People who pirate copyrighted material

[blah]

I don't understand people who pirate copyrighted material and think it's ok. The material belongs soulfly to the creator(s). Why? Because the creator(s) are soulfly responsoble foir it's exsistance. It would not exist if it weren't for the creators and there is no other reason for it's existance except for the individuals who created it. That's true ownership. I don't understand the people who argue CDs cost to much, if they cost to much don't buy them, the owners have a right to sell them at any price. Just like you have the right to sell your car at any price you want, somone can't decide it costs to much and take it.
Some people think the creators can't own a copy of there work but even when you make a copy the copy is still theirs. Why? People identify songs with there creators, they say "this is x persons song" even if someone made a copy of that song you would still call that copy "x persons song" You couldn't make a copy of a song and then claim the copy is now your song.
Some people also think it's not bad like theft because when you take something that's plus something for you and minus that something for the victum. But pirateing in general takes away the money the creators would make if no one pirated there stuff.
What makes me mad are those people who call people who complain about piracy greedy and then go off and enjoy the music that those greedy people worked so hard to make. And that goes for other copyrighted stuff aswell.

[roadrunner_0]

soulfly? arent they a rock band?

[LHC]

I don't know whether it's right or not but I don't care.

[MrL_JaKiri]

The recording companies set the cost of cd's, not the artists.

The artists see extremely little from the proceeds from an album; most money is made from touring.

[edit]

Oh, and many artists support file sharing and other means of distribution.

Indeed, it's believed that file sharing programs have INCREASED cd sales since they became widespread.

[blah]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The recording companies set the cost of cd's, not the artists.

The artists see extremely little from the proceeds from an album; most money is made from touring.

and when you pirate they will see less

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by blah

and when you pirate they will see less

Not so. See my edit.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by blah

and when you pirate they will see less

Not necessarily.

Most people wouldn't buy the music they download if they couldn't download it.

[blah]

I don't understand why they would boost CD sales.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Clarification of the above:

Whilst there has been a downturn in music sales (which industry groups, mostly the RIAA, have blamed ENTIRELY on file sharing), this downturn as a percentage is MUCH LESS than the downturn in the rest of the entertainment industry; hence the justification for saying file sharing increases sales (in short: The proportional amount of money in the music industry compared to other similar sectors has increased in the past few years)

[roadrunner_0]

also: i buy cds anyway, whether i download the artists or not
there are about 700 albums in my house, and about 7/8 gig of mp3's there is an awful lot of crossover, and also, and awful lot of single tracks by an artist, which we have a listen to see if we like them enough to go buy an album
so, in my houses case, mp3's increase album sales

[blah]

And if there are artists who support file sharing then just share there files

[Lord Talon]

This was something I posted in response to an article about RIAA/piracy on ZDNet


Why do people think that they are guaranteed their jobs & a profit? How many farmers lost their farms when tractors & other mechanical farming aids became widespread? How many auto workers lost their jobs when automated assembly lines began? How many people have been put out of work by computers?

As technology lowers the costs of production and lessens the need for direct human labor, jobs are lost. End of story. Period. Eventually the labor is redirected to other parts of the economy. This is what is happening to the recording and music distribution business. The costs to distribute music are rapidly declining and will no longer support the structure that has been built.

What we see through the efforts in the legislatures is an attempt to thwart the advance of technology to preserve the status quo. If the recording industry had satisfied the consumer demand for online music, they might not be in the position they are in today. The blame for their predicament sits squarely on their shoulders.

They also try to obfuscate the issue through the emotional arguments of piracy and stealing. No matter what, there will always be piracy. If there are any here who doubt that, then please tell me why our prisons are overcrowded today? With all the 'great' laws we have on our books, everyone will abide by them, right (*sarcasm)? How much better off would all of us have been if they had put as much effort and money into developing a quality product instead of wasting it on advertisers and lawyers in an effort to prevent something that is going to happen no matter what?

IMO, the piracy and file swapping is a bit of quid pro quo between the consumers and the recording industry. It is an effect of the industry robbing, gouging, colluding and conspiring against the consumer and artists for so many years. Why does the 1997 CD release of Blue Hawaii by Elvis Presley cost $14.99 (source: http://www.towerrecords.com)? Don't tell me, uhh. . . because the record company hasn't recouped its investment yet, yeah. . . that's the ticket! No, two wrongs (gouging vs. piracy), don't make it right and some innocent artists and employees are being hurt, but you reap what is sown.

In the end I think most consumers would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for an online product. It remains to be seen whether the recording industry will manage to streamline their industry to match the new technology.



Final note:

I have a question regarding the following quote from this article. How many top level recording industry executives have taken a pay cut or restructured their pay to help their 'working people'? Maybe if they put their money where their mouth is, I might have a little more sympathy, but there still are no guarantees that those jobs will be there tomorrow.

>>>For example, when unveiling the plan Wednesday, Universal Music Group's anti-piracy czar, David Benjamin, said file swapping hurts singers and midlevel music industry employees, whom he described as working people who are just trying to "put a roof over our heads and feed the kids and try to do right."

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by blah

I don't understand why they would boost CD sales.

Because people download a couple of songs. They like the band, they buy the album.

I know that I prefer to have legal copies of everything if at all possible, and if I feel the product is worth the money.

For instance, while I have been given a divx of Matrix: Reloaded, I have never considered buying it on DVD, whilst I have spent well over £100 recently on other things of that medium.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by blah

And if there are artists who support file sharing then just share there files

You're missing the middle ground here.

[Dante Hicks]

I'm not really bothered about the record companies, or artists making money. I never asked them to produce music.

I have no problem with moral ownership. That never runs out - the right to be mentioned as the creator of a piece of artwork, for instance.

You can even charge for CD's (charge whatever you like) when you produce. If I care, I'll pay the price. What I do object to is when people think they can perform surveillance in my home, interfere in the trade between private individuals to defend some dodgy arsed "right" they think they have.

If I buy a CD with your music on, then I can do what I like with it. I can write on it, shit on it, flush it down the toilet, wank over it, whatever. If I feel like playing it to my friends, tough luck. If I feel like making a copy in my computer then tough. If I feel like uploading...etc.

If you have a problem with this, feel free to stop making music/movies/etc. I'm not really bothered tbh. You can always perform live only, and search everyone who watches to stop them recording bootlegs.

Expect what you want. If I lose my job, I expect members of my community to help me out. But forcing people (via the law) is entirely another matter.

[blah]

Originally Posted by Lord Talon

This was something I posted in response to an article about RIAA/piracy on ZDNet


Why do people think that they are guaranteed their jobs & a profit? How many farmers lost their farms when tractors & other mechanical farming aids became widespread? How many auto workers lost their jobs when automated assembly lines began? How many people have been put out of work by computers?

As technology lowers the costs of production and lessens the need for direct human labor, jobs are lost. End of story. Period. Eventually the labor is redirected to other parts of the economy. This is what is happening to the recording and music distribution business. The costs to distribute music are rapidly declining and will no longer support the structure that has been built.

Piracy was always technologicly possible, technology just makes it easy to break copyright laws

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by blah

Piracy was always technologicly possible, technology just makes it easy to break copyright laws

Not directly following on, but in the region:

In russia, the weekly wage is something like £3.

Record companies still sell cds for £15.

Pirates sell them for £1 or thereabouts.

WHICH DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO FOR?

[Ragnarak]

Originally Posted by blah

Piracy was always technologicly possible, technology just makes it easy to break copyright laws

possible? maybe

feasible? no

[Lord Talon]

Originally Posted by blah

Piracy was always technologicly possible, technology just makes it easy to break copyright laws

This fight has more to do with who controls content and distribution than piracy. If you can't see that. . .*shrug*

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by blah

makes it easy to break copyright laws

I think you missed the part where a lot of people don't actually care about the law (in this case).

p.s. While I still think trolling is bad, it's sad that the most lively discussion thread has been started by a probable troll

[blah]

Has for the record company taking all the money argument all copyright laws give the right's only to the creators. The creators then decide to trade there rights in exchange for promotion and publishing. But the creators could sell them themselvs if they want, the record companys didn't take the work they bought it with printing, publishing and promotion. And the artist's do get a share and many live off of what you pay for.

[roadrunner_0]

also, i think i owned more pirated music back when i owned tapes than i do now
go figure!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by blah

Has for the record company taking all the money argument all copyright laws give the right's only to the creators. The creators then decide to trade there rights in exchange for promotion and publishing. But the creators could sell them themselvs if they want, the record companys didn't take the work they bought it with printing, publishing and promotion. And the artist's do get a share and many live off of what you pay for.

You're either trolling, or Strawmanning.

[blah]

What's "Strawmanning"? Why do you think I'm a troll?

[Lord Talon]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think you missed the part where a lot of people don't actually care about the law (in this case).

p.s. While I still think trolling is bad, it's sad that the most lively discussion thread has been started by a probable troll

I think you have hit upon another good point here. Why do we have laws & rules? - imo, it is because that is what the majority of people have decided is reasonable and they will be willing to abide by them. When you have a majority of the people willing to "break" the law, I think you need to examine that law a little closer. Now I have not looked at the origin of some of our current laws, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them made their way onto the books through pacs and special interest lobbying. This is the mess you get into when lawmakers think about lining their pockets before drafting laws that people will be willing to accept and abide by.

[Snurx]

I don't see the problem whit piracy, as long as the artist is given the credentials for the song. Same as, im not a fan of art-galleries thats only for the rich and so on.
Pirating is not bad. If the artist care, they care more about their money than their music, so they should go poo or something.

Anyways, i don't care about the law anyways, what are you going to do, sue me?

This got out completely wrong. In short, **** the RIAA.

[Gayle29uk]

Copying music/software/whatever for home use is not a criminal offence in the UK and as such there is no crime you can be charged with no matter what.

If you go about distributing copied CDs on a large scale then you are indeed commiting a criminal act (allowing uploading from a p2p program may fit this category) but downloading most definitely is NOT.

[Snurx]

I know. I still feel for my american brothers
But, speaking off, i think they are currently passing a law in norway making it illigal to download copyrigthed material

"Sharers are carers. **** the RIAA!!"

[*donkie*]

This isn't just about the price of CDs, although it does play a major issue in the debate. The ability for most people on the street to have a broadband connection to their houses for just £30.00 a month (in the UK) greatly improves the chances of piracy.

broadband = £30.00 a month
cd's = £10/£15 a shot

therefore, for your money, depending on the age of the cd or where you get it you can get around 2 or 3 cds for the same amount of cost of broadband

Now, think about how many album CDs you can download, with broadband, in a month

Alot more than 3.

Its not complicated maths to realise that you can get ALOT more for your moneys worth through a faster internet connection. And not every man on the street thinks about the morals and ethics of mp3/dvd piracy. For example, my ICT teacher purchased the matrix reloaded on DVD for £17.99 and one CD for £12.99. Thats over £30.00 in one shot. My friends dad however, visited a local computer fair and purchased the matrix reloaded for £2.00 before it was released in british cinemas?

Who are the real criminals? The pirates, or the large companies that feel they should charge so much for something that can be obtained quicker, easier and cheaper....

That is your choice. Ethics, or value for money?

[Intervention]

It's all about supply and demand.

People demand cheaper CDs. The pirates supply them.
Why is that wrong of them?

[Snurx]

The question is, why should i feel bad that some fat **** in Hollywood is getting "poorer"?

ps Most/all of the artists i listen to wants/encourages me to download/steal their cd's, and if their manager don't want me to, that's the managers problem!

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

Copying music/software/whatever for home use is not a criminal offence in the UK and as such there is no crime you can be charged with no matter what.

It's not a criminal offence, but it is a civil offence, so they can still sue you.

[Intervention]

Originally Posted by Proteus

It's not a criminal offence, but it is a civil offence, so they can still sue you.

Selling pirate material is criminal, however. Not sure if distribution counts or not though.

It falls under the Trade Descriptions Act as counterfeiting.

[Lord Talon]

An interesting opinion essay on the idea that copying is not theft


This was on The Register's site a few months back

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Intervention

Selling pirate material is criminal, however. Not sure if distribution counts or not though.

It falls under the Trade Descriptions Act as counterfeiting.

Obtaining or possessing a copy of a song is a civil offence under Sections 17 and 96 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Distributing said copy is a criminal offence under Section 107 of the same Act.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

Copying music/software/whatever for home use is not a criminal offence in the UK and as such there is no crime you can be charged with no matter what.

Should it come down to it it's covered in the CDPA of 1988 which, although allowing the copy of tv programmes and the like for viewing at a more convenient time, doesn't make any provision for music (translation to another medium for instance).

Though apparently we're allowed to reverse-engineer software for the purposes of 'interoperability' \o/

[Obliterate]

The cost of music is too high in my opinion. Whilst I do own quite a few albums, the ease and cost of downloading them is less than going out and buying them.

When the iTunes Music Store is available in the UK, I expect I'll be getting most of my music from it.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Obliterate

The cost of music is too high in my opinion. Whilst I do own quite a few albums, the ease and cost of downloading them is less than going out and buying them.

When the iTunes Music Store is available in the UK, I expect I'll be getting most of my music from it.

I would but for refusing to on the principle of disagreeing with having to pay a subscription to keep my songs playable unless I pay extra. You could pay upwards of £11 for an album but still not actually 'own' it but more be renting it. Which is fking ridiculous.

[blah]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I downloaded more than 150 albums in the past 3 weeks.

Am I a bad person ?

I don't think so

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Lord Talon

This was on The Register's site a few months back

Yeah, it's not theft. Theft is permanently depriving the owner of something against their will. Joy-riding is not theft (since if you are caught you can claim you would return it), thus the new offence of 'taking and driving away'. Copyright infringement isn't theft clearly.

But once again, it doesn't matter what the law says, since a lot of people don't care.

I may never buy an album (haven't yet), although I would think about paying to download. Probably still not. Smash the machine, etc.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not really bothered about the record companies, or artists making money. I never asked them to produce music.

I have no problem with moral ownership. That never runs out - the right to be mentioned as the creator of a piece of artwork, for instance.

You can even charge for CD's (charge whatever you like) when you produce. If I care, I'll pay the price. What I do object to is when people think they can perform surveillance in my home, interfere in the trade between private individuals to defend some dodgy arsed "right" they think they have.

If I buy a CD with your music on, then I can do what I like with it. I can write on it, shit on it, flush it down the toilet, wank over it, whatever. If I feel like playing it to my friends, tough luck. If I feel like making a copy in my computer then tough. If I feel like uploading...etc.

If you have a problem with this, feel free to stop making music/movies/etc. I'm not really bothered tbh. You can always perform live only, and search everyone who watches to stop them recording bootlegs.

Expect what you want. If I lose my job, I expect members of my community to help me out. But forcing people (via the law) is entirely another matter.

Personally I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this area, having always had a problem with the idea of intellectual ownership. Does the creation/discovery/improvement on a particular piece of equipment/technology/entertainment mean that one should hold the rights to that for eternity just because one got there first? When applied to land I support this idea as I cannot see any other system working (and above all else I like to think of myself as a practical man). However here it is different, recent years have shown that piracy will not cause the downfall of the music business and the cessation of all album sales. To be honest I can't see any affects, musicians are hardly getting poorer, neither are label execs, doubtlessly some mid-level employees get laid off but that's hardly an earth-shatteringly unexpected event considering that the US has seen the largest job losses in history over the past 3 years. It's a tricky concept really.

However pragmatically speaking music piracy is here to stay because people don't give a **** that some record company won't make a 27% operating profit and only a 23% one. If something is cheaper and the exposure is minimal people will always take that course of action. It's social darwinism (unjustified statement using complicated words makes me look ) in action. Record companies are stupid though, currently what we have is a law against murder in a state where there's no police force.



PS Snurx, if the bands/singers you like tell you to download/steal their cds why are they still with the record companies they're with? Like most of the rest of us, do they care more about money than their idea of right and wrong? It's a rare man with the courage, or stupidity, to follow his beliefs to their rational conclusions.

[Obliterate]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I would but for refusing to on the principle of disagreeing with having to pay a subscription to keep my songs playable unless I pay extra. You could pay upwards of £11 for an album but still not actually 'own' it but more be renting it. Which is fking ridiculous.

Not sure I understand you here - why wouldn't you "own" the song? After you've paid for it and downloaded it, I don't see why you can't burn it onto a CD etc... Basically the same as buying it from a shop - only easier and cheaper.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Obliterate

Not sure I understand you here - why wouldn't you "own" the song? After you've paid for it and downloaded it, I don't see why you can't burn it onto a CD etc... Basically the same as buying it from a shop - only easier and cheaper.

It was a while back when I last looked, but of the music sites allowing downloads to the UK, using MS DRM technology, you had to continue to pay a subscription which kept your license (digitally stored on your pc and the server) active, and that not paying would see Media Player refusing to play tracks because you didn't own the license to do so.

As I say, it was a while back. Bear in mind you're not generally downloading mp3's but WMAs or similar with protections associated with them.

[Intervention]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Obtaining or possessing a copy of a song is a civil offence under Sections 17 and 96 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Distributing said copy is a criminal offence under Section 107 of the same Act.

I must have misinterperated what I was told. I thought that the Trade Descriptions Act was the daddy one, but having read the sections of the CDP I realise now it isn't.

Also, the Trade Marks Act fit into it all somewhere, although I'm not sure where.

[Obliterate]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

It was a while back when I last looked, but of the music sites allowing downloads to the UK, using MS DRM technology, you had to continue to pay a subscription which kept your license (digitally stored on your pc and the server) active, and that not paying would see Media Player refusing to play tracks because you didn't own the license to do so.

As I say, it was a while back. Bear in mind you're not generally downloading mp3's but WMAs or similar with protections associated with them.

afaik the iTunes Music Store is different - although it isn't actually available in the UK yet (and hence may change if and when it is) - all you have to do is download iTunes in order to view the store (no license required), then once you've paid for the song you download the file to your PC.

[blah]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

having always had a problem with the idea of intellectual ownership. Does the creation/discovery/improvement on a particular piece of equipment/technology/entertainment mean that one should hold the rights to that for eternity just because one got there first?

The difference between a patent and a copyrighted song is that if the song was not made by it's creator it would never exist. But if an invention was not invented by it's invetor it should still come into existance just latter on. If the person who invented the wheel didn't invent the wheel the wheel would still exist today because it's so critical to so many mechanical things someone else would have invented it. But if a song was not created by it's creator it will never exist.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

The difference between a patent and a copyrighted song is that if the song was not made by it's creator it would never exist. But if an invention was not invented by it's invetor it should still come into existance just latter on. If the person who invented the wheel didn't invent the wheel the wheel would still exist today because it's so critical to so many mechanical things someone else would have invented it. But if a song was not created by it's creator it will never ever exist.

That's just plain wrong. If a few thousands monkeys banging on a keyboard for a few thousand years can produce the complete works of shakespeare then certainly most songs would be written sooner or later by someone (assuming your song quite literally doesn't make sense, ie "qnmojfi j noewijfoug jojdjg ejojghewr qwvdgvr" and so on) despite who originally wrote it.

[Lord Talon]

*Warning - this is long (sorry I lost the link otherwise I wouldn't have posted the whole thing). I found this on a message board a couple months ago and thought it was worth saving. The author makes some valid points, imo.


You Say that as a Joke, But... (Score:5, Informative)
by FreeUser (11483) on Tuesday August 19, @05:33PM (#6737908)
(http://jean.nu/)

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.

You say that as a joke, but it is important to keep in mind that

• copyright is the only thing in the constitution that is explicitly allowed to trump freedom of the press (i.e. freedom of speech).
Copyright was originally instituted as a means for the British Crown to censor the printing press, a new technology (at that time) which they felt threatened by.
• Copyright was later "reformed" in the Statute of Anne to give authors rights theoretically equal to those of the (by then) entrenched publishing cartel. This is the point in history that copyright advocates will try to pass off as the "beginning" of copyright, ignoring its much darker, earlier past, and the original reason for its inception: censorship.
• That same publishing cartel ignored the statute and fought it in the courts for nearly a century thereafter, before the highest court ruled they had to respect author's rights and pay to publish their works.
• It was this form of copyright that was encoded into the US constitution, with a significant change: said copyright was intended to be for a limited time, indeed, it was the intention of the founding fathers that it be a very limited time: originally 14 years plus an option to extend for another 14 years if the author was still living.
• Copyright, even in its original form, was hardly benign. Under the guise of insuring that authors and publishers receive compensation (since when is a government mandated monopoly a requirement for one to get compensation?), information in the age of the printing press was quite stringently controlled, both in the British empire and, within a generation after the ratification of the US constitution, in the United States.
• Copyright in its original form only applied to books. It's purview was then extended dramatically to include

o cartography (maps)
o sheet music
o player piano music encodings
o grammophone and other recordings
o photographs
o moving pictures
o executable instructions (software)

• Copyright was also extended numerous times in duration, now reaching life+70 years for individuals and 90 years for works-for-hire, with no end in sight now that the supreme court has ruled that retroactive extentions are now "constitutional", despite the obvious conflict that entails with the constitutions own requirement that terms be of limited length.
• In addition, government has extended copyright's authority, making it a criminal offense for the first time in this nation's 200 year history, giving individual copyright cartels and corporations police and judicial powers to issue subpeonas and have people arrested, and banning certain creative works and expressions outright (anything that can be construed to circumvent a copy restriction scheme, which includes haiku poems describing how to decrypt DVDs for playback on Linux systems).
• The DMCA allows web sites and persons to be silenced as a result of mere allegations of copyright violation, with no due process, no trial, no conviction, no proof required, and no opportunity for appeal. Copyright has come full circle, returning to its origins as the primary means of modern day censorship.


The domain, authority, and severity of copyright have grown and grown repeatedly throughout our history, as the tiny minority of people it benefits and the cartels they have formed demand greater privileges and greater profits. It is the only provision in the constitution that trumps freedom of expression and the press. Each time it grows, your freedom of speech shrinks by a corresponding amount (at least). Now that communicating certain information that can be construed as circumventing copy protection (this could, BTW, include memorization of certain information), we actually do have banned speech.

It should come as no surprise if and when the media cartels do attempt to impose wider bans on speech in order to underwrite their own profits. It should also come as no surprise when westerners, Americans in particular, accept these restrictions with passive equinimity.

After all, we have found living without our freedom of speech to be much less difficult than living without our daily Bread and Circuises, as our ongoing buying habits vis-a-vis DVDs in the context of the MPAA's unabated attack on our most fundamental rights attests.

There are alternatives to copyright that could insure authors and other artists are compensated for their work, without the albetross of government monopoly entitlements and the planned, parasitical economy it has created, but few have any interest in even considering, much less discussing them. Those who benefit from the existing system have too much to lose, those who might benefit are seduced by dreams of riches even as they are exploited into poverty, and the rest of us either can't be bothered, have already bought into the one-sided propoganda we have heard all of our lives, or are simply not listened to. Not surprising, as a few individual voices are nearly impossible to hear above the cacophony of mass produced, mass bombarding media.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Obliterate

afaik the iTunes Music Store is different - although it isn't actually available in the UK yet (and hence may change if and when it is) - all you have to do is download iTunes in order to view the store (no license required), then once you've paid for the song you download the file to your PC.

It still uses a proprietary software format though (AAC) and not mp3, and if I'm thinking of the same thing it still has DRM in-built (you can only store your songs on up to three machines for instance), though you may be right in that no subscription is required, I haven't looked much into the iTunes service specifically because I don't live in the States.

[blah]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's just plain wrong. If a few thousands monkeys banging on a keyboard for a few thousand years can produce the complete works of shakespeare then certainly most songs would be written sooner or later by someone (assuming your song quite literally doesn't make sense, ie "qnmojfi j noewijfoug jojdjg ejojghewr qwvdgvr" and so on) despite who originally wrote it.

Why don't you get a few million monkeys and you can win the nobel prize for literature.

It's also plain write