Active Users:264 Time:29/03/2024 09:28:13 AM
Re: To a large extent my issue is with means rather than ends. DomA Send a noteboard - 13/02/2012 11:43:02 PM
they can be as outraged by SO/PIPA as the Tea Party was by Robamacare—with no more chance of preventing the source of that outrage.


We'll see. The industry has not been very lucky in getting the laws it wanted passed in full. Each time, the laws didn't give them nearly all what they wanted, and some have in fact blocked the way they intended to go and forced them to take other ways.

I'll be a bit surprised if they manage to get the laws passed before the presidential election, unless they come next with a law with no teeth that would get the support of even Silicon Valley and let the public indifferent. This is what a lot of commentators in and out of the US are saying. They made a huge strategic mistake as better devised, more responsible laws had a good chance to pass at this juncture (a lot of people were discussing the laws as a done deal and were surprised when opposition finally stirred in Congress, and when Obama said as they stood they were not acceptable to the WH), before the campaign and, as it's been obvious through the whole thing, with several congressmen not too aware of the details and various issues involved, who did listen more and more to the opponents. The next time, the debates are likely to be more informed, and more heated/political. It will be more difficult until the election (not much to gain for the Republicans to let Obama "pay his debts" before the election to an industry that had put its weight behind him the last time around, and for after it's a bit too early to speculate.

So instead of simply providing knowledge of how to commit crimes, that can be downloaded and either used or just innocuously placed on a bookshelf


They don't provide knowledge, they provide information/data that in itself isn't illegal to share or to possess in any way, but that is totally useless to possess for any other reason than intending to download/upload content which in most cases is illegal content. It's not like possessing a grenade as you brought up below, it's possessing the knowledge to acquire one if you wish. They got Pirate Bay over that: the site had no other reason to exist but to help people steal content, and generate profits from doing that. It was a matter of defining those actions as illegal too, which I understand Sweden has done, but until it did PB was out of reach, which explains why it's gone unhindered for years (the same would have happened if the site was Canadian. It would still happen, incidentally, though culturally speaking such a site would be surprising here in the first place - we don't have much of an anarchist bone).

In the case of Megaupload, I bet it wasn't all that easy to make a solid case against them under the existing laws, further complicated by the fact the US authorities had to convince foreign authorities to move against these people, and extradite them. It's a very loaded issue in most nations whenever someone is to be extradited to the US (your justice system doesn't have the most stellar image - in the public's eyes, at least), the public wants very solid evidence of the crimes.

The tricky part would probably be targeting downloaders forced to simultaneously act as uploaders.


Forced? Nobody forces anyone. It's how the technology works, people choose to use it or not, no one's forced. Yes it was clever of those who conceived it to make anyone who downloads an uploader, that's the whole idea behind it: the authorities can no longer focus on anyone in particular, the phenomenon involves millions of private users, and no corporation owning a site, no server to shut down, no assets to seize but private ones, no big profits to seize either. Everybody who accepts to use the technology accepts to commit the crimes of obtaining and distributing illegal content (the fact there's no profit involved only plays in the sentence, in most laws).

However, one would think millions of people simultaneously accessing each others computers for that kind of high volume high user transfer would stick out like a sore thumb.


It's not so "high volume". Let's say a file for a movie is around 300 MB. Instead of getting the whole of it from a single source, you get very small packets of data from a myriad of sources, and it's also very small packets of data others get from you. That's another "trick" in the design of the technology: no one actually exchanges the whole thing to anyone else. You might have provided 0,2% of the file to one user, and 1% to another and so on. Under some laws that is not enough to be illegal (not the case under US NET laws or ours, as far as I know, but several nations are quite behind in updating their laws to digital content).


If that is as much the norm as you say it probably accounts for 90% of online bandwidth at any given time.


I wouldn't risk putting a number on it, but yeah, it's estimated/speculated to be a rather high percentage of total bandwidth usage by particulars nowadays (it's one of those highly debated numbers between independant studies and the content providers';). And there you've reached on your own one of my earlier points: for a lot of people the need for massively increased bandwidth and (far more damningly) for "unlimited monthly usage" or good deals for big bandwidth usage, all for an affordable price was mostly due to piracy habits, and the ISP were all too willing to invest to meet those new demands, and customers all too willing to pay more to get this, a service even better than what corporate/pro users were paying a fortune for a few years ago.

