Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

And the capitalists wish to do what to stop people from sharing?

TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO QUOTED ME, ALL TWENTY SEVEN OF YOU:

I CANNOT spend another few hours attempting to debunk everything that has been said. The comments are to long and it's becoming a chore. I'll just quote Dowling v. United States, a 1985 case regarding copyright infringement:

"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

AndyFromMonday:

AgentNein:

AndyFromMonday:
I just lost respect for this administration.

Cuz it's such a stretch to consider piracy theft? I mean, the only people who've fooled themselves into thinking otherwise are pirates and idiots.

Is it different than physical theft? Absolutely. But it's still theft.

HOW many times will I have to EXPLAIN THIS?!

PIRACY does not DEPRIVE the holder of his object. It COPIES IT. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. Piracy is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT! Let me repeat that for you. YOU ARE NOT, I REPEAT, YOU ARE NOT TAKING ANOTHER PERSONS PROPERTY, YOU ARE COPYING IT!

It's not theft, it's not even a form of theft, it's C O P Y R I G H T S - I N F R I N G E M E N T

Piracy is many things, including a form of sharing, but it is NOT THEFT.

copyright-infringement is actually a form of theft since a portion of the sale which most would have paid had they not pirated the game or what not.

SODAssault:

AndyFromMonday:
I just lost respect for this administration.

You're really of the opinion that obtaining something for free, when it was only able to be created because somebody sunk a lot of money into it with the intent of having their investment refunded (at the very least) by sales... is in no way a form of theft?

It cost somebody else a lot of money to create what you're pirating. If you obtain it without payment, and without their consent, you're taking money from them without their permission. That's a very basic form of stealing.

Fine, let's go down this road again.

Let's say my neighbor has an orchad and sells apples for a living. I buy an apple from him and use the seeds from that apple to grow my own orchad. I then start distributing apples for free. Is what I'm doing illegal? [/quote]

but your neighbour dosen't make you agree to an agreement not to start your own orchard but the video game companies do in the form of an EULA

ciortas1:

JuryNelson:
Vote.

I hope you're joking. On top of that, politicians do not give a shit about the people.

The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Piracy is not stealing, and someone who represents his people should know that better than everyone else, straight up. A pirated game, unlike these dumbasses seem to believe (I'd provide a link to an article stating how they think piracy is the thing running the US bankrupt), is not a lost sale, as opposed to a stolen CD. The damages can not be proved. They simply can't, end of story. Now if they're acting on the notion that "some people pay for what you get for free! Q.Q", they're bordering the line of laws based on religious beliefs, and incredibly varying moral systems.

It's their job to do things and every moment they spend investigating an issue takes time away from doing other things.

This here is probably the reason something like the Patriot Act got passed. Not a good excuse. Passing or rejecting something because of its name or the first few lines you've read is, quite honestly, retarded. Retarded or done to further the goals of the people who stuff your wallets with money for passing or rejecting said bills.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

If someone represents a group of people, then he should understand exactly what they understand, exactly as well. That's what that word means. That's why you vote for people who you agree with, not people who tell you what's best.

I seriously don't know where you're getting "religious beliefs" from, or why you mentioned that you would post an article and then you didn't, or why you mention the Patriot Act.

It's not because of its name. It's because the result is the same, and the way this kind of piracy works is something that nobody has ever seen before. The Internet is a very, very new thing and the people who know it best are not the people who are deciding how it should be run. The people who know it best are using it to do shitty, lucrative things.

But you're right. Sometimes elections can be disputed. So you should definitely not vote, quote George Carlin and steal games & movies.

JuryNelson:
snip

I thought it was pretty clear. The most probable reason for the Patriot Act to have been passed was congressmen not having enough time to read through everything they vote on. By the way, Obama was the guy I used to agree with, right up until he actually became president. It's the case with every single politician, I'm not gonna get burned again.

And I said it would be the same as basing laws on religious beliefs and/or incredibly varying moral systems.

