Miscellaneous desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 3

The end of artists?

With increasing and apparently uncontrollable copyright infringement/piracy (illegal music/video/video game downloads, copyrighted books' text appearing online unauthorized, sale of pirated movies/video games, etc.), won't artists (musicians, writers, etc.) eventually disappear as they'll have practically no income?

Sorry for the length of the question and the wording (perhaps there's a spelling/grammar error or two). Tried searching elsewhere for the answer but couldn't find it. Just a vague fear I've always had... Thanks, ♠TomasBat 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even if your premises were correct, musicians and writers didn't pop into existence when copyright law was invented. Marnanel (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Err, no. Disruptive technologies have always been accompanied by warnings (from vested interests) that they'll kill the market. And the market has yet to die. Indeed, even as piracy increases, so do sales. By way of example, sales of music CD albums in the UK over the last year are down 3.5%, the fifth year in which they have fallen. But sales of music albums via the internet are up 56%, more than offsetting the decline in consumption of the physical commodity. Ten or so years of the record industry acting like complete and utter idiots should not be mistaken for lack of demand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) And I changed the question title, since it for various reasons breaks things when so long[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I disagree. Please cite references for your claims. Music sales and licensing are at half their 1999 levels, and this is not a blip caused by the recent recession; it has been a steady trend over the last decade-plus. This is for online sales, CD sales, everything rolled up into a ball. Digital sales have not "more than offset" the decline — you're taking the statistics you cite out of context. Marnane is correct that authors, songwriters, video game creators, and artists in general will not "disappear" completely, obviously; but digital piracy is definitely harming them economically. The hand-waving claims of the Slashdot "information wants to be free" idiots pale in comparison to the plain sales numbers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite for my figures is [1] - admittedly only a 1 year statistic, but it makes my point. Now show me the evidence that "digital piracy is definitely harming them economically" rather than, for instance, that they are clueless fools entirely responsible for their own decline; or that growth in the market for digital games has taken a huge chunk out of the disposable income previously earmarked for music consumption; or that - as your article notes, "The two recessions during the decade certainly didn't help music sales. It's also a bit unfair to compare the 2000s with the 1990s, since the '90s enjoyed an unnatural sales boost when consumers replaced their cassette tapes and vinyl records en masse with CDs". Remember, too, that it took until 2003 before the record industry got its act together sufficiently to address the digital marketplace. Clearly the industry is going to prefer to blame pirates than blame its own incompetence. Whether we should buy into it in any way is another thing entirely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Comet Tuttle wrote that "digital piracy is definitely harming them economically", he was talking about artists, not the industry. Are you saying that the artists themselves are "clueless fools", or is your ire reserved for the record labels? In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that small scale artists on their own, or signed to small independent labels, are suffering from piracy. You don't have to look far to find statements on artists' websites imploring people not to "share" their music. As for the record industry being "complete and utter idiots", I'm not sure about that. What were they supposed to do? The genie was out of the bottle from the moment CDs replaced LPs. One record industry mogul said that was like "giving away [our] master tapes", and I agree with him. Once music exists in digital format, it becomes a simple matter to copy and distribute it for free. And of course many people are going to take advantage of that, because they would rather get something for free than have to pay for it. I get tired of people saying that the industry is responsible for its own demise because it failed to identify a workable business model that would involve people paying for digital music. The fact of the matter is, there is no such model, because resourceful people will always find a way around it. You can't blame the industry for that combination of technological advancement and human greed. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recording industry (and digital content creators in general) do have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to piracy and copy protection issues, though; I'm sorry, but stopping me from copying your song to my music player or putting viruses on your CDs does not make me want to buy your product. In the case of big business, it's often complacency and arrogance; they consider themselves to have "revenue streams" to protect, rather than customers to please. In the case of smaller operators it's often misplaced self-righteousness that is their downfall. I recall the case of one (highly successful) content creator for a well-known simulation who hit on the idea of scanning his customers' harddrives for pirated versions of his software as part of his install programs. The result was that he lost the potential business of anyone who had ever "sampled" his work, and - after claimed "false positives" and requests for refunds were responded to with abuse - the respect and trust of the entire community. He went out of business within a few months. FiggyBee (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writers write, singers sing, painters paint, dancers dance, and all whether some is watching or paying or not. It may well be that changes in the marketplace mean that fewer and fewer people can make a living doing any of these things (and all of us will be the poorer for that because we will get to see and hear less and less of what is being done), but it won't stop them from creating. Bielle (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even necessarily the case that the inability of artists (like me) to make a living from it will make us all poorer. I can imagine extending the concept of intellectual property to include things that we don't usually consider to be property. We could for instance all start charging one another for casual conversation, particularly when we catch somebody passing on an idea. Some of us would then be able to make a living from these charges. This doesn't mean such account-keeping would cause a general increase in wealth. 