That's why some content providers are lobbying (and in only a few nations apparently, have won their case) for an end to "unlimited" types of deals from ISP in the first place or for regulations on the prices for a service to private users offering a big bandwidth deal, and/or are lobbying (with even less success so far) governements to introduce measures where some of the profits from the ISP (in other words, some of the money the people pay for high speed internet and big data deals, either what they're paying now, or a new special tax over it) would return to the content producers in a way very similar to how radio broadcasters do, and would compensate them for losses to piracy. Here the government said no to new regulation, the content producers (incl. yours) turned to the courts to settle if the regulations applying to broadcasters covered ISP as well, up to the Supreme Court that said "no" last week.

This isn't an avenue without merits to mitigate the effects of piracy on content producers (ie: a tax that would rise according to your bandwidth usage) and could lead to agreements much in the same vein as those in place for radio worlwide - though if my own country is any indication, 70% of users are in favour but the goverment is totally opposed to the idea (for reasons I tend to agree with) - my problems with the whole concept are that the sources of heavy-bandwidth perfectly legal content are multiplying (and once the MPAA and other producers of video content catch up, it will even more - and I frankly wouldn't want to hinder that, on the contrary) and people who are sticking to those would be penalized as if they were pirating (for radio, you get to hear the ads only if you listen to the music...), and as a professional working a lot from home (and often on MPAA content, as it happens), my bandwidth usage is massive if perfectly legitimate (though that would probably be deductible, like my ISP bills, but that's not the same as being exempted from paying a punitive tax like this), not to mention that I watch more and more TV via the internet, and shop my music mostly with downloads too. So I'd definitely pay a lot, and in my case the most absurd is that I would pay that tax when most of the upload/download I do every month (uo to 90% maybe) is when I provide a service to content producers!.


There is most definitely "communication between users," because that is how the snippets of files are sent back and forth among hordes of users simultaneously.


I was strictly speaking of personal/social interaction (of which there is none involved), not of computers exchanging data.

The thinking is not yet obsolete just because most downloaders make themselves uploaders in the process. That merely means they ceased to be trivial annoyances and graduated to serious threats (probably why Big Media has begun pursuing them far more aggressively.)


Which is fairly futile, as many countries have fairly restrictive laws (like ours: you can't bring someone to court over this unless you have evidence they've made a profit over it, and I'd venture to guess a negligible, next to inexistent percentage of private users who get and share illegal content ever burn the movies or music on media to sell it to others)

If the mechanism of piracy no longer permits downloaders to remain no more than that and below legal radar, that sounds like a problem between pirate users and pirate providers. If the former can no longer operate without becoming, and thereby facing the legal liabilities of, the latter, their complaint is with those who created that requirement, not Big Media.


You make this way too complicated for nothing. The issue here is that in the first phase of digital piracy, there were tons of downloaders of content and much less providers of content, and there were a few servers in the middle, making profits (or not). You shut down the servers (which eventually the authorities did) and theorically you dealt a major blow to piracy. It did, it just didn't last very long because rogue developpers almost immediately replied to the victory against Napster with peer-to-peer concepts, and ISP met the rising demand for high speed internet, and soon piracy was stronger and far more widespread than in the days of Napster. Studies try to show it no longer affects the music industry as it did before i-tune, Amazon and co. introduced legal digital download, but it now affects video massively.

Nowadays, everyone involved in peer-to-peer is also a provider or distributor or both, doing away with the necessity to have sites like Napster, and making it virtually impossible for the content providers to go legally after enough of those peer-to-peer users to make a difference.

Now that you know a bit more how it works, you've not yet asked the real question: why, if peer-to-peer is by far the most widespread and popular form of piracy, the one that causes the most financial losses, are the content producers so bent on introducing laws like SOPA\PIPA that are aimed not at peer-to-peer piracy, but at sites like Megaupload, and sites that offer streamable/downloadable conten?. And that very question has surfaced in many articles on the bills and the issues. Most agree their effect on the piracy phenomenon will be very limited, because they won't reach peer-to-peer piracy, and they won't block IP worlwide but just DNS, so it shouldn't take long before people get informed on how to still reach those sites using their IP addresses, at least those that are out of reach of US justice (ie: in the countries where the authorities won't do anything, not arrest the people, not close their servers, not extradite anyone to the US). So the question is often asked: are the content providers just badly advised/idiots? Or are they just showing their teeth in the hope of frightening a percentage of those who pirate their content, in the hope of diminishing a bit the phenomenon, knowing eradication is not a realistic goal? They really don't need laws with as wide a scope as SOPA/PIPA to do that, and that again worries a lot of people that, for instance, they may want those laws so wide in scope in order to target services in wich piracy is a not major phenomenon, but that are emerging more and more as distribution hubs of "internet entertainment", which competes with their products, in order to hinder or slow down their development.