Also, it does not work the same way. Example, someone puts up a video with copyrighted audio playing. Let's say a it's a machinima, and it has some music playing in the background. There will be many comments on it, people asking what the music is, other people answering that, thus providing publicity for the track that was used without authorization. So there, at the very least, the result isn't exactly the same. You steal something, you keep it to yourself and only to yourself.

The not posting an article thing was sloppy writing on my part, jumping from one part to the other and forgetting to finish, what I wanted to say was that I was too lazy to find it anyway. It was thrown around alot in semi-recent anti-piracy threads.

ciortas1:

And I said it would be the same as basing laws on religious beliefs and/or incredibly varying moral systems.

And I don't know why you said that.

ciortas1:
Example, someone puts up a video with copyrighted audio playing. Let's say a it's a machinima, and it has some music playing in the background. There will be many comments on it, people asking what the music is, other people answering that, thus providing publicity for the track that was used without authorization. So there, at the very least, the result isn't exactly the same. You steal something, you keep it to yourself and only to yourself.

But that's not piracy. That's unauthorized use or copyright infringement. Which is a different thing altogether.

JuryNelson:
snip

Because of the fact that the damages of piracy are, literally, impossible to prove, it would seem to me that these people are either stupidly misinformed or acting on the premise of jealousy, AKA this guy gets something, that I have to pay for, for free.

Anyway, tired of this for today. I wash my hands off this madness.

Cynical skeptic:

Generic Gamer:
-snip-

Hi, I just want to say something real quick.

You realize the reason most people don't really attempt to defend piracy around here is because there is no point? They're taken aback by the sheer quantity of misconception and the amount of propaganda regurgitated. The anti-piracy crowd wins by default because their arguments are presented as a tangled mess that no one wants to take the time to unravel.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again. Staunch anti-piracy does not defend the artist, musician, or developer. It defends the studio, the publisher, the label. The people who's one and only reason for existence is to control distribution of other people's ideas.

Is this a bad thing? What right have you got to steal data because you don't like the company that sells it? And yes, most artists get a cut of every item sold so what you're basically saying is that you deserve the product free of charge because you don't like the company that advertises it, packages it and distributes it. And if the artist disapproves then tough because their loss due to you is tiny so they can suck it up.

Know why artists get people to do that? It's because THEY can't. They accept a loss of profit on each sale in return for increased sales.

And that's not propaganda, that was written by me after having read UK and US intellectual property laws and made up my own mind. That's what an opinion looks like if you don't go in trying to prove your own practices correct instead of reading neutrally.

Kair:
And the capitalists wish to do what to stop people from sharing?

Sharing is when several people all share the same item, not when several people pay for one item licensed to one person and clone the item, giving each of them an item of their own.

ciortas1:

JuryNelson:
snip

Because of the fact that the damages of piracy are, literally, impossible to prove, it would seem to me that these people are either stupidly misinformed or acting on the premise of jealousy, AKA this guy gets something, that I have to pay for, for free.

Anyway, tired of this for today. I wash my hands off this madness.

Well, it was a good spar, but you can't imagine that your position is unimpeachable and people who don't "get it" are stupid. The idea of ownership, and the concept of control over access to your products is in something like flux. It is actually very complicated and people on different sides of it do not agree at all.

I make music every day and put it on the Internet for free with Creative Commons. But if I wanted to, I could suddenly start charging 10¢ a track. That would be crappy, and nobody would pay, but that's my right.

In that respect, the only difference between my rights and, say, Viacom's is that they are being bigger jerks about it. It's still totally their call whether they charge money or not, and not yours.

I still don't understand the making laws out of religion. Unless you mean "Impossible to prove" as some kind of analogue to "faith"? In which case, yeah, we definitely don't want to do that.

Generic Gamer:

Cynical skeptic:

Generic Gamer:
-snip-

Hi, I just want to say something real quick.

