@A_Dodgy_Dude (A Dodgy Dude) posted a new topic, subject "Question about torrents and pirating". It read:

   The pertinent facts:
    
    A couple years ago there was a vampire movie called Daybreakers that had a cool-looking poster. “Golly,” I said to myself, “That's a cool-looking poster. I'd like to get a longer look at those vampires.”
    
    But the reviews were only fair-to-middling so I knew my $12 would be staying in my pocket and I would wait for the movie to come to TV.
    
    Then I started to think, “If I pirate the movie now, the producers get no money* from me*, and if I wait until the movie comes to TV in a year or two, the producers get no money _from me_.”
    
    Now my question:
    
    Given the fact that there was _never_ any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets, if I had pirated the movie in 2009, how would it have been stealing?

@PlainJain (PlainJain) replied

    The law says so.

Then @Oakminster (Oakminster) said

    Because you took something (ie the right to control the distribution of a copyrighted work) from its rightful owner without legal authority to do so.

After which, @Der_Trihs (Der Trihs) added

    A_Dodgy_Dude:
    
    > Now my question:
    > 
    > Given the fact that there was _never_ any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets, if I had pirated the movie in 2009, how would it have been stealing?
    
    You're not. It gets called “stealing” because that works people up more than “copyright violation”.

@YogSothoth (YogSothoth) replied

    TV makes money from advertisments. You'd be missing the commercials that would have spurred you to buy stuff

After which, @Ichbin_Dubist (Ichbin Dubist) added

    Because my vague promise to give you $20 in 2 years does not make it okay to pick my pocket now.

@Czarcasm (TIME Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year) replied

    A_Dodgy_Dude:
    
    > The pertinent facts:
    > 
    > A couple years ago there was a vampire movie called Daybreakers that had a cool-looking poster. “Golly,” I said to myself, “That's a cool-looking poster. I'd like to get a longer look at those vampires.”
    > 
    > But the reviews were only fair-to-middling so I knew my $12 would be staying in my pocket and I would wait for the movie to come to TV.
    > 
    > Then I started to think, “If I pirate the movie now, the producers get no money* from me*, and if I wait until the movie comes to TV in a year or two, the producers get no money _from me_.”
    > 
    > Now my question:
    > 
    > Given the fact that there was _never_ any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets, if I had pirated the movie in 2009, how would it have been stealing?
    
    Actually, it's more like fencing. You are receiving know stolen goods and (if you are part of the torrent system) you are delivering known stolen goods.

Then @Der_Trihs (Der Trihs) said

    Ichbin_Dubist:
    
    > Because my vague promise to give you $20 in 2 years does not make it okay to pick my pocket now.
    
    No the same thing, since you're out something if someone picks your pocket. A better analogy would be, oh, someone tapping into your cable TV signal so they can watch for free.

Then @kanicbird (kanicbird) said

    The watching of the movie seems to be a desire to you, something you would enjoy. Cable companies and network TV want you to enjoy watching them, as such they buy things to show you, such as this movie, because it's what you like. But since you have already seen it, it lowers the value of their service in your mind.
    
    This decreased value has a potential of having you drop their service, or stop watching their network, which hurts them. Perhaps you would never do that, but over many people the potential works into real numbers.

After which, @Turble (Turble) added

    It is complicated.
    
    If you pirate the movie and just keep your mouth shut about it it is a pretty minor offense.
    
    If you pirate the movie and teach your friends how to pirate the movie it is probably a bad thing.
    
    If you pirate the movie and tell your friends it was good (without mentioning how you watched it) and some of your friends or friends of your friends then pay to see it because of your recommendation the ethical/legal situation becomes pretty murky.

To which @Jimmy_Chitwood (Jimmy Chitwood) replied

    Der_Trihs:
    
    > You're not. It gets called “stealing” because that works people up more than “copyright violation”.
    
    Well, it gets called stealing because somebody else owns something, and you're acquiring it without compensating them for it. It's not legal theft because you aren't literally _taking_ it away from the possession of its owner, but it's not really a wild leap in logic to call it stealing in a conversational sense. It meets the everyday dictionary definition.
    
    A Dodgy Dude:
    
    > Given the fact that there was never any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets, if I had pirated the movie in 2009, how would it have been stealing?
    