Personally, I have a fairly low opinion of the business ethics of the industry, but I'm not big on conspiracy theories. I rather lean toward the theory they're perfectly aware they won't get any laws that can deal efficiently against peer-to-peer (not in the US certainly, and not in many nations), and that they've decided to "clean up" the web of the remaining visible outlets, which in some measure they can already do (Megaupload is just evidence of this), but with laws that would let them pretty much prevent the rise of any new big sites and they allow them to act much faster, without the burden of very solid inquiries before they can convince a judge. And I think it was totally intentional on their part that the law could be a damocles sword over the head of corporations from Silicon Valley (eg: Google), in part to limit their future development in areas that could be detrimental to them, in part as leverage to pressure them to take more and more restrictive measures at their own cost.

That's why I would only support measures that would be very narrow in scope, and would very well define the kind of sites/services they can touch, rather than seek to exclude this and that.

In theory, going after the advertisers is a good idea, but in practice it's not that useful. They seek to go against sites/corporations that are out of reach of the FBI (ie: abroad), yet the law only applies (and can only apply) to American advertisers on such sites. Most of the effect of that law will probably apply at its introduction, in frightening the US advertisers still making business with such foreign sites. That means no more ads on those sites targeted at the US market, basically (most internet advertising is geolocated). It sounds far more like laws aimed at changing the culture of those American smaller advertisers (and often of the less savoury type, porn, scams and whatnot) who shamelessly advertise on pirate sites that laws that will financially affect sites abroad. If those sites manage to survive a DNS ban (and the bigger sites very likely would), they will keep their foreign advertisers.


Regarding true peer to peer file-sharing of copyrighted materials, I cannot believe that is the bulk of piracy any more than when my dad was taping thirty year old 78s in his garage for himself and friends doing the same.



You just have the wrong terminology Joel. Peer-to-peer is what I described: a structure of widescale piracy where the content to exchange is hosted on private peers (personal computers) not on servers, with a peer-to-peer software connecting them. There's no such thing as "true" peer-to-peer as you keep bringing up, where a single person take files from his collection and make a CD for a friend, or send him privately the files by a digital mean. You can't even send a file with a peer-to-peer software, not connect to a specific computer like your friend's, for instance. That's not a way to exchange data with a person you know, it's to share data anonymously with several people you don't know. Semantically speaking, copying files for a friend using computerscould be called peer-to-peer, but you're just confusing matters by using the expression that way, when it's not what is meant by peer-to-peer in the context of internet piracy.

When it's said peer-to-peer is the most widespread form of piracy, it refers strictly to the people using peer-to-peer softwares. It's never about one peer and a second peer who knows the first at the receiving end.

It may be technically easy to send twenty albums to a dozen friends while receiving as many from them, but how much bandwidth does it take? That is, how long does it take, and how long do RAFO, Facebook, etc. take to load while doing it? Particularly when there are five other people on ones router doing the same thing.


It seems really quite fast. It's dependant on your connection of course, and how much bandwidth you're already using for something else. You can set maximum download/upload rates, so it doesn't slow you down too much in what else you're doing. Then it depends on how popular the file you want to get is. The more popular, the more users you can download small packets from concurrently, the less standby time you get and the faster you get the file. So if you're looking for a Blue-Ray rip of Harry Potter 7 part 2, it will go extremely fast (something in the order of an hour or two, I believe) but if you're looking for an obscure Japanese movie from the 60, it might take a few days as you have to rely on a small group of users, who aren't constantly connected.

Alternatives to DNS and other uncharted territory aimed at reducing control by the authorities are inevitable whatever happens with piracy.


Yes, just like not touching Napster wouldn't have held back the development of the peer-to-peer concept forever, but shutting it down precipitated its arrival, and not only that, but a system specifically designed to address Napster's weaknesses and exploiting the absence of laws. The net result of the RIAA's victory over Napster is to have increased the piracy phenomenon, and to make it more elusive. Not much of a victory, more like a big failure. Most of all, it had failed to convince people piracy was a crime, or at least convince them they shouldn't commit it. They only progress on the piracy front came when lower prices, legal downloads gained popularity, and their biggest boost came when Apple introduced the i-tune store.

It's hard to see how SOPA/PIPA could result in generating even more piracy at this point, I would guess the phenomenon is as widespread as it's likely to get, the danger now is making it even more elusive and out of control than it is, and that other forms of criminality, dangerous ones, could benefit from that as well.