You realize the reason most people don't really attempt to defend piracy around here is because there is no point? They're taken aback by the sheer quantity of misconception and the amount of propaganda regurgitated. The anti-piracy crowd wins by default because their arguments are presented as a tangled mess that no one wants to take the time to unravel.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again. Staunch anti-piracy does not defend the artist, musician, or developer. It defends the studio, the publisher, the label. The people who's one and only reason for existence is to control distribution of other people's ideas.

Is this a bad thing? What right have you got to steal data because you don't like the company that sells it? And yes, most artists get a cut of every item sold so what you're basically saying is that you deserve the product free of charge because you don't like the company that advertises it, packages it and distributes it. And if the artist disapproves then tough because their loss due to you is tiny so they can suck it up.

Know why artists get people to do that? It's because THEY can't. They accept a loss of profit on each sale in return for increased sales.

And that's not propaganda, that was written by me after having read UK and US intellectual property laws and made up my own mind. That's what an opinion looks like if you don't go in trying to prove your own practices correct instead of reading neutrally.

Generic Gamer: HELL YEAH. You don't cure a disease by starving a patient.

Cynical Skeptic: Anti-Piracy arguments aren't convoluted messes. They just aren't funny .gifs that you find on reddit. It's not funny to believe in the economy, and fewer webcomic artists take this perspective. So you might not see it as often.

Irony being, Biden plagiarized when he was in college, didn't want to be charged, but now believes in beating people senseless for fair use.

Source

I guess when you're in a position of power, you have more rights to be retarded.

Piracy is stealing... well who'd a thunk it eh?

Seriously if you don't think piracy is stealing your a pirate or just plain stupid. You can go into the legal definitions of all this but the bottom line is its wrong to download or use pirated materials because you don't feel like forking over the money. Whine and moan all you want about "I'm trying to change the capitolist system."
But I really couldn't care less.
You are taking someone's thing without paying for it and without their permission to do so.

The problem is how do you stop it.
The sad answer is that you cant.

The thing is is that at this point most of us (even those with jobs) can't afford to shell out $10 to $20 for a CD (taxes are high in my area). Also, for the kind of music that I like I would have to import so that's even more money that I don't have.

I do believe that Piracy should be dealt with but in a more reasonable way. How that would be I have no idea but I don't see this issue ending anytime soon.

Edit: Also, if someone posts their things on these P2P sites then they're also at fault. Their the ones putting the stuff out there so it's not just the persons' downloading fault.

One of the things that always bugs me about the piracy debate is that no one ever tries to quantify the economic GAINS. The rapid spread of music, games, and other media offered by the Internet (and sometimes piracy) MUST give the creators more exposure than they would get otherwise.

For example, I've definitely gone to a concert before because a friend burned me a CD and said, "listen to this band, I've got an extra ticket for their show", and I ended up liking them. This probably wouldn't have happened he'd said, "go buy the CD first, then we'll talk".

However, it seems like I rarely hear about this effect, and how it compares to the negative aspects of piracy.

AndyFromMonday:
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO QUOTED ME, ALL TWENTY SEVEN OF YOU:

I CANNOT spend another few hours attempting to debunk everything that has been said. The comments are to long and it's becoming a chore. I'll just quote Dowling v. United States, a 1985 case regarding copyright infringement:

"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

Judicial precedent does not equal legislation. This particular interpretation, from 1985, was not tackling the same issues, products, or media that are available and in question today. I'd also like to think it possible that our ideas of intellectual property may have evolved to change with the times a bit over the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.

Even so, the last quoted portion of the decision indicates that it CAN be linked. The judge simply goes on to state that it's clearly more complex than "run of the mill" theft, conversion, or fraud. It doesn't so cleanly toss it from the category, and your continued assertion of this point isn't making it more true.

To recall my earlier post to you, with the added information that your definition is apparently based on decades-old judicial decisions from an era that didn't have world-wide, easy-access internet used to distribute music, video, games, text, and images without the need of any physical medium.

