Illegal downloading is not theft - its something new

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

Phantom2595:
I declare that this new word/term SHALL BE.

ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION! (of copyrighted material)

I like this idea

sheic99:

perfectimo:
Look at it this way then had you not acquired the game through "piracy" you would have had to of bought it from a store. That is why this is theft. There is no way around it.

The game could have been rented from a store. The original company won't make money if you rent from Blockbuster or Gamefly. The same goes for borrowing, EA didn't make money when my friend lent me his copy of Crysis. Is that stealing?

Yes, but even then, EA made money when Gamefly or Blockbuster or the guy who sold the game to Gamestop bought the game the first time around, so they've made their sale.

What publishers have to realize is, when x% of a game's players are playing pirated copies, then (100-x)% of that game's players (plus or minus some percentage of borrowers and renters) have plunked down hard earned dosh for that game, in spite of it being widely and readily available for free, and that (100-x)% of players are either suckers, or brave supporters of gaming development, depending on what you want to call them.

There are two questions that follow from that. First, how do you treat that (100-x)% of your audience that has shown that they will gladly give you money in exchange for playing your game? And second, how much of that revenue from the (100-x)% gets factored into your development budget for the next go round of whatever franchise or title you're concerned with?

gantzsurvivor1:

Phantom2595:
I declare that this new word/term SHALL BE.

ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION! (of copyrighted material)

I like this idea

Yeah, me too. It's like photocopying a book that you're supposed to buy.

Samurai Goomba:

gantzsurvivor1:

Phantom2595:
I declare that this new word/term SHALL BE.

ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION! (of copyrighted material)

I like this idea

Yeah, me too. It's like photocopying a book that you're supposed to buy.

Ironically enough, this was such a problem that my old university had to implement a per-student page limit on the printers per semester. Now THAT'S sad.

It's still theft. Sorry.

TsunamiWombat:
It's still theft. Sorry.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

sheic99:

Yes, but Gamestop purchased that disk from the company that produced said game. Gamestop would lose the money that was spent on that copy of the game. Where as in pirating, what is lost is an non-existant profit that could be payed for the game, but no company loses additional money from the act.

No. That isn't how it works. The COST to make the game is ILLRELEVANT. By NOT purchasing the game and downloading it you are simply TAKING the money from the company, it is EXACTLY the same as stealing a copy from a gamestop.

You are not PULLING this product from thin air and har har it's virtual goods so it doesn't count. Gamestop loses money because THEY cannot sell the game they ordered for the customer, the DEVELOPERS lose money because they can't sell to the suppliers. Don't think this shit isn't stealing because it is.

If you honestly think illegal downloading is perfecting fine then you are a complete tool because you are only hurting the industry.

If you COULDN'T download the game, then you would have to PAY money for it. You might use the arguement "Oh well I wouldn't pay for this crap". Well to freaking bad, entertainment is entertainment. You might not pay for it but that doesn't mean you can just get it for free, go get your jollies somewhere else if you don't want to pay for it.

Hey, if you want to pirate some games, go for it. I mean I honestly don't care but to go around proclaiming your not stealing and it doesn't matter then you just oblivious to the rippling effect this stuff causes.

50,000 people decide not to buy "INSERT AAA TITLE GAME" but instead rip it off the net, Small Game Company is now out 250,0000 dollars for there title because people stole it instead of bought it and there predicted numbers are now lower, Small Game Company has two choices now as they did not make the return on there AAA title to make another game, call it quits or let EA buy them out.

Freeshards for MMOs, Bit Torrenting games, hell even buying shit used from gamestop, all that does is hurt developers and means the games of tomorrow are going to be crappier. Don't say that shit doesn't matter cause trust me it does. I'm the kinda guy who runs a small business and makes a little web cartoon. if escapist and me ever parted ways I would make all my bank off merchandise, a majority of that being DVD sales. You want to rip my shit off the net instead of paying for it, more power to you but when the money runs out I'm gonna have to close up shop.

It's Stealing.
You are hurting the entire business by doing it.
Don't pretend otherwise.

Game developers need money to live off. By downloading games they have made when they could be doing other jobs you are depriving them of their income. You can't buy what you need from downloads.

For those who feel that downloading==theft, please rate the following thefts on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is stealing a copy of Tom Hanks' private fax number to send him a happy birthday card, and 10 is pushing an old lady down the stairs to take her purse and her social security check:

A) Downloading a Kangaroo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(arcade_game) )ROM to play in MAME

B) Downloading a copy of Renegade Legion: Interceptor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renegade_Legion:_Interceptor#Computer_Game )

C) Downloading either the DC or the PS1 version of Dragon Riders: Chronicles of Pern( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern#Games )

D) Downloading a cracked copy of game that you've purchased so you can install a copy that's free from DRM

E) Making and mounting a disc image, or applying a no-cd patch so that you can avoid disc checks

F) Downloading a ROM of a GBA cart that you've purchased, to play on a GBA emu on an XBox Classic

G) Downloading Bioshock

As I have said before, right or wrong its not going to stop. I don't claim to know how to work it, but long term things are going to have to change. People will always get things for free if they can, and with the world Economy the way it is most people are going to hoard every penny they can. I'm not an Economist, I don't know exactly what changes are needed, but changes are needed because the threat of prosecution is really not enough to stop the overwhelming number of people doing it.

Maybe the definition of theft should just be updated?

Richard Groovy Pants:
A pirate that will use said pirated game for personal use will not win any money out of it. And the company being infringed of their copy rights won't lose any because they didn't had it from the beginning!. No one loses, no one wins. It balances itself out and to all the haters saying that pirates are thieves well, go eat cacti, maybe then you'll think before posting.

I think it's bloody simple: pirates win because they get games for free and companies lose because they don't get money.

sorry but... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7734985.stm pay special attention to the part where it mentions AK47's and fucking RPG's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7741287.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7737375.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7623329.stm notice all the pictures include armed men, and the repeated mention of HOSTAGES.
the above links are about piracy and pirates. i may have confused the links, but if ya wanna know about pirates... and notice the stuff about illegal dumping of toxic waste and "extremeist islamists" or whatever wording theyre using today, thats their fancy way of saying muslim terrorists, who are all probably either linked to or inspired by al qaeda(spelling?) now to me, terrorism murder shitloads of hostages and dumping toxic waste in the water of an already war torn region are NOT exactly the equal of downloading a video game from a company that broke your last computer in an industry that has a standardized price for their product (theres a word for that, i know it! its JUST on the tip of my tounge). those god damn pirates should be hunted down and burned at the fucking stake for what they do, after EA gets their money of course.

sure, copyright is wrong in many cases. so is treating your customers like shit, then adding nazi DRM (and price fixing). whether it justifies copyright infringement or not is wrong, but i think i remember hearing about some case where a guy who downloaded a bunch music/movies/games was punished worse than he would have been for raping a baby, i personally think thats wrong. but then, im AGAINST the raping of babies, a position which is clearly NOT shared by RIAA and its video game equivilent.

Ah, the poor companies. Stubbornly clinging to a failing paradigm. In my opinion, the situation is like when Gutenberg invented movable type, and the book producers insist on only selling hand made copies of books at hand copied prices.

Taking morality out of the equation, it all comes down to price, ease, and availability.
Price: You get a comparative product absolutely free (financially free that is. There is of course a moral and potential criminal cost)
Ease: Downloading a game takes a single mouse click.
Availability: Downloading is available to anyone and everyone all over the world at any time (provided, of course, that they can connect to the internet).

That's some pretty stiff competition. The obvious answer is to lash out and make it so people can't download illegally. The problem is: these "better mousetraps" are quickly defeated and only serve to pinch the toes of those who acquire through conventional means. No the answer does not lie in the clenched fist, but rather the open hand. As the old saying goes: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Price: don't try to make up lost profits by charging more. Instead, remember back to Economics 101 and those supply and demand curves. With downloading supply is practically infinite, so what you have to do is influence demand. Easiest way to do that? Lower the price. The goal is when faced with the choice: "download legally or download illegally" you want the customer to say: "For that price it's not worth the extra hassle to download illegally"
Ease: Instead of making things more difficult for everyone. Make things easier. Maybe have the game install as it downloads. Fill in the registration automatically. And FOR THE LOVE OF PETE allow people to play offline!
Availability: The best thing about file sharing is that the more popular something is; the faster it is to obtain. Use this. Don't discriminate for nationality. If someone in Istanbul wants to purchase your game, LET THEM. (direct2drive I'm looking at you) For you producers of tv shows and movies, spend the extra cash for subtitles and release worldwide. Want to stop people from bringing cameras inside theaters? Simply release it on the internet yourself on opening day. Let the people decide what venue they want to view your product on.