213.122.64.82 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more likely situation is that the economics of it will shift around. Industries get disrupted, but somebody finds a way to make a buck. Each disruption causes a lot of woe and some people lose a lot of money while others figure out the way to make it back. It is not a new thing. Some call it "progress," some call it worse things. It doesn't seem likely that artistry itself will go away, but if no viable economic model is set up to encourage it on the scales it is now, you might see things change quite a bit. There is nothing about the status quo that makes it enduring or special—it is the product of its own economic forces, its own distribution system. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality musicians will always be around and making money. If increased piracy threatens anyone (which I'm not sure it does) it's the "music industry", production-line pop and hangers-on, 95% of which would be no great loss... FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artists aren't all about profiteering. Vranak (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have the right to earn a living, though, don't they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talented musicians will always be able to earn a living doing This. 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugs:I don't know of any jurisdiction where a right to earn a living in a specific manner is guaranteed; I don't even know of one where a right to earn a living, period, is guaranteed. @ 10draftsdeep: And I know personally (doing a fast count and stopping at 12) more than a dozen very talented musicians who cannot "earn a living" at music or other forms of art, notwithstanding a faithful following and lots of stage time. Almost all of them have "day jobs". Bielle (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a line from the GNU Manifesto. "Won't programmers starve? I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.. Marnanel (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs wasn't talking about guarantees that someone can earn a living. It's just that 99.9% of programmers are able to earn a living because of copyright law. Copyright law is also the reason that 99% of authors and songwriters are able to earn a living. This is not an attack on free software, which I use all the time and which is awesome. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that nobody's guaranteed "the right" to earn a living using a particular talent, and that the fact that it's common that certain creative professions are even capable of supporting their practitioners is a historical fluke that may not continue. (And even within those professions, as Bielle pointed out, the "right" to earn a living is vanishingly rare.) For example, I write fiction, and it gets pretty good reviews, but the chance of me ever being able to work on it full time is minimal. I write formal verse, and people like it, but the chance of me ever being able to work on it full time is zero. Instead, I work full time on something else I'm good at (I actually make a living from free software, funnily enough), and do the other things in my free time. Marnanel (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who pays you to produce that free software? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common mistake to assume that all free software is created exclusively by hobbyists. In general a lot of free software is produced for particular companies. IBM, Red Hat, Linksys, etc, have all made free software. And of course not-for-profits like the Linux Foundation or The Mozilla Foundation are heavily funded by the corporations that use those softwares. Free Software is big business, the corporate world isn't about to leave themselves entirely at the mercy of a bunch of stereotypical guys coding in their basements for the fun of it.APL (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that you can't make a living at literally producing only free stuff. The free stuff is a hook - just like music or video samples. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That simply isn't true. Free (as in speech) doesn't mean that someone hasn't paid for it to be brought into existence. APL (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The developers have to pay for it somehow, unless they've got slaves working for them. If they're giving something away, that's a hook to buy something from them. Freeware is often a "stripped down" version of a "deluxe" edition of the software, which of course has to be purchased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, everyone else here seems to be discussing Free Software while you seem to be discussing Freeware. They're quite different. That may be the source of the confusion. You're probably right about Freeware, but there is money to be made in Free Software that is honestly not a bait-and-switch. APL (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I think. I'm not paid to produce free==given away for nothing software, I'm paid to produce free==copyable software, though obviously in some cases it's given away for nothing. I mention it only because someone mentioned free software in the previous comment. Marnanel (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the technicalities, your company is choosing to do business this way. Some artists choose to give away some of their work also. That doesn't excuse or justify piracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, no one is saying that anything excuses or justifies anything. It hasn't even come up. Who are you debating with? APL (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic question is whether being an artist will cease to be something you can earn a living from. With sufficient piracy, the answer will become "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of piracy can displace a performing artist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Tuttle, I seriously dispute your claim that 99.9% of programmers are able to earn a living because of copyright law. I'm pretty sure that the majority of programmers are employed creating custom business solutions that would have little to no value for anyone other than the customer. APL (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think your assessment is closer to the reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference to support my made-up statistic — quite unfortunate for me, given that in this very thread, I scolded Tagishsimon for not having a reference for his made-up junk analysis — but I very much doubt that the majority of programmers create custom business solutions that are actually valueless to other enterprises. (Yes, I realize some large number of these solutions are built around ostensibly unique internal processes. But is every accounting process really a precious and unique snowflake?) Copyright law supports their employment, too, in addition to all the other programmers outside of custom business solution programming whose livings depend upon it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced of this. Software would still be needed to make the world go round. When the lack of quality software started to effect big business they'd find a way to put down money to make it happen. Others would find ways of making money with free software.