SELF-QUOTE:

See, your problem with this line of thinking is very simple and easy to point out:

You are basing your definition of "theft" solely on its effect on the victim--namely, whether or not that person is "deprived of property." This creates a needlessly limited and self-serving definition, forcing a false dichotomy.

Now, certainly, some crimes have PORTIONS of their definitions that are based on what happened to the victim--take, for instance, "murder" versus "attempted murder," being based on whether or not the victim died. (The penalties for both crimes, however, are very, very similar. Why? Because there is just no reason to give someone a lesser sentence simply because he happens to be a BAD murderer, or because the victim got lucky.)

But additionally, there are components in the definition of every crime that depend on the act that the PERPETRATOR committed, regardless of the result. "Premeditated murder" is thus differentiated from the classic "crime of passion," not based on what happened to the victim, but based on how the murderer went about his or her business.

So, in this case, you're leaving out half of the definition. Here are both halves, presented separately so you can see the contrast:

1) Victim-centric definition: Stealing is an act that deprives another person of his/her property.

2) Offender-centric definition: Stealing is an act by which a person receives property that belongs to someone else, without first securing permission.

Why does this matter?

There will always be pirating, and nothing less than brutal government tyranny will stop it. Why can't we just realize that being idealistic isn't always the best thing, and it's not like it will really kill the entire gaming industry?

Calling piracy stealing is dumbed down propaganda they are trying to scare people into submission. The word "piracy" is forced upon the act of file sharing to make it seem extremely forceful. Times change and the way we receive information and entertainment is ever changing. However the people that hold the money and the power want file sharing to end because they cannot directly stop piracy yet. It shows a crack in their armor if you will. Which is why they are scattering to scare people with ACTA and the other various "cracking down on piracy" remarks. I firmly believe it is going to get to the point where our government will stop at no cost to stop this which will eventually infringe on our civil rights.

InfernoJesus:
Theft that is insanely hard to catch, just as hard to prove, and not even worthwhile enforcing? Sign me up.

WHERES THE RECRUITMENT LIST?! lol jk
I did it ONCE technically... and my friend was the one who made me do it. He basically did everything and I had no decision in it...so not really my fault. Swear.

Just as something to add. Here is a thread I started about the "harm" that piracy does. I'll sum it up for you. The claim that piracy hurts the either the music industry or the artists themselves is utterly false.

There are various reasons that piracy may or may not be acceptable, but that it "hurts the artists" isn't one of them.

AgentNein:

AndyFromMonday:
I just lost respect for this administration.

Cuz it's such a stretch to consider piracy theft? I mean, the only people who've fooled themselves into thinking otherwise are pirates and idiots.

Is it different than physical theft? Absolutely. But it's still theft.

I can get behind this notion. Plus, it means that I don't have to spend 20 minutes describing my perspective in detail! That buys me time to grab dinner!

PrinceoN:
Here's the answer to piracy:

Have the government hire some people to create virus's in the shape of downloadable songs, albums, movies, and games. Have said people post their files on torrent and P2P sites. People who download everything they can get their hands on will obtain the viruses and lose everything on their computers. Fair punishment.

But the common people (like say, most of us) who just don't want to fork out 13 bucks for a cd just to get ONE DAMN SONG FROM IT (or 8.99 for a single that has one damn song on it, remixed 3 times with programs that it took someone all of 5 minutes to use), or people who want one song from a cd that a company DOESN'T SELL ANYMORE will probably be perfectly fine.

But.... Creating viruses is illegal too, isn't it? And the government has to follow laws too.

It's the entertainment industry that is keeping piracy alive and well.
Actually it is the paying customer that enables the entertainment to sustain piracy.
No content means no piracy and no paying customers means no content thus no piracy.
Start to imprison honest paying customers who are enabling the pricay of content.
Stop picray by being a pirateis the only solution to piracy.

If you don't want people to steal your apples cut down the appletree.

dastardly:
snip

Props to you there big guy, I'm all out of arguments. Until I can find a way to debunk what you've just said I'm going to have to agree that piracy is theft.

Piracy is technically a form of counterfeiting. Theft implies the person being stolen from actually loses the item that's being stolen from them. Counterfeiting isn't theft in the sense that the object is never actually stolen, just used as a reference so thousands of copies can be created. In cases where this creates harmful inflation, like the counterfeiting of money, then nobody can really deny it's criminal. But video games are a rather unique scenario. Is the inflation of the number of copies of certain video games harmful? I can understand that it's quite harmful for console games, but when it comes to PC, file transferring is becoming a norm. I will admit, it's still wrong. But it's not as harmful as the industry says it is. Believe it or not, there are certain games that thrive off of being pirated. Torchlight is a great example of this. A good portion of the sales that game got was from word of mouth by the very people who distributed it on torrent sites. A lot of companies have made less hard copies of games and prefer to distribute them online because it's much, much cheaper to send files instead of sending a disc in a package. It also eliminates the major need for publishing.

No matter what, the method of eliminating piracy is exactly the same as counterfeiting, and it doesn't involve targeting the average Joe. That's where the ACTA fucks up. You will never stop the flow of counterfeit bills by rounding up everyone who has one, and likewise, you'll never stop piracy by rounding up everyone who downloads torrents. You gotta first trace it to the guys who distribute the torrents, and then from there, go to the guys that crack the games in the first place. It's really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Generic Gamer:
-snip-

Oh yea, theres also the fact that any attempt to defend piracy around here gets words shoved into your mouth along with accusations of entitlement and occasionally some breed of naiveté. But people never get banned for that.

Those who create are entitled to more than just "a cut." But publishers/studios/retailers/labels/scribes have been using the same lines since time immemorial. "You need us." "We're good for you." "You can't do this without us." "We only want to help you get everything you want." "You're in control." Its been bullshit for thousands of years, its bullshit now. But cornered, dying animals fight harder than healthy ones.

With the advent of the internet, as the advent of the printing press did with scribe guilds, the publisher/studio/label/retailer is facing complete obsolescence. Artists can get everything they feel they're entitled to. They no longer need the massive bloated middleme, as the massive bloated middlemen no longer have anything to offer.

Heres where ACTA comes into play, and the entire subject of file sharing stops being relevant. This obscene document is designed to unceremoniously murder all aspects of the internet. Youtube, this site, everything. Its purpose is to put large bloated middelemen corporations back in complete control over everything you see, hear, and experience.

The idea you're supporting this should horrify you. Its like that section in [every video game], where that thing you were fighting for turns out to be the bad guy all along. While the people you've been fighting were just a few bumps in the road for the monstrous entities you've been supporting.

If ACTA fails like their last attempt (network neutrality), there will be another and another until these corporations are dead.

Generic Gamer:

Kair:
And the capitalists wish to do what to stop people from sharing?

Sharing is when several people all share the same item, not when several people pay for one item licensed to one person and clone the item, giving each of them an item of their own.

So you say that it is impossible to share information?

Sorry server bug.

Kair:

Generic Gamer:

Kair:
And the capitalists wish to do what to stop people from sharing?

Sharing is when several people all share the same item, not when several people pay for one item licensed to one person and clone the item, giving each of them an item of their own.

So you say that it is impossible to share information?

Only if you all use the same copy, otherwise it's cloning.

Cynical skeptic:
Oh yea, theres also the fact that any attempt to defend piracy around here gets words shoved into your mouth along with accusations of entitlement and occasionally some breed of naiveté. But people never get banned for that.

Those who create are entitled to more than just "a cut." But publishers/studios/retailers/labels/scribes have been using the same lines since time immemorial. "You need us." "We're good for you." "You can't do this without us." "We only want to help you get everything you want." "You're in control." Its been bullshit for thousands of years, its bullshit now. But cornered, dying animals fight harder than healthy ones.

With the advent of the internet, as the advent of the printing press did with scribe guilds, the publisher/studio/label/retailer is facing complete obsolescence. Artists can get everything they feel they're entitled to. They no longer need the massive bloated middleme, as the massive bloated middlemen no longer have anything to offer.