SirSchmoopy:

sheic99:

Yes, but Gamestop purchased that disk from the company that produced said game. Gamestop would lose the money that was spent on that copy of the game. Where as in pirating, what is lost is an non-existant profit that could be payed for the game, but no company loses additional money from the act.

No. That isn't how it works. The COST to make the game is ILLRELEVANT. By NOT purchasing the game and downloading it you are simply TAKING the money from the company, it is EXACTLY the same as stealing a copy from a gamestop.

You are not PULLING this product from thin air and har har it's virtual goods so it doesn't count. Gamestop loses money because THEY cannot sell the game they ordered for the customer, the DEVELOPERS lose money because they can't sell to the suppliers. Don't think this shit isn't stealing because it is.

If you honestly think illegal downloading is perfecting fine then you are a complete tool because you are only hurting the industry.

If you COULDN'T download the game, then you would have to PAY money for it. You might use the arguement "Oh well I wouldn't pay for this crap". Well to freaking bad, entertainment is entertainment. You might not pay for it but that doesn't mean you can just get it for free, go get your jollies somewhere else if you don't want to pay for it.

Hey, if you want to pirate some games, go for it. I mean I honestly don't care but to go around proclaiming your not stealing and it doesn't matter then you just oblivious to the rippling effect this stuff causes.

50,000 people decide not to buy "INSERT AAA TITLE GAME" but instead rip it off the net, Small Game Company is now out 250,0000 dollars for there title because people stole it instead of bought it and there predicted numbers are now lower, Small Game Company has two choices now as they did not make the return on there AAA title to make another game, call it quits or let EA buy them out.

Freeshards for MMOs, Bit Torrenting games, hell even buying shit used from gamestop, all that does is hurt developers and means the games of tomorrow are going to be crappier. Don't say that shit doesn't matter cause trust me it does. I'm the kinda guy who runs a small business and makes a little web cartoon. if escapist and me ever parted ways I would make all my bank off merchandise, a majority of that being DVD sales. You want to rip my shit off the net instead of paying for it, more power to you but when the money runs out I'm gonna have to close up shop.

It's Stealing.
You are hurting the entire business by doing it.
Don't pretend otherwise.

It is still not stealing. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. When someone gets arrested for downloading something illegally, the person is tried for copyright infringement. The only time it is not copyright infringement is if that person is in a country that does not honor copyrights of the country where the product is made. I.E. Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Edit: Forgot to mention this, I am a firm believer in borrowing and purchasing used games. Especially when the game is no longer in production.

Yeah, that's what amuses me. "You wouldn't steal a car! which costs 20 thousand bux and was bought by a household! But you would steal a film thats costs 10 dollars inwhich the production company is making millions from? oh, cool."

bkd69:

sheic99:

perfectimo:
Look at it this way then had you not acquired the game through "piracy" you would have had to of bought it from a store. That is why this is theft. There is no way around it.

The game could have been rented from a store. The original company won't make money if you rent from Blockbuster or Gamefly. The same goes for borrowing, EA didn't make money when my friend lent me his copy of Crysis. Is that stealing?

Yes, but even then, EA made money when Gamefly or Blockbuster or the guy who sold the game to Gamestop bought the game the first time around, so they've made their sale.

What publishers have to realize is, when x% of a game's players are playing pirated copies, then (100-x)% of that game's players (plus or minus some percentage of borrowers and renters) have plunked down hard earned dosh for that game, in spite of it being widely and readily available for free, and that (100-x)% of players are either suckers, or brave supporters of gaming development, depending on what you want to call them.

There are two questions that follow from that. First, how do you treat that (100-x)% of your audience that has shown that they will gladly give you money in exchange for playing your game? And second, how much of that revenue from the (100-x)% gets factored into your development budget for the next go round of whatever franchise or title you're concerned with?

There was a case that happened a year or so ago in California. A older woman ripped some music off a cd that she purchased. She then sent the songs to her friend via Email. The music industry arrested her and fined her a lot of money. The company that sued her made a statement that basically said, if she gave her friend a copy of the cd in person, then it would not be copyright infringement.

The moral of the story is that it is only illegal when at least one of two conditions occur.

1) The transfer of data occurs online.
2) A profit is made by someone other than an authorized dealer.

Meh to this argument. You are just splitting semantic hairs.

I bet if a criminal stole your identity and "downloaded" all the money out of your bank-account into his you'd be much less concerned about whether to call it "theft" or not.

Bottom line, you get someone that ordinarily costs money for free by circumventing sercurity, you are a theif.

Everything has its roots in money. (and in turn, power and prestige)
Except for hate crimes; then its just plain stupidity and cruelty.

L.B. Jeffries:
Any person who willfully infringes a copyright

See, so we don't even call it theft. It's called willful infringement. To willfully "encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To trespass on someone's intellectual property. To allow your thoughts to exist inside thoughts that belong to someone else.

Literally, from the law, it is to think thoughts you are not allowed to think.

mrnelsby:

I bet if a criminal stole your identity and "downloaded" all the money out of your bank-account into his you'd be much less concerned about whether to call it "theft" or not.

No. The criminal would need to have stolen my identity, then copied the same quantity of money into his own bank account. It fails as an analogy.

Thievery of the past was about the physical object. If I took a can of peas, my thievery was that of the can's production cost and how much the retailer lost from its removal. Now that a can of peas can be copied, companies are forced to say they have a right to be paid for the ~idea~ of a can of peas. Have a right to claim the mental realm a can of peas occupies. Whether or not I ~would have~ purchased the can of peas is immaterial, both to the this conversation and to the companies who hold the rights to certain thoughts.

By downloading a game off the internet are you not effectively giving yourself financial gain by taking goods and not paying for them? Your still x$ richer then you would be if you legally enjoyed playing on the game, Id call that for monetary gain.

Also, the argument that its not theft since the company hasnt spent 'any money' on the game means that it isnt illegal seems stupid to me and by that logic if I intentionally declare a tax return wrong then its not illegal because the government never 'had' that money in the first place so Im not taking anything from them

SAccharing10:
Yeah, that's what amuses me. "You wouldn't steal a car! which costs 20 thousand bux and was bought by a household! But you would steal a film thats costs 10 dollars inwhich the production company is making millions from? oh, cool."

A humorous parody to anyone who's seen the anti-piracy ads in the UK.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eAr7zKxjCDY&feature=related

The games company treat their customers like they are pirates so the real question is why shouldn't we act like them? They install DRM X which is meant to protect their game but only results in the people who bought the game having problems getting the game to run. Now some folk will say keep the copy and download a cracked version of the game, that way you are at least morally right.

Well yes but in a big freaking way NO. If the game company wants to punish me for buying their game then the process works both ways and I think I would be equally right to return the game and then punish the game company further by downloading the game they tried their hardest to prevent me playing when I purchased it legally.

This of course is spit balling, the only game that I've ever been unable to install on my system due to wanky DRM was Crysis, I returned it and later that day had a shot of it on a mates PC at which point found out that the DRM wasn't the only wanky part of the whole Crysis experience safe to say I saved the bandwidth and never got round to downloading the game.

mipegg:
By downloading a game off the internet are you not effectively giving yourself financial gain by taking goods and not paying for them? Your still x$ richer then you would be if you legally enjoyed playing on the game, Id call that for monetary gain.

Who have you taken the game from exactly?

Here, let's test your resolve shall we.

Let's same I'm a genius and and I'm a crack video game designer to boot. Now let's say I go to my friend's house and watch him play a game. Then I go home, and over the course of a week, I spend every moment of my life copying that game to a T. I get every detail I get right. So, does this game I've poured an entire sleepless week into make me guilty or not? Ah, how much resolve do we have about this now.

Under the eyes of the law, I would be guilty, because what has been stolen are not physical objects, but ideas. It doesn't matter if I draw those ideas by hand, if I paint them in MS paint, or if they're put together by torrent. Companies currently own mental space.

It didn't always use to be this way. See, we used to have these things called "Libraries." America's founders thought they were important enough to establish them and subsidize them. See, these were places where you could get these things called "books," they were like the games of the time, and then copy the information within as much as you wished. Hmm. I really doubt something like that could happen these days.

According to the producers of these games, terrorism AND world hunger is ALL PIRATES FAULT.

There's scare tactics, then there's stupid.

Morderkaine:
I know there are other posts on illegal downloading, but this is not the same thing. This thread is to try and stop people from using the wrong words in their arguments, and to realize that in our digital world, old terms and systems dont nessecarily apply. You cant use the same rules for a digital signal that can be reproduced 1000000 times for free as you can for a loaf of bread.
Over and over again I see people making comments like `You wouldnt steal a BMW would you?` or `How would you feel if you were mugged on the street`, but these comments have nothing to do with downloading, even as an analogy.
Downloading movies, music and games is not theft. A definition of theft : The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

I never called it theft, I called it stealing, which is "to seize or use something without the owners permission". I would argue that internet piracy is indeed this.

I would agree that maybe the analogies are innaccurate though. Piracy is more like plagiarism in my eyes, which I also think is a terrible thing.

Ragdrazi:

L.B. Jeffries:
Any person who willfully infringes a copyright

See, so we don't even call it theft. It's called willful infringement. To willfully "encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To trespass on someone's intellectual property. To allow your thoughts to exist inside thoughts that belong to someone else.

Literally, from the law, it is to think thoughts you are not allowed to think.

Uh, I think the part that the courts find illegal is the whole reproducing of the game without the company's permission part.

mipegg:
By downloading a game off the internet are you not effectively giving yourself financial gain by taking goods and not paying for them? Your still x$ richer then you would be if you legally enjoyed playing on the game, Id call that for monetary gain.

Difference between monetary gain or just not spending the money for whatever reason.
Lets look at an example of a poor kid who never has any money at all and could never afford to get a computer game. One day he finds $50 laying in the street. There are 5 games he wants, but can only afford 1. He buys the one he wants most, and finds out about downloading and gets the other 4. If he had never heard of downloading, he never would have been able to afford to buy the games anyways.
The companies who made the other 4 games, have they lost anything? No, he could have never afforded their games anyways. Did he do something illegal? Yes. So the companies lost no item off the shelf, no physical object, and didnt even lose any profit.
Now im not saying downloading is ok in this or any other situation, but im showing how it is not just black and white, and it can be a victimless crime - literally.
SOrta like walking into a book store with pen and paper and copying out a book. Its copyright infringment, but its not theft.
The main point of this thread was to stop people from comparing downloading to theft of physical property or cash, and to use proper terms for it, and it mostly seems to have worked.
Zhoomout - it was a lot of analogies in other threads that were annoying me. plagiarism is closer to it.

L.B. Jeffries:

Ragdrazi:

L.B. Jeffries:
Any person who willfully infringes a copyright

See, so we don't even call it theft. It's called willful infringement. To willfully "encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To trespass on someone's intellectual property. To allow your thoughts to exist inside thoughts that belong to someone else.

Literally, from the law, it is to think thoughts you are not allowed to think.

Uh, I think the part that the courts find illegal is the whole reproducing of the game without the company's permission part.

You haven't said a word different from what I've said.

Ragdrazi:

See, so we don't even call it theft. It's called willful infringement. To willfully "encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." To trespass on someone's intellectual property. To allow your thoughts to exist inside thoughts that belong to someone else.

Literally, from the law, it is to think thoughts you are not allowed to think.

Uh, I think the part that the courts find illegal is the whole reproducing of the game without the company's permission part.[/quote]

You haven't said a word different from what I've said.[/quote]

The whole "to think thoughts you are not allowed to think" is pretty different from what I said. So is "To allow your thoughts to exist inside thoughts that belong to someone else." I don't really know what that's on about.