Some programmers make stuff that's hardware dependent. Other's make software, even games, that is dependent on a central server. (World of Warcraft would still be profitable no matter the copyright status of the client.), not to mention the ones that are already gainfully employed creating free software. I'm not saying that some programmers wouldn't lose their jobs. Of course they some would. But it would be nowhere near the 99.9% you came up with.

I think you're greatly underestimating the flexibility and adaptability of our capitalist economic system. APL (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(amplifying and clarifying my point. E/c with SteveBaker below.)

Software made for the military alone is probably enough to bust your 99% number. It's not copyright laws that stop the Russians from copying our military simulators and missile guidance systems. And, yes, of course there's often overlap between custom applications made for company A and company B. But it's not primarily copyright laws that stop company A from sharing its software with company B. (They sometime own the copyright, The law doesn't stop them from sharing!) A sudden disappearance of copyright laws would mostly effect the consumer software market. (the small minority of software created.) But even there, the effect would not be completely catastrophic. For example, if Microsoft were suddenly replaced with the "Not-For-Profit OpenSource Windows and Office Foundation" Dell, HP, Gateway and the like would be more than willing to contribute, because they know their business depends on keeping Microsoft software up to date. How do I know this would happen? Because it already has happened for Linux.[2].

But more likely, if tomorrow copyrights were abolished, Microsoft would stick around and find new ways to make money by developing software. Centralized Cloud-based computing comes to mind.

So our current system of copyrights might be good for the industry, but it's clear that it's not absolutely vital. APL (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can encyclopedia writers survive with all of the people here writing an encyclopedia for free? It's the same problem. Also, when we say 99.9% of programmers/writers/musicians/whatever are able to earn a living, consider that this could be because those who can't make a living doing it are doing something else and therefore do not self-identify as programmers/writers/musicians anymore. In the software world, it's a matter of several things:

For games, it's exceedingly difficult for OpenSource programmers to find artists and musicians who are prepared to work for free. So OpenSource games have to either be very 'shallow' (not much art) or have art made by the programmers (the term "programmer art" is an extreme pejorative!) - or more often start out with massive enthusiasm and never get finished. When you DO finish a complete game, just like most commercial game, it has about a one in thirtyfive chance of becoming successful - and even when it is successful, it's a short term thing. It's quite soul-destroying to spend three years of your life writing a game - only to find that people pretty much stop talking about it a couple of weeks after launch.
For applications software, it's quite possible for OpenSource programmers to produce really great tools. Programs like GIMP are probably 95% as good as Photoshop - yet an enormous number of people will pay hundreds of dollars for the commercial product and never learn to use more than 30% of what it can do! However, some software like this becomes massively popular. Firefox, for example.
There is an immense amount of software that people write for their own purpose and realise that the effort to market it and sell is will never earn them much money. By handing it out for free, they bring other users in to improve and maintain the software - and in a way, that's profit.