    I would like a dinosaur skeleton. I am absolutely never going to go through whatever process it would require to get a real one - no chance. I'm sure you don't believe that that means that if I take one from a museum, I didn't steal it. So that can't be the only factor that determines whether it's stealing or not, especially since not being able to afford a thing is like the most reasonable rationale for stealing there is. And if you can't afford something, obviously, you aren't going to buy it.

To which @Candyman74 (Candyman74) replied

    A_Dodgy_Dude:
    
    > Then I started to think, “If I pirate the movie now, the producers get no money* from me*, and if I wait until the movie comes to TV in a year or two, the producers get no money _from me_.”
    
    Networks pay to show the movie. The amount they pay is largely related to the amount of ad views they expect to sell, which is related to the number of people who watch it on TV.
    
    So, in theory, the producer gets less money if less people watch it on TV and pirate it instead.

So @Ibanez (Ibanez) replied

    Just say no to pirates, ARRRRRGHH!!!
    
    Support the arts. Buy it don't steal it.

@AlsoNamedBort (Formerly enalzi) replied

    Ibanez:
    
    > Just say no to pirates, ARRRRRGHH!!!
    > 
    > Support the arts. Buy it don't steal it.
    
    Or if you do steal it, don't try to justify it. People who go on and on about why pirating is ok are horribly annoying. I have no problem admitting that I've been known to pirate now and then. I could tell you all about how I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I'm really supporting the artist and so on, but really, it comes down to three things. I'm broke, it's easy, and I have loose morals. So if you want to download, I say do it, just know that it's wrong.

@Der_Trihs (Der Trihs) replied

    AlsoNamedBort:
    
    > Or if you do steal it, don't try to justify it. People who go on and on about why pirating is ok are horribly annoying. I have no problem admitting that I've been known to pirate now and then. I could tell you all about how I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I'm really supporting the artist and so on, but really, it comes down to three things. I'm broke, it's easy, and I have loose morals. So if you want to download, I say do it, just know that it's wrong.
    
    No, it isn't that simple. Thanks to our screwed up copyright laws there's an awful lot of work out there that isn't legally available at all, quite a lot of which has no clear legal copyright warrenana@example.org. Calling it “stealing” if you download something when it costs no one anything and you literally can't buy it “stealing” distorts the word.
    
    For that matter, is it stealing to borrow a book? To read over someone's shoulder? Glancing at a picture without paying? Those also are labeled as “theft” by the copyright fanatics. Unless you want to end up in a dystopia where you are literally charged for everything you look at, at some point you need to say “no, _that_ isn't theft” to these people because that's literally what the copyright extremists are pushing for. A society with eye trackers everywhere.

So @Czarcasm (TIME Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year) replied

    Der_Trihs:
    
    > No, it isn't that simple. Thanks to our screwed up copyright laws there's an awful lot of work out there that isn't legally available at all, quite a lot of which has no clear legal copyright warrenana@example.org. Calling it “stealing” if you download something when it costs no one anything and you literally can't buy it “stealing” distorts the word.
    > 
    > For that matter, is it stealing to borrow a book? To read over someone's shoulder? Glancing at a picture without paying? Those also are labeled as “theft” by the copyright fanatics. Unless you want to end up in a dystopia where you are literally charged for everything you look at, at some point you need to say “no, _that_ isn't theft” to these people because that's literally what the copyright extremists are pushing for. A society with eye trackers everywhere.
    
    But we already _have_ a system that allows you to read out-of-print books and listen to older music that might not be currently circulating.  
    It's called the library.

After which, @Ibanez (Ibanez) added

    AlsoNamedBort:
    
    > Or if you do steal it, don't try to justify it. People who go on and on about why pirating is ok are horribly annoying.
    
    Agreed, that's most annoying part. It's stealing no matter how they slice it.  
    As a part time artist. Meaning I have a full time job but work on art on the side and sell pieces I would be terribly pissed if people could just download my paintings because the technology is there.
    
    There's also an example of a local band in my area that has some what of a following.  
    Their album has been stolen ahem, I mean downloaded at last count 5000 times. Not a big deal some people, it's just music after all.
    
    This band at one point had their electricity cutt off. I'm sure they could of used the money.

To which @Jimmy_Chitwood (Jimmy Chitwood) replied

    Der_Trihs:
    
    > that's literally what the copyright extremists are pushing for. A society with eye trackers everywhere.
    
    Hello; please cite.

To which @Der_Trihs (Der Trihs) replied

    Czarcasm:
    
    > But we already _have_ a system that allows you to read out-of-print books and listen to older music that might not be currently circulating.  
    >  It's called the library.
    
    Um, no. I certainly can't find a lot of books I want there. As for music, most older American music is not legally available in this country.
    
    > Archivists and collectors have long lamented the lack of access to older recordings. So the Library of Congress commissioned a team to find out just how many are out of print. The report – released in August – suggests that over 70 percent of American music recorded before 1965 is not legally available in the United States.
    
    Jimmy_Chitwood:
    
    > Hello; please cite.
    
    I'll see if I can dig up a story.

To which @GrandWino (GrandWino) replied

    Der_Trihs:
    
    > Um, no. I certainly can't find a lot of books I want there. As for music, most older American music is not legally available in this country.
    > 
    > I'll see if I can dig up a story.
    
    What percentage of pirating is of pre-1965 music? I would guess it is a very very small number. Not a very strong justification.
    
    I torrent a lot of stuff, but I know it's wrong.

Then @Zjestika (Zjestika) said

    What about media from other countries? I enjoy QI, but to watch it on DVD I'd have to get an all-region DVD player to watch the first 5 in the series. I can't watch anything streaming from British sites, but there are short clips on youtube.
    
    Legally I suppose the expectation would be that I buy the special DVD player, right? But there are clips that QI has put up on youtube at no monetary benefit to them. There are other British TV shows I've watched full episodes of on youtube, like Never Mind the Buzzcocks and Screenwipes. Is that stealing?

@Simplicio (Simplicio) replied

    Jimmy_Chitwood:
    
    > Well, it gets called stealing because somebody else owns something, and you're acquiring it without compensating them for it.
    
    What they own is the copywrite to the work. Your not taking that away by making an illegal copy. Similarily, if I tresspass on your land, I'm not “stealing” the land, though I am doing something illegal.
    
    So I'd say the answer to the OP is that they aren't stealing, but they are illegally violating the copywrite. The law doesn't care whether they wouldn't have paid for it anyways, or if they can't get access to the movie any other way. One can argue that those might make it more morally defensible, but it doesn't make it any more or less illegal.

Then @Duckster (Duckster) said

    Turble:
    
    > If you pirate the movie and just keep your mouth shut about it it is a pretty minor offense.
    
    If you steal/kill/damage something/rape/cheat/etc., and just keep your mouth shut about it it is a pretty minor offense.
    
    Is this the new rationalization today? True character is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

After which, @marshmallow (marshmallow) added

    YogSosoth:
    
    > TV makes money from advertisments. You'd be missing the commercials that would have spurred you to buy stuff
    
    What about DVRs?

Then @Turble (Turble) said

    Duckster:
    
    > If you steal/kill/damage something/rape/cheat/etc., and just keep your mouth shut about it it is a pretty minor offense.
    > 
    > Is this the new rationalization today? True character is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
    
    So a starving child stealing a loaf of bread is the same as a millionaire embezzling his employees retirement fund?
    
    Taking one line out of context from a post that discusses various levels of wrongdoing is doing the right thing? :dubious:

After which, @Dewey_Finn (Dewey Finn) added

    marshmallow:
    
    > YogSosoth:
    >
    >> TV makes money from advertisments. You'd be missing the commercials that would have spurred you to buy stuff
    > 
    > What about DVRs?
    
    The networks know that people are watching programs on DVRs and skipping through commercials. That's why they're introducing more product placement in shows. Sometimes it works well. Other times, it's laughably awkward. They're doing other things too. Like when the NBC series Friday Night Lights was up for renewal but the ratings hadn't been very good, NBC worked out a deal with DirecTV to first broadcast the episodes on satellite, and then months later on network television.

Then @Jimmy_Chitwood (Jimmy Chitwood) said

    Simplicio:
    
    > What they own is the copywrite to the work. Your not taking that away by making an illegal copy.
    
    That's what I said.

Then @markdash (markdash) said

    Listen, on the rare occasions when I stream something illegally, or download an mp3 without paying for it, I know with 100% confidence that I am not costing the rightful owners of that material a single penny. I have no problem spending money on media that I want, to which my CD and DVD collection will attest.
    