No, we've said the same thing here. It's ok, I'll recap for you.

Companies have declared that they have sole ownership of certain concepts. Quite literally, their "intellectual property" is ownership of certain ideas. Certain thoughts. This much is not debatable. When a person "infringes," or trespasses, on a piece of "intellectual property," by say, copying a game, they are experiencing the concepts and ideas contained there in without the company's permission. That is their crime. To "infringe" is to trespass. The word doesn't have another meaning.

The only difference in what you and I have said, is that you think this is a fine state of affairs and I don't.

I would ask someone like you to defend libraries, but I fear this is simply "it's a law so it's a law" mentality.

Ragdrazi:
The only difference in what you and I have said, is that you think this is a fine state of affairs and I don't.

I would ask someone like you to defend libraries, but I fear this is simply "it's a law so it's a law" mentality.

I never said I thought there was anything fine with it. I would defend it except that isn't how a copyright works. A basic wiki would've explained it to you. You're mixing it up with a patent. A copyright gives you sole ownership of the expression of an idea for a finite period of time. So if two people made a movie based on Romeo & Juliet, they aren't infringing on one another because they are separate expressions of an idea. The play itself is now too old to be protected by a copyright.

You may have noticed that there are a wide variety of FPS games. The reason those don't infringe on each other is that you can't copyright an FPS. It's an idea. You can copyright your own unique expression of that idea. When you download a game without paying for it, you are reproducing their expression of an idea without their permission. That's illegal. The law isn't meant to be fair to you, it's meant to be fair to everyone.

Agreed that Illegal downloads are bad and wrong, but not -theft-.

I've referred to it as digital counterfeiting. Look at the definitions of counterfeiting and you will see that the term aptly applies.

Well to throw my two cent in...

If they made content and material that was WORTH paying for then I *might* feel bad. Doubtful but maybe. The stuff i feel is worthy of purchase gets purchased. The stuff that i feel is a load of ballocks but will occupy my tiny attention span for hours will be cloned whether they like it or not. (example: Spo..well actually i bought that one coz i thought it'd be worth it and turned out to be ballocks...better example!...cant think of any coz surprisingly all of my recent stuff that i can buy is actually bought...apparently I've become law abiding...when did i turn good from evil bastard? wierd...)

anyway moving on:

I pretty much only download things i cant get here today (or within a year) like dexter, house, Naruto, Bleach (They take at least 5 years and the dubs are horrific. I'll stick with fansubs tyvm since your translators are useless bastards and your voice actors sound like molested children on speed rather than proper emotionally relevant characters.

L.B. Jeffries:

I never said I thought there was anything fine with it. I would defend it except that isn't how a copyright works. A basic wiki would've explained it to you. You're mixing it up with a patent. A copyright gives you sole ownership of the expression of an idea for a finite period of time. So if two people made a movie based on Romeo & Juliet, they aren't infringing on one another because they are separate expressions of an idea. The play itself is now too old to be protected by a copyright.

Ok, so you're telling me I don't know how copyright works, and then offering an example completely inapplicable to the situation? You know, I've been following copyright for a really long time, and I'm really wondering if you just checked the wiki for yourself here. A play like Romeo and Juliet cannot be owned because it's so old it's in the "public domain." It cannot be trespassed upon, and those two separate plays cannot be considered as trespassing upon each other. Why bring the public domain into this conversation? It's a pointless example.

Now, you seem to have really stupidly gotten hung up on the use of the word idea. I was not talking about the idea of a first person shooter. I was talking about the ideas, experiences, and expressions contained within works of art. Those can and are copyrighted. Now, I made all this clear. To assume I was talking about things covered by patent is to almost willfully misinterpret me. And if we want to sit here playing ridiculous semantic games on the difference between the words "idea" and "expression" tell me so I can get out now.

L.B. Jeffries:
The law isn't meant to be fair to you, it's meant to be fair to everyone.

And here it is fair to no one. I can't help but notice you've yet to defend libraries.

I've got my fingers crossed for you, and I'm holding my breath.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked