I will go to war for Wil Wheaton.

Who is awesome.

So the story seems to be this: Wil Wheaton*sez'don'tbeadick'* , who is awesome as a person, and didn't like Wesley Crusher so much either, has an audiobook of his awesome memoir "Just a Geek." When he wrote the book and produced the audiobook, he wasn't given some huge green-ink-smelling royalty check to pad his wait for the residual royalties. He was probably given bills, instead, and ate canned cold beans while waiting for this slow-growing cult classic to find its way into the hands and hearts of appreciative readers.

Some people have pirated the audiobook file, (which is what asshats do, besides molest small animals and think dirty thoughts about their grandparents) and someone is probably selling it for less than the actual distributor, without paying any money to either the distributor or Mr. Wheaton *whoisawesome*, or even considering that this is not only illegal, but also morally wrong. (See, I do understand that sometimes those two identifiers do not occur at the same time.)

Enter the internet forums, where douchebags and self-centered opinionists can hash out the morality of this issue. I will attempt to remain calm and lucid, but this is honestly the stupidest argument I'm seeing, very similar to the Roman Polanski nonsense, but closer to my home interests.

Enter the Douchebag/Asshat arguments:

1.)The business model of money for physical item is outdated and outmoded, therefore I will spend my money where I choose in order to achieve the item/file at a speed of my choice.

Actual application: Well-intentioned, but still illegal. The business model may, in fact, be behind the times, but pirating files is still against the law. Reputable companies will someday catch up to your enhanced intellect and needs, but a career in business models and planning might help more than hoping your miniscule non-contribution to the current system will effectively highlight a large enough trend to gain notice by the very company you (hopefully) wish would cater better to your needs.

2.) Screw you, big Pharma (or equivalent). They're overcharging when I deserve it for free.

Actual application: A common misconception is that everyone should have everything they desire for free, in the belief that if life isn't fair, anything that makes it seem fairer is a legitimate excuse for all kinds of asshaberdashery. Life isn't fair. That's not just an axiom, kids. It's a provable fact. Children die before they have a chance to prove their worth to society. Rich jerks get better lawyers and escape punishment for crimes that would have anyone else shivved and raped before bedtime. You may feel like you deserve something, but really, it's very hard to prove that definitively. If by it you think you are "justified" in getting something, that's easy to disprove, if you consider justice = legal system/ruling. If you feel like you merit it, then certainly anyone would be happy to give you free things with their blessing, once you explain the many ways you have benefited them/society/your religion.

In short, this argument is almost circular, and therefore invalid for purposes of proving your opinion to be superior. "I deserve it for free" "Why?" "Because I work hard." "Well please explain that to the provider" "They might not believe me/I am too lazy" "'Lazy' means you aren't working hard, and disbelief couldn't occur if you are truly meritorous of this thing." People who use this argument should cut to the chase of either "you don't know me" or "Because I said so." They may not be more worthwhile, as arguments go, but they're faster and don't offer false indications of willingness to embrace logic.

3.) Screw you, Wil Wheaton. You don't deserve my money. You are stupid.

Actual application: Stupid. Why do you want to read his ideas/thoughts/diary/tea leaves if you feel he has no worth? You are spending your time, which immediately disproves your professed non-interest in him or his life. He made this item. You want this item (for whatever reason). The law says $ = item. If you're spending it, you are still losing it, so you may as well lose it legally. If you're downloading it for free, you are stealing from the very person whose worth you reaffirm by reading/listening to his work. Why would you believe monetarily hurting the object of so much of your time is acceptable?

Keep in mind the best and most reputable speakers for disavowing others always purchase their fodder legitimately. You can't eat from a dumpster and claim the restaurant food is bad. Don't steal the file and expect me to credit your arguments.

4.) Other people do it. (a.k.a. I didn't steal it but my acquaintance/relative did and now it's on my computer so I'll take advantage of it).

Actual application:
Please do one of the following:

Find some way to make this up to the object of interest, either by an anonymous donation of the worth of the item, or by purchasing your own copy and never downloading it.

Please begin emulating other persons who kill themselves. (Effectively, please. We don't need to make your family suffer through your coma and resulting hospital bills.) See how harsh that sounds? Do you see how following "other people" can be considered in many ways? The method that is therefore recommended is: Consider others whom you respect, and how they dealt with a similar situation. Do you think that you, in your current situation, (not in a substitutional "If I were Kanye" scenario), would benefit from a similar solution? Then, consider whether that solution is legal. If these two questions result in a "yes", then the solution can probably be followed to a more acceptable result.

4.) Your opinion of my alleged "theft" doesn't matter.

Actual application: This response is another self-hating cycle. If my opinion doesn't matter, it should not have registered on your "refuting response necessary" meter.

Also, while it may legally be true that my opinion has no legal bearing on the issue, the position of legality should have some bearing in the decision. It is hard to adequately explain that the very document and system that guarantees your right to express your jackassery should be ignored when it comes to issues of theft. Please consider the "all or nothing" Bible approach.

5.) I didn't have the money for it, so I stole it.

Actual application: As a reason for theft, this is one of the most honest and supportable arguments you can make, so long as you are consistent. Don't tell me you spent the money on a purse. If you must steal in order to make your life bearable, please carefully consider your table of priorities to ensure that as many people as possible are left unharmed.

However, DO NOT believe that this makes the theft legally or morally acceptable. Please see "life is not fair." Theft is theft, regardless of income. Theft is when you take something that has value to another without their consent or compensation. It has nothing to do with whether or not: the item/file was made available in your area in it's original format; the item/file was too expensive for you to afford easily; etc.

Recognize that what you did was at least legally, if not (provably) morally wrong. You can argue the morals all you like, but stick to your reasons, rather than the legality.

The reasons may piss me off, but at least you're not lying.