    But I would never consider what I was doing legal, or in any way not copyright infringement. Just because nobody is getting hurt from it (which in your example isn't even true) doesn't make it legal.

To which @Eyebrows_0f_Doom (Eyebrows 0f Doom) replied

    Jimmy_Chitwood:
    
    > That's what I said.
    
    Until you went on some bizarre tangent about stealing a dinosaur skeleton, which has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. He didn't say he didn't see the movie because he couldn't afford it. He said he didn't pay to see it because reviews said it was bad, and was asking how downloading it for free is any different than watching it on TV for free. Nothing to do with being able to afford something or not.

Then @Jimmy_Chitwood (Jimmy Chitwood) said

    I didn't think the OP was about not being able to afford something. I quoted the part of his post where he suggested that the fact that he was never going to pay for the thing suggests that he couldn't have stolen it.
    
    Then I said that can't be the rule that defines stealing, because people steal things all the time when they aren't going to pay for them, like _for example_ because they can't afford them. Because if I can't afford something, there is also
    
    > never any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets
    
    but I doubt the OP would ask how it could be considered stealing if I walked out of a store with it.

Then @Spiny_Norman (Spiny Norman) said

    A_Dodgy_Dude:
    
    > Now my question:
    > 
    > Given the fact that there was _never_ any chance of my $12 moving from my pockets to the producers' pockets, if I had pirated the movie in 2009, how would it have been stealing?
    
    In the interest of full disclosure: I draw my paycheck from a major movie studio, so I'm not an entirely disinterested party to the conversation.
    
    That being said: The movie is a product of somebody's effort, and it's obviously worth _something_ to you - at the very least, the time and effort spent pirating it, and the time spent watching it. In other words, you acquired something of value without compensating those who created it.
    
    > Then I started to think, “If I pirate the movie now, the producers get no money from me, and if I wait until the movie comes to TV in a year or two, the producers get no money from me.”
    
    The value of a movie viewing drops over the lifetime of a movie. From the tickets on premiere night via matinee, PPV, DVD, prime-time cable and finally unattractive timeslots on obscure channels. That's market forces in action, and movie producers bank on this fact to recoup the investment. It is their choice how to gauge the market and when to drop the price.
    
    But you wanted the product at its most depreciated price without waiting for its actual value to drop - and you acquired it in a way that absolutlely keeps the creators from getting any compensation.
    
    I won't necessarily call it stealing, but I'm not about to call it fair or honest, either.

After which, @Oakminster (Oakminster) added

    markdash:
    
    > Listen, on the rare occasions when I stream something illegally, or download an mp3 without paying for it, I know with 100% confidence that I am not costing the rightful owners of that material a single penny.
    
    Wrong. You cost the rightful owner their lawful royalties for the copy of their product you stole. You have no right to that music/video/whatever unless you acquire it legally.

@kenobi_65 (kenobi_65) replied

    Simplicio:
    
    > What they own is the copywrite to the work.
    
    A nit, just because it's a pet peeve of mine:
    
    It's **copyright** , not copywrite. As in, you own the **rights** to the work in question.

So @Mogle (Mogle) replied

    If every act of piracy literally cost the copyright holder money, then I can think of more than one artist whose work I would download 24/7 in order to bankrupt them so humanity might be spared of any more of their performances.

So @markdash (markdash) replied

    Oakminster:
    
    > Wrong. You cost the rightful owner their lawful royalties for the copy of their product you stole. You have no right to that music/video/whatever unless you acquire it legally.
    
    Let me rephrase. When I download or stream something, by my actions I do not deprive the studios of any money they might have otherwise had. Or put another way, if I looked for something to stream and was unable to find it, my alternative would not be to purchase it, it would be to watch warrenana@example.org.
    
    None of this is disagreeing with your point in particular. I'm claiming no right to the media, and yes, technically speaking I do “owe” them (although how do you figure out how much someone owes for watching a stream of a live TV show?).
    
    Is there a distinction between downloading movies versus TV shows, music, etc.? I do not believe in downloading movies or computer games illegally, but it feels like TV shows or music are (slightly) different. Not legally, of course. It just seems like movie and especially game piracy is a major problem that deprives studios of huge amounts of revenue.