The music and novel-writing professions are more like the first of those things - which probably explains why there aren't many people doing it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "music" includes live performances, there's not much market for live programming shows, or live novel writing. APL (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do use HD video in flash, or put flash animation over HD video without ruining quality?

I'm moving this question to the Computing Reference Desk. Please see the relocated thread here.

--Anonymous, 06:50 UTC, February 3, 2010.

Wanna be tough guys

Three seriously tough bodybuilders enter a pub. One little, tiny weakly jerk comes up to them and full of aggression tells to one of the bodybuilders that he (the little one) will "fuck him up". It was not a joke, but was a real threat. The bodybuilders have calmed him down and walked away. I would have probably done the same had I been one of the bodybuilders, because had the bodybuilder actually punched the little one then the little one would die instantly. When the bodybuilders walked away I asked the little one if he is some sort of a martial arts expert. He said that he is not a martial arts expert at all but that someone needed to face up to the big guys and show them that they are not as tough as they think they are! He saw them for the first time, but when he saw how confident they walk around he immediately felt provoked! What is actually the best way to handle those little wanna be tough guys who feel provoked by real tough guys?

As per the notice at the top of the page, the Reference Desk is not a discussion forum. Please try asking a factual question, your query is so open-ended as to basically be just inviting random opinions. Zunaid 09:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is more or less a serious question. I've had this problem myself often. It is a practical application of social-psychology. 78.146.251.66 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you always have the urge to walk up to a 'seriously tough bodybuilder' and say you will 'fuck him up'? If so, see a psychologist or psychiatrist, we can't offer medical advice. Or are you a 'seriously tough bodybuilder' who is repeatedly accousted by 'one little, tiny weakly jerk' who says he will fuck you up? If so, then the best way is obviously to walk away since while we can't offer legal advice, assault is a criminal offence in most countries and in any case, if you are a 'real tough guy' you clearly don't have to hit someone to prove it. And perhaps re-consider the sort of places you are visiting since in most places you aren't going to be continually accousted by 'one little, tiny weakly jerk' Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the second case. "Walking away" is rarely a solution since the aggressive small guy may be a co-worker, professor, or whatever, that you cannot escape from. Even if this happens in somewhere like a restaurant, it is not fair that you should have to give up your meal by "walking away". I pretend not to hear, but that removes inhibitions from the small guy. In my experience guys who are borderline between average and short are the most aggressive. 84.13.53.3 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well walking away appears to be a solution in the ops case. For your cases, co-worker=warn him/her and if the behaviour continues, make a complaint to the appropriate party (HR/your superior/his/her superior). Professor if you mean collegue = same thing. If you mean you're a student, well I would seriously consider a new university but in the mean time, complain to whatever appropriate party. Superior = well complain to someone higher up, or HR; or perhaps consider a new job. If you are in a restaurant, tell the staff to deal with the person. If it is staff, well ask to see a supervisor or someone similar. Depending on the circumstances, and how much of a threat you feel the person is, you may want to consider calling the police. Ultimately it's not your job to deal with whatever mental problems other people may have, so it doesn't matter if it "removes inhibitions from the small guy", provided the behaviour stops. Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing the ideal, not the reality. People are not concerned, its happening to someone else, not themselves. They think a big guy should be able to deal with it, otherwise the big guy is a wimp and does not deserve help, and they believe that a big guy must be responsible, since everyone knows that big guys pick on small guys. People see big guys as if they are cartoon characters. I think many people must believe that someone's body stature is formed by their personality or vice versa. 89.240.201.246 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the job of the HR department or supervisor of an organisation to care about what's happening to the employees, and commonly they do it all the time (depending on the size of the staff of course). Ditto with whatever university department deals with harrassment (in fact in some cases it may be their only job). To some extent, the same with the staff of a restaurant. Amongst other things, it avoids legal problems. I can imagine the staff of some restaurants may not always care (although even that's far from convincing, if two people in the restaurant are fighting that's usually going to annoy other patrons), but I'm far less willing to believe it's commonly the case amongst HR departments and similar. Also your suggestion is somewhat contradictory. If they receive a complaint and believe you are at fault, they're not going to ignore it because they don't care. They're going to pursue you. Having said that, if you go into the process believing that they're not going to care, they're going to think you should be able to deal with it yourself, they're going to blame you when you aren't at fault and that they see you as cartoon characters, I'm not surprised the response you get is far from satisfactory since there's a very good chance the way you would approach the situation is not likely to help anything. If you would be more willing to accept that most people actually can think rationally and will do their jobs properly and not let their preconceptions sour their good judgement, then people would respond accordingly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that there is an HR department in the first place. I think most places of work do not have them. You are regretebly describing a fantasy of how things should be rather than how they actually are. Often such harrassment comes from the supervisor since they believe they must be conspicuously dominant. In their minds a big guy is threat to their dominance and they must belittle the big guy to restore their dominance. The belittling does not work as it does not make the big guy any smaller, and so it continues. 84.13.56.148 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I can come to an article relating to this is Napoleon complex. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, watch GoodFellas for a vivid depiction of this phenomenon. Second, I don't know where you get the assumption from that larger creatures always dominate smaller ones, but it simply isn't true. I think it's more about who feels more self-righteous. They will be more ferocious and dangerous. Vranak (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is making some sort of analogy, but he's being coy about exactly what he's talking about and which side of it he's on. But the most obvious response from the big guy is to call his bluff by saying, "You and what army?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good response until about the end of primary school. Googlemeister (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough ale will often reduce a pub denizen to that level. :) Maybe the tough guy could do something the little guy doesn't expect, like breaking into song. Maybe "I Feel Pretty", as was recommended as a self-calming song in the movie Anger Management. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the three bodybuilders spontaneously breaking into a perfect choral rendering of Amazing Grace ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably accompanied by badly-played bagpipes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or well-played ones - it's hard to tell! SteveBaker (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a tragic coincidence, this exact scenario came up recently. The little guy was wearing a plaid shirt and spiked hair, and one of the big, drunken guys mistook him for a set of pipes, and squeezed him a little too hard. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This question also appears here. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian dog rat story/urban legend

Hello! There is an urban legend about a small dog from Cambodia, Thailand, or Mexico that a woman takes home, which ends up eating her cat. The small dog is identified as a large dangerous rat by a veterinarian. Various versions of this story are here. My teacher insists that this story has really happened in Catalonia a couple of times, but I have a lot of doubt that it's real. Can anyone provide citations either confirming or debunking this urban legend? If it is true, a photo of the dog/rat would be very interesting if one's available. Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version that I've heard had a tasmanian devil instead of a rat but the rest of the story remained pretty much the same. Couple goes to Tasmania on vacation, finds cute little "dog", brings it home (how it gets through quarantine, customs, and such is never mentioned), and it kills the family cat when everyone is away at work/school. Dismas|^(talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell teach, "The person making the claim is the person who has to put up the proof." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"insists that this really happened" is a phrase often connected with urban legends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes [3] has you covered. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple scientific debunking of is that there's likely no known true rats (i.e. belong to the genus Rattus) of that size. The Brown Rat is I think one of the largest (not sure if it's the largest) true rats but is almost definitely not big enough to eat a cat, not even close. Probably not even a kitten. There are larger rodents which aren't true rats, e.g. see giant rat. For example, one of the people who discovered the Bosavi Woolly Rat (~1.5kg) called it a 'true rat' but despite some confusion in some of the news articles, it appears to belong to the genus Mallomys although does therefore belong to the subfamily Murinae although not in the Rattus division so this designation is perhaps questionable. In any case it has a "diet of leaves and roots" so isn't going to eat a cat. [4] [5]. The largest known extant rodent is the Capybara but that's fairly far removed from a rat, not even being in the same suborder Hystricomorpha (see also Zygomasseteric system). It also eats grass so even if you do consider it a rat, it isn't going to eat a cat. I suspect most large rodents are similarly primarily herbivorous of some sort so aren't going to eat a cat. Of course even if the rat was carnivorous and large enough, I'm sceptical whether it would normally try to eat a cat, most predators don't try to eat other predators particularly if they start to fight back (of course if it's being held captive, it may display odd behaviour). In other words, no there's almost definitely no cat eating rats anywhere in the world. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not live cats anyways. Rats are quite adept scavengers. Googlemeister (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information! Looks like I was letting my gullibility get the best of me.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]