a bigger problem if this was the case. However, on the other hand as long as the product deviates far enough to be unrelated or is used as a reference with obvious homage, then I believe it would be more acceptable to use others work. Financial component of the matter falls in what I see as a darker category. Knowing that one is using your work without compensating you the creator or owner is morally wrong. But if modified to something that would be radically different enough to constitute as different then there should not be any issues. Personally, information placed on the Internet for anybody to see should already be viewed as something within public domain. Additionally as long as there is obvious change to the product there should be no issues taken between the owner and the hacker.