Then @shijinn (shijinn) said

    i think the resistance is the very idea of copyright as a concept, as applied to something that is easily replicable. why should one pay for something that could be recreated so easily, where demand meets an endless supply?

@Czarcasm (TIME Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year) replied

    shijinn:
    
    > i think the resistance is the very idea of copyright as a concept, as applied to something that is easily replicable. why should one pay for something that could be recreated so easily, where demand meets an endless supply?
    
    Why should one go through the bother of creating works of art, if there are no restrictions on copying them?

After which, @shijinn (shijinn) added

    i'm not questioning the need, just trying instead to illustrate the difficulty in accepting the term ‘stealing' as applied to copyright violations.
    
    a crude analogy would be like trying to copyright a cooking recipe against home use. you know if it were halfway enforceable there would be an RIAA for chefs.

@boytyperanma (boytyperanma) replied

    I just wanted to say pirating movies still in the theater is a waste of time anyway. The quality is almost always crap. If you can't wait for something to come out on DVD or Blue Ray it's probably worth paying the 12 bucks, because it seems it is ‘that' important to you.
    
    Once they're out on DVD the better quality burns come out on bit torrents. But then you could just as easily get the DVD anyhow.
    
    I tend not to watch anything I'm unwilling to pay for, if it isn't worth my money it probably isn't worth my time either.
    
    I tend to only use bit torrents for films I have trouble finding a copy of, mostly foreign films that haven't been released to the states, I'll still purchase them at a later date when the become available. Also If I miss an episode of a current series and their replay/on demand takes over a week I'll download it and feel slightly imorral.

After which, @Spiny_Norman (Spiny Norman) added

    shijinn:
    
    > i think the resistance is the very idea of copyright as a concept, as applied to something that is easily replicable. why should one pay for something that could be recreated so easily, where demand meets an endless supply?
    
    Replication isn't creation. The Harry Potter movies cost hundreds of millions to create, yet once they're digitized, identical copies can be recreated at essentially no cost.
    
    And with no concept of copyright, anyone can distribute copies. It's just that one distributor - in this case, Warner Brothers - is saddled with a humongous bill to pay, and that is going to hamper their market position just a bit. So without copyright, why would anyone go to the colossal amount of trouble it is to create a modern movie? Sure, there are nice movies out there produced on a shoestring budget, but for the big display pieces, you'll never make your money back on donations.
    
    And admittedly, I can see some merit in the availability argument.

Then @Dangerosa (Dangerosa) said

    shijinn:
    
    > i'm not questioning the need, just trying instead to illustrate the difficulty in accepting the term ‘stealing' as applied to copyright violations.
    > 
    > a crude analogy would be like trying to copyright a cooking recipe against home use. you know if it were halfway enforceable there would be an RIAA for chefs.
    
    Recipes can be copyrighted. A couple of years ago an online magazine was shut down for taking other people's recipes.
    
    Now, it is HARD to enforce copyright at home for recipes, just like its hard to enforce the copy of a friend's CD or DVD might have on his iPod. Or its hard to enforce copyright over a short book or a poem that's easily copied. Or a cover band playing copyrighted music. But “difficult to enforce” does not equal “legal.”
    
    (There are lots of laws its hard to enforce. From tax fraud to statutory rape to underage drinking to dozens of other violations. All those laws are under enforced. But that doesn't make the activity legal).

@Balthisar (Balthisar) replied

    Dangerosa:
    
    > Recipes can be copyrighted. A couple of years ago an online magazine was shut down for taking other people's recipes.
    
    You're probably referring to Cooks Source. The issue wasn't about whether recipes could be copyrighted (they can't) but that the magazine ripped off the article pertaining to the recipe.
    
    I see open source cola and open source beer recipes and laugh. They're public domain, as are all recipes.
    
    Oh, and I should point out that by recipe I mean the data to create the dish. If you artistically embellish the ingredients, you may have a case if it's copied verbatim.

So @shijinn (shijinn) replied

    Dangerosa:
    
    > … But “difficult to enforce” does not equal “legal.” …
    
    and again, i don't think anyone is disputing that there is, in fact, in existence a law protecting a person's copyright.
    
    the resistance, as i said, was associating copyright violation with “theft”, “stealing” and “piracy” etc. Theft as a concept is fairly intuitive - to take away, and thus deprive someone of something. copying that recipe to cook a dish, however, would not be so intuitively understood as “theft”.