In what way are artists entitled to 100% of the profits if a distributor then makes thousands of copies, throws on advertising, pays shipping costs, negotiates with outlets and prints inlays? The artist pays the publisher to publish their art, the publisher is deserving of a cut because they are providing a service to the artist.

Take Mindless Self Indulgence (MSI), they mixed their music in the singer's bedroom and recorded in small studios but they needed a publisher to get big because there is no bloody way that they could book huge venues with no reputation, print thousands of CDs and buy in the kind of bulk to make a go of it. They put their lot in with a larger company who could get their CDs into stores reliably and they've reaped the rewards. It's basic economy of scale, would you rather publish in house, sell less and make £200 profit on 100 CDs at £2 a CD, or would you rather pay a company what we'd call an 'exorbitant fee' and only get £1 a CD...but sell 1000?

No offence but a lot of the Internet is illegally operated, youtube is massively infringing copyright in a lot of cases. It's not pure spite that's making people sue them, it's the fact that we've got so accustomed to getting things for free that we can't see that we're doing anything wrong any more.

What most people fail to realize is that, while piracy means you obtain something without paying for it, and thus hurting the creators of said product, many people wouldn't waste money on said product, either due to not having disposable income, or due to it not being worth the price.

So restricting piracy in most cases, won't increase sales to any significant degree.

And no, I didn't read the entire thread.

Generic Gamer:

Kair:

Generic Gamer:

Kair:
And the capitalists wish to do what to stop people from sharing?

Sharing is when several people all share the same item, not when several people pay for one item licensed to one person and clone the item, giving each of them an item of their own.

So you say that it is impossible to share information?

Only if you all use the same copy, otherwise it's cloning.

So you cannot share a thought? Is it cloning if you and another person come to an agreement?

Kair:

So you cannot share a thought? Is it cloning if you and another person come to an agreement?

OK, you're talking about an 'idea' now and not'someone else's copyrighted data that they have committed to recording' but no, you cannot 'share' a thought, you can give a copy of that same thought to someone else, you can't share it because the thought is still in your head even if the other person is using it. And an agreement is two people agreeing, not sharing data.

Let's get that straight, data isn't ephemeral like a thought or a colour, 'data' is something that someone has made.

Generic Gamer:
In what way are artists entitled to 100% of the profits if a distributor

I'm going to stop you right there, because you're describing a dead business model.

Intelligent bands (and some labels) view CDs and MP3s, illicit or not, as advertising. The illicit ones being free advertising. Advertising for their... concerts. Where most of the money has always been in music.

For a while, back in the early days, it was backwards, concerts were advertising for records. But its right now.

AndyFromMonday:
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO QUOTED ME, ALL TWENTY SEVEN OF YOU:

I CANNOT spend another few hours attempting to debunk everything that has been said. The comments are to long and it's becoming a chore. I'll just quote Dowling v. United States, a 1985 case regarding copyright infringement:

"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

True, in a sense, but largely irrelevant to the debate.

They specifically reference "theft, conversion, [and] fraud" vis-a-vis 18 U.S.C 2314. If the legislature were to change 2314 to reflect that copyright infringement is theft, their ruling would no longer be black-letter law.

Remember, please, that the Court interprets the will of the legislature. And, besides, in any debate following rules, there's what's called "fiat", which shifts the debate from "hurr, how does the legislature/court define a term" to "hurr, how should they".

Incarnatos:
What most people fail to realize is that, while piracy means you obtain something without paying for it, and thus hurting the creators of said product, many people wouldn't waste money on said product, either due to not having disposable income, or due to it not being worth the price.

So restricting piracy in most cases, won't increase sales to any significant degree.

And no, I didn't read the entire thread.

It's not that anyone doesn't realize it, it's that many people disagree with it wholesale. There's no evidence that DRM hurts sales, or that piracy doesn't (much less that it acts as an "advertisement" and "demo").

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked