Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses

from the hypocrites-everywhere dept

It's kind of scary how often people, who claim to be such huge supporters of copyright, are caught infringing on copyrights when it suits them -- often offering amusing rationalizations for their own actions. Torrentfreak has the somewhat hilarious story of a Norwegian author, Anne B Ragde, who was interviewed for an article about unauthorized ebook file sharing and she did the predictable thing and complained about how awful it is, saying that it's no different from stealing and saying that "I have figured out that I've lost half a million kronor ($72,500) on piracy of my books, maybe more." Later she says: "I can not stand the thought of someone stealing something."

However, moments later, she's asked if she's ever bought counterfeit goods and she responds:
"Pirated handbags? Yes, I do buy them," she said. "I feel that the genuine Prada bags have such an inflated price."
Fascinating. One wonders how she'd respond to those who are involved in unauthorized book file sharing by claiming that the genuine products "have such an inflated price." Her son, Jo, then apparently chimes in to help the interviewer and notes:
"You have a pirated MP3 collection," Jo added, helpfully. "We copied the first 1500 songs from one place and 300 from another."

"Yes," admitted Ragde. "There were a lot of things on the iPod."
But she just "can not stand the thought" of others doing the same to her work?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:11am

    "But she just "can not stand the thought" of others doing the same to her work?"

    Well duh. When it happens to her she's losing money!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Geek Hillbilly, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:17am

    Pot calling the kettle black

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:19am

    Hypocrites are a dime a dozen. Film at 11.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:24am

      Re:

      Most IP maximists are hypocrites. They outwardly claim "piracy is bad' but inwardly they probably pirate like crazy. No surprise there.

      The drug war is the same thing. Most of the people who go to jail for illegal drug use/sales are of the lower class, but drug users/sellers are predominantly middle/upper class.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:42am

        Re: Re:

        "Most IP maximists are hypocrites. They outwardly claim "piracy is bad' but inwardly they probably pirate like crazy."

        [citation needed]

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hulser (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          [citation needed]

          Since IP law is so broadly defined, it's very easy for someone to accidentally infringe. For example, according to the AP, even if you only quote a few words from their articles, you owe them money. See also the recent TD posts about how Sherman Fredericks, a proponant of strong IP laws, (presumably) accidentally linked to an infringing copy of an SNL video. So, it stands to reason that most people (incuding "IP maximalists") probably "pirate like crazy". They may not even know they're doing it or maybe they think that in their particular case, it's not piracy, but according to a strict interpretation of the law, they're probably infringing dozens of times day.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            DS, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Pirated handbags? Yes, I do buy them," she said


            Ok, so where's the accident?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ltlw0lf (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Since IP law is so broadly defined, it's very easy for someone to accidentally infringe.

            What is even funnier is when software companies are found copying from GPL and other open-source licensed software while claiming that others are pirating their software (i.e. Goldman Sachs, where at least one expert testified that Goldman Sachs code contained open source code, and yet they turned around and prosecuted Sergey Aleynikov for stealing their code.)

            Other companies have been in the news in the past for similar transgressions, including several hardware vendors who used GPL licensed code in their hardware without following the license and who put restrictions on the distribution of the code contrary to the GPL.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 2:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wait... If Goldman Sachs never distributed their software, no clauses in the GPL trigger at all (you are free to use it all you want, even incorporate it in your own software, only that if you distribute it you have to do so also under the GPL).

              In the case of the hardware vendors, on the other hand, it does apply (since they are distributing the code).

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                ltlw0lf (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 3:56pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wait... If Goldman Sachs never distributed their software, no clauses in the GPL trigger at all (you are free to use it all you want, even incorporate it in your own software, only that if you distribute it you have to do so also under the GPL).

                Absolutely true, AC.. They didn't distribute the code. But neither did Aleynikov. He just made a copy of their code, and presumably planned on using that code to help him write a competitors code. GPL does not apply, but the question is that if they borrowed code from GPL, shouldn't Aleynikov be allowed to borrow the same code for the competitor (though I'd argue that they have every right to keep him from borrowing their code, I think the problem was that he was borrowing their code *and* GPL code. I know the jury ended up convicting him on borrowing their code...but how much code did he actually borrow that was theirs, and how much wasn't?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                ltlw0lf (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I hate to respond to this a second time, and AC, don't take this as a response to what you said. I had time to think about this some more, and felt I should delve a little further here.

                I responded with Goldman Sachs as an example to grandparent AC's comment that he needed citations for great-grandparent AC's comment about most IP maximalists being hypocrites. I was giving an example, which I still believe is an example of Goldman Sachs being a hypocrite. What Goldman Sachs did was legal, and I'd even argue, it was entirely ethical (based on the GPL.) But it doesn't make them any less of a hypocrite because they could have clean room developed the code instead of just borrowing it from open-source.

                RMS is a smart man, and he believes (unlike most Copyright Maximalists,) that Copyright only restricts the distribution of software. GPL is based on that belief. Copyright Maximalists argue, however, that copyright means they can restrict how the software (or other artwork) is used, hence you see things like DVD Region Encoding, EULAs, and the such. Goldman Sachs believes that their own programmer should not be allowed to keep a copy of the code he worked on for them.

                Now I am making no excuses for Aleynikov, what he did was 100% unethical, and entirely wrong especially since his stated intent was to use the code to get a better job with a competitor. However, I see this as the ultimate result of an organization that doesn't understand the implications of borrowing GPL, either without understanding what GPL means, or by taking the attitude that so long as they don't distribute GPL code in their product, they are safe. They may be legally allowed to borrow the code, but they are still being hypocritical by getting upset with Aleynikov for borrowing their code. I could play the same game as the copyright maximalists and claim that unless Aleynikov was developing the software directly on the server, he did distribute the software (but RMS would rightly not agree with this statement, and neither would I.)

                I've worked in several closed source software projects and all but one of them were hypocritical when it came to borrowing code (they would freely borrow from someone else, but would not return the favor)...I worked shortly for one boss who believed that any code which was published was fair game for use in his project. "If they didn't want it copied, they shouldn't have published it in the first place." I didn't want to have anything to do with him after he told me this...he didn't want anyone else copying his code, but he'd freely copy anything that he came across.

                On the other hand, I worked on a project where the project "got it." All submitted code had to contain documentation on what sources were used to develop the code (including what tech manuals/SDK we used,) and if anything was taken from open source or from any other restricted license, it had to be a clean room development of the open source project, and the clean room process and all participants had to be documented, or the code was rejected. I left the project to move on to better things (open source projects,) and haven't been back since.

                I think the only way to develop closed source is to develop the way the second project did things. Certainly if the second project was sued for copyright infringement, they'd have an easy time in court. But they were also the only project that wasn't hypocritical about their use of borrowed code, they even documented when they borrowed code from themselves for other projects they worked on. Part of the duty of choosing closed source is that you have to be extremely careful about where it is coming from...far less of a problem with open source since everyone can see the submissions and bad code is usually caught immediately, and you can borrow code from other open source projects usually without running afoul of their licenses.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Greevar (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            IP law is not broadly defined, it's entirely made up. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". I shudder every time someone uses that made up term. Now copyright law, on the other hand, is broadly defined and done so to benefit the creators over the public.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Fushta, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:15pm

          The qualifier "most" exempts them from requiring a citation. You'll see "a lot" (my qualifier) of people use them when they are speaking hypothetically.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          [citation needed]

          While perhaps you are right that proving "most" is impossible, I think the sentiment is quite valid. Here are several examples of major copyright hypocrisy that techdirt has covered recently...

          A fashion designer: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/03120410318.shtml

          The UK tories:
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100418/2325419057.shtml

          Nicolas Sarkozy (several times):
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0816327383.shtml

          News Corp:
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/1831246537.shtml

          And let's not forget the Lily Allen affair...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            As I stated in my first post, I don't deny that hypocrites are easy to come by.

            It's a gigantic leap from that statement to "most peopl who believe X are hypocrites," and citing a handful of examples does not begin to bridge that gap.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 4:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Which is why the first thing I said is that you're right, there's no way to prove it's "most"

              However I think the trend is quite telling - what's common in each of these stories isn't that anyone willfully infringed, but that they all just didn't even notice because what they were doing felt perfectly natural. And while, again, it's not fair to assert most (yes, you caught that one poor word choice), I think it is a fair observation that a lot of people casually infringe on a regular basis, including many vehement supporters of copyright and even more people who, if asked, would say (and believe) that they never infringe.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 9:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I certainly agree that, especially in the context of copyright law, the law is defined in a manner that makes infringement easy and common and sometimes (oftentimes) unknowing, in addition to being unclear as to whether such uses would be infringements or fair use or de minimus copying.

                I don't really think pirated mp3s or counterfeit handbags really fit neatly into that category, but I agree it is problematic.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 8:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "[citation needed]"

          WTF?

          Generalized Supposition and Non-Specific Hyperbole do not require citations. Get a life.

          (why do I suspect that he just recently read that on some other post, and just couldn't wait for an opportunity to use it himself... Painful Fail)

          CBMHB

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2010 @ 1:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Most X are Y" is a factual assertion. If the other poster wants to admit that s/he "doesn't really mean it," that's fine by me. Otherwise, some sort of support for the assertion would be nice.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      "Hypocrites are a dime a dozen. Film at 11."

      This is a Fox News SCOOP!

      Techdirt; It turns out, according to those we have interviewed, that hyprocrites are a dime a dozen...because the government is SUBSIDIZING them! Normally hypocrites cost somewhere between $1 and $1.22, but because of anti-business efforts by the democrats and Barack Obama, hyprocrites are being forced onto the American people at a low price.

      We asked Sean Hannity what he thought about this amazing development.

      SH: Thanks, Brit. I am just so sick and disgusted with these liberals, these snake-oil salesmen socialists, coming in and stealing all of our liberties and replacing them with dime-store hypocrites. Don't we remember Bush? Now THERE was a hypcorite that COST you something!

      Thanks Sean. We'll be following up with film at 10, instead of 11, so as to preempt our competition with our complete insanity. Coming up after the break: how much truth is behind the theory that feminism is linked to mental retardation, and then our signature segment: how to hate people that look different than you!

      /Sorry, I have no idea why I did this, other than I hate the dime a dozen and film at 11 cliches....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jose Libre, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    I like her implied rationale. Piracy is okay for her because she's had people steal from her.

    Modern copyright laws have allowed corporations to steal from the public domain, so piracy by the public is okay since we've had non-people (corporations) steal from us.

    Works for me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:34am

    Irish Jig

    I don't know about anyone else here (I could probably guess about a few) but if a book I wrote was copied that much, I'd be dancing. If that many people copied it, it means that many people liked it. I just don't see why this is a problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:39am

      Re: Irish Jig

      "I just don't see why this is a problem."
      Its not, for up and coming artists that don't have entitlement issues. Once you are fat and happy, entitlement creeps in, you dont want to work as hard, and just want things handed to you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:45am

      Re: Irish Jig

      "if a book I wrote was copied that much, I'd be dancing. If that many people copied it, it means that many people liked it. I just don't see why this is a problem."

      I have said that about my own writing, nearly word for word...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Hephaestus (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re: Irish Jig

        "I have said that about my own writing, nearly word for word..."

        Just goes to show there are no original thoughts ... and everything is created on past works. ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        :Lobo Santo (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re: Irish Jig

        (ah-hem) I might know a guy who knows another guy who might now all about putting ones book up as a freely available torrent... Just saying.

        Probly best to wait until after it's published, though I may have that bass-ackwards.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:58am

          Re: Re: Re: Irish Jig

          Shit, just send me the link so I can use it for promo value. (I can't imagine a better line to inclue in a query letter to a publisher than something like "the UNPUBLISHED version of this book was the most downloaded ebook on X-site for January of 2011" or something like that)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:53am

        Re: Re: Irish Jig

        Speaking of which, everyone I give your book to says they couldn't put it down. How's the search for a publisher?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:55am

          Re: Re: Re: Irish Jig

          "How's the search for a publisher?"

          I don't want to infest this thread with stuff about my own work, but it's progressing slowly but steadily. From first query to actual published release typically takes more than a year....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ltlw0lf (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Irish Jig

            I don't want to infest this thread with stuff about my own work

            DH, we all want to hear about your book. Just wish Mike would add some sort of profile page (beyond that which lists your past comments) where people can write on your wall and discuss stuff like this.

            Of course, he might have to clear a couple patents first...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irish Jig

              "DH, we all want to hear about your book."

              Which I appreciate, and if I actually kept up w/my own blog that'd probably be the place for it, but...well...I have no excuse for not doing that actually....

              However, the point being that I have too much respect for this site to want to do that here....

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:36am

    Interesting:
    “The stuff on my ipod is not representative of my relationship with the music industry and the products they produce. I pay for my music,”

    I'm sure a good deal of (book and music) "pirates" would say (and believe) the same thing. Sure she might have some infringing content, but she probably does pay for her music... Just like most everyone else does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:37am

    *laughs*

    And I just submitted this, thinking it was pretty funny.

    OT - If anything, people are promoted by their own self interests. So if they can skim some money, they will for their own sake. Yet, they want more from everyone else.

    Seriously, I have to wonder how she "lost" that 72,000 kronor...?

    No math like that of a copyright monopoly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Overpriced?

    I am finding a lot of ebooks that cost more than the printed edition even though there is no printing, shipping, or inventory costs. My students pay more for "textbooks" than the same book costs as a trade book.

    How can she say that books aren't overpriced?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Transbot9, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    As strange as it sounds...

    Compared to other creative types (of which I am one), from what I've seen authors are often "closer" to their creations. Where as, say, an artist usually doesn't mind fan-art, an author often has a negative view of fan fiction involving their characters. This seems especially true of prolific authors with characters that span multiple books.

    It's also not too uncommon for artists to place a higher value on their own work than on others, especially art of a different medium.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

      Re: As strange as it sounds...

      Everyone keeps saying this "isn't unusual" as if that makes it any less dumb and hypocritical...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Transbot9, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 4:31am

        Re: Re: As strange as it sounds...

        Sorry, I wasn't meaning to excuse, only to explain. It is stupid and hypocritical, and there are nastier examples in the "art world." I've ran into artists who claim I'm not a real artist because I use a computer in most of my work, which, if you know anything about art history of the last 150 years, is a really stupid mindset.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 15th, 2010 @ 12:58am

      Re: As strange as it sounds...

      None of that has anything to do with the business of actually selling and profiting from books, however. The emotional objection to fan fiction, the emotional reaction to unauthorised copying and the actual tactics of a profitable business are 3 very different things.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Transbot9, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 4:23am

        Re: Re: As strange as it sounds...

        Not quite as different as you think - at least legally. Under Derivative Works, some prominant authors have used IP law to shut down fan sites, attack their own customers, etc. rather than using it as a way to further connect with their fans and increase sales. It's still stealing in there minds.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 15th, 2010 @ 4:51am

          Re: Re: Re: As strange as it sounds...

          Yes, as I said it's an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with making money. If they think it's "stealing", but they end up losing money as a direct result of their actions, then they did the wrong thing commercially. They may be vindicated on an emotional level, but their emotional reaction and their business will have been directly opposed to each other.

          Sometimes, an artist has to face the fact that how they want their work to be used, and how the public end up using it are often not the same thing. As this author apparently realises for works she didn't create.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Transbot9, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 6:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: As strange as it sounds...

            Right, but while that is something commonly admitted in academia, when it get's personal...well, emotion takes hold. Creative types are usually not known for handling thing logically.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 16th, 2010 @ 6:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As strange as it sounds...

              ...which is why some of them really shouldn't be making their own business decisions first hand. Let their publishers or agents make the decisions, separated from the artistic process. They then have to be made aware that there's the gap between art and business and that losing money may mean that they can't maintain their artistic purity, and that maintaining the latter may mean less sales.

              I don't think we're disagreeing here, but there are definitely times when your emotional reaction is bad for business, and making money requires art to be compromised. That some artists can't stomach that is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with the arguments about "stealing" and saving old business models we keep seeing from them.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ignorant_s, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

    Well, duh, most of us believe that "wrongs" aren't wrong if they are done by nice people such as ourselves.

    To quote Aesop's Fables: "The injury we do and the one we suffer are not weighed in the same scales".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    So a monopolist only supports a monopoly when it's in their favor?

    I am shockeed I tell you. SHOCKED.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:38pm

    actually forced to perform

    Stealing is so rampant, she noted, that Norwegian musicians are actually forced to perform in order to profit from their talent. Sometimes they even have to play live.

    Ohhhh noooooo, I actually have to work. Arrrrggggghhh!!!! What is this world coming to?

    Sometimes they even have to play live. - Oh what a shame.

    “The stuff on my iPod is not representative of my relationship with the music industry and the products they produce. I pay for my music,” she said.
    Eh...except for those 1800.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Huph, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

      Re: actually forced to perform

      Stealing is so rampant, she noted, that Norwegian musicians are actually forced to perform in order to profit from their talent. Sometimes they even have to play live.

      Ohhhh noooooo, I actually have to work. Arrrrggggghhh!!!! What is this world coming to?

      Sometimes they even have to play live. - Oh what a shame.


      You're taking her quote out of context. What she was implying is that she sees musicians who play live in order to make a living without remuneration from recordings, but what can she do? What's an author's recourse? To charge people to come and watch her write live? I can sort of sympathize with an author, their medium isn't about performance. They don't have a fall-back plan if they're not getting paid for their finished writings.

      Well, Harlan Ellison did "perform" live in the window of some NYC storefront, but every author ain't Harlan Ellison. And even he only did it once as a publicity stunt.

      Not that I really sympathize with her. Of course the smarmy "I download books and I don't even read them" 19-year-old raises a whole pirated-handbag's worth of ire in me. Not about the piracy, just the fact that with access to all this info, it seems people aren't really taking any advantage...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 9:38pm

        Re: Re: actually forced to perform

        I once got a job at a book store on a college campus for 5 hours so that I could sneak into an alumni event to hear an author speak. That I know of he has 1 or 2 speaking engagements per year where tickets are sold.

        If her work is good, money won't be a problem.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    I agree with her

    Prada is overpriced and so is most music and literature.

    I happily download pirated music and have no intention of paying for it. It has very little value to me in digital form, and so I see no reason to pay for it.

    "But that's illegal... blah blah blah"

    Well it was change of format the forced me to buy a lot of the same music over and over through the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Vinyl to cassette to CD ( I was never big on 8-tracks), and I don't remember any of the record labels lowering the price for me or offering discounts for having to buy the same music.

    I've paid for the music several times and don't see the reason to pay for it going forward, unless its a concert or something special that has value.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    marak (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Bloody hell what an idiot lol. Go her son!

    BTW darkhelmet, i couldnt resist mate:
    [url=http://d.imagehost.org/view/0784/DHinToga][img]http://d.imagehost.org/t/0784/DHinToga.jp g[/img][/url]

    hehe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 5:59am

    Its a superiority complex. People who feel that they are more successful than others can easily rationalize the illegal deeds they commit. Its the same with CEO's and politicians. Its the fallacy of superiority and frankly I think its morally fine to copy the work of people like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    giafly, Dec 19th, 2010 @ 3:52am

    Errata

    @ Ima Fish, re: "Well duh. When it happens to her she's losing money!"
    @ Hose Libre, re: "Piracy is okay for her because she's had people steal from her."

    Repeat after me, "piracy is not theft, it's piracy, so no money was lost".
    http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2m7xd851.jpg

    @ Greevar, re: "Now copyright law, on the other hand, is broadly defined and done so to benefit the creators over the public."

    Repeat after me, "copyright law rewards copyright holders, not creators" http://www.ehow.com/about_5206740_copyright-licensing-rules.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hmm, Dec 19th, 2010 @ 6:34am

    Ok then

    Here is my novel, published in its entirety:

    a e i o u

    you may publish upto 1/5 of any part of this novel as fair use, but if you use anything more then you owe me....oh lets say $5 a word sounds about right. (I'm looking at you AP!)..........

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      RikuoAmero (profile), Dec 19th, 2010 @ 10:31am

      Re: Ok then

      There's no creativity there at all. Perhaps you should put an accent on the e or that two dots thing above the o, then it would be creative and copyrightable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This