Then @keeganst94 (keeganst94) said

    I somewhat agree with you, but I give it more time. If the film is more than 10 years old, I generally have no qualms with downloading it. I mean really, does anybody still make money off Fantasia, Reservoir Dogs, Citizen Kaine, the Good the Bad and the Ugly, Pulp Fiction, etc? Although it is legal in Canada to do so, so long as I am not uploading or profiting from the download, I prefer to abstain (although ten years isn't a hard rule- I'll sometimes download stuff 7/8/9 years old).

To which @Czarcasm (TIME Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year) replied

    keeganst94:
    
    > I somewhat agree with you, but I give it more time. If the film is more than 10 years old, I generally have no qualms with downloading it. I mean really, does anybody still make money off Fantasia, Reservoir Dogs, Citizen Kaine, the Good the Bad and the Ugly, Pulp Fiction,etc?
    
    Unless any of those movies are in the public domain, then _of course_ people still make money from their sales.

@Dan_Norder (Dan Norder) replied

    These are pretty simple definitions, people…
    
    Der_Trihs:
    
    > For that matter, is it stealing to borrow a book? To read over someone's shoulder? Glancing at a picture without paying? Those also are labeled as “theft” by the copyright fanatics.
    
    Those are ridiculous straw man arguments. Nobody calls those acts theft, and nobody but nobody wants to outlaw them. If you make up some bizarre, outrageous claims about what people you disagree with say that doesn't make what you say any more correct. When you take something that you don't have the legal rights to take it is called stealing. That's what the word means. There are lots of different ways to steal, and that's certainly one of them.
    
    Simplicio:
    
    > What they own is the copywrite to the work. Your not taking that away by making an illegal copy.
    
    It's called copyright because it is literally the legal right to decide who can make copies, how many they can make, and in what format and time frame they can do it in. If you make copies without having the copyright owner's agreement to do so (or without otherwise following what copyright law allows for fair use) then you are indeed taking away those rights.

After which, @Spiny_Norman (Spiny Norman) added

    keeganst94:
    
    > I mean really, does anybody still make money off Fantasia, Reservoir Dogs, Citizen Kaine, the Good the Bad and the Ugly, Pulp Fiction, etc?
    
    Very much so.
    
    If you were ever to try and purchase a movie studio, you'd discover that the buildings and the institutional know-how isn't what makes them valuable, it's the library of old material.
    
    Anything that's not found in the $5 bin at the local convenience store is very likely to still be marketable.

So @keeganst94 (keeganst94) replied

    Fine. Maybe they do make money off them. But here's the thing. I assumed they don't because I CANT BUY THEM. Some movies, in fact most old movies, I am simply not able to rent, buy, or otherwise view. If I can't find it without pirating, I will pirate.


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-torrents-and-pirating/590770', 'title': 'Question about torrents and pirating', 'views': 7429, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 5027, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 47, 'participant_count': 30, 'posts': 48, 'tags': '', 'author': '@A_Dodgy_Dude (A Dodgy Dude)', 'participants': "@A_Dodgy_Dude (A Dodgy Dude), @PlainJain (PlainJain), @Oakminster (Oakminster), @Der_Trihs (Der Trihs), @YogSothoth (YogSothoth), @Ichbin_Dubist (Ichbin Dubist), @Czarcasm (TIME Magazine's 2006 Person Of The Year), @kanicbird (kanicbird), @Turble (Turble), @Jimmy_Chitwood (Jimmy Chitwood), @Candyman74 (Candyman74), @Ibanez (Ibanez), @AlsoNamedBort (Formerly enalzi), @GrandWino (GrandWino), @Zjestika (Zjestika), @Simplicio (Simplicio), @Duckster (Duckster), @marshmallow (marshmallow), @Dewey_Finn (Dewey Finn), @markdash (markdash), @Eyebrows_0f_Doom (Eyebrows 0f Doom), @Spiny_Norman (Spiny Norman), @kenobi_65 (kenobi_65), @Mogle (Mogle), @shijinn (shijinn), @boytyperanma (boytyperanma), @Dangerosa (Dangerosa), @Balthisar (Balthisar), @keeganst94 (keeganst94), @Dan_Norder (Dan Norder)", 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2011-07-29T20:31:46.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2011-08-04T01:09:06.000Z'}