Governments intend to be the ones creating alternative to IP/DNS down the line (it's pretty much reached its limit), but with similar control to what they have over the current structure. They don't want rogue alternatives to start appearing first, or to motivate the "anarchist developpers" to work on that (not that they don't already). Pretty much everyone agrees the fact they have not at this point is due to the fact so far the western world's authorities have threaded extremely carefully with their legal measures of control over the internet.

I return to the same thing again and again: even seriously diminishing piracy requires public support, for enough people to agree to change their behaviors and buy the content again, which (now that you understand how peer-to-peer works) would mean that the offer on the "pirate market" would be quite reduced if enough people stopped or even seriously reduced their pirating, and one thing that makes it all so appealing is that you can find nearly anything right now, and that with so many users, it's fast and efficient (not much longer than it would take to download the content legally).


It would be terribly difficult, and ruinous, for the industry to go after enough users to make a real difference (not to mention those users would mostly be Americans, and a PR disaster that backfires and make people less and less sympathetic to the industry is a very real risk, not to mention that going after users would forcibly mean several mistakes of identification... dad for kids, grandma for grandson, mother for babysitter and so on), so that leaves pretty much the avenue of education, then that of changing the public image of greed and the culture of the RIAA/MPAA (not about to happen, the whole industry runs on selling "dreams", with the people involved living in princely fashion) and that of providing better services/products and better prices (it remains their most viable option). The RIAA has worked on the three so far, even for its image it did make people more conscious to the damage done to artists (though people remain thoroughly unconvinced regarding the bigger names, there's quite a bit of Robin Hood complex at play). The MPAA is still stalling, and this affects also the RIAA's efforts, no doubt there.


Cases like al-Awlaki provide incentive, demonstrate need and ensure public support even when such government actions are discovered. To borrow a line from Rumsfeld, we do not know what we do not know; we are ignorant of even the LEVEL of our ignorance. Ill conceived and wrongly motivated, but active and concerted, efforts to escape supposed government tyranny only encourage more covert instances of it.


What Americans were willing to give up in the name of national security and potentially saving lives, in that timeframe, is one thing. What they would be willing to give up in the name of Hollywood's profits is quite another I would say. In my experience on international forums, it's almost always the Americans who are the fastest to react, the most virulent when they do and also the most cynical and desillusioned when it comes to accusing their own entertainment industry of greed, or ripping people off, or deceiving its customers, and so on (to the point that despite evidence that this or that writer is showing many signs he wants to be done with a series and move on, they'll still be the ones arguing the loudest he's just stretching it to milk the fans of more money. Jordan put a (childish) new chapter into the YA edition of his first WOT book, that made it easier for younger people to connect with the characters and get into the story, it's his American fans who went first (and the loudest) to the barricades yelling that the publisher was doing this not to reach a new audience, but to try to sell the book to the adult readers again, hooking them with "exclusive content" (and the facts, such as the lack of advertising of that content to the adult fanbase be damned). I'm not criticizing the attitude, merely pointing out that convincing the Americans themselves the industry isn't overcharging for its products, and not trying to scam people with all these new special editions, half season DVD and what not, might not be an easy job. Just look who complains the loudest that 3D is just a gimmick to raise the price of theater tickets...



More to the point perhaps, that won't be effective if applied in the US alone anyway. You won't find much support for such measures outside the US, not among the people, not with governments. There are tons of legal barriers already in place elsewhere. Our government didn't lift those barriers protecting our privacy when the US agencies lobbied for it in the name of fighting terrorism, they're not about to lift them for Hollywood.


So Megaupload was operating the online equivalent of a crack house or a hotel catering to prostitutes; law enforcement can and does shut down those places, too, without the ability to target all home or hotel owners. The suggestion the former requires the latter is disingenuous, whether it is Big Media or netizens making the suggestion. Indeed, arguing piracy cannot be effectively stopped without a cyberpolice state is very dangerous, because if Congress accepts that argument it could well adopt such draconian measures. The best "brick and mortar comparison" to Megaupload, however, is warehouses and pawnships filled with stolen blackmarket products: If law enforcement proves the contents stolen they close and seize the building; if they prove the proprietors knew the products were stolen, they prosecute him, all without threatening legitimate warehouses/pawn brokers even slightly.



Pretty much. Analogies go only so far, though. Where it stops working in this case is that there are protocols by which a pawnshop can make sure goods it takes in aren't stolen, so they're pretty much responsible for ensuring they aren't, and held responsible if they are.

The same can't be said of Google, for instance. They can't monitor for instance their millions of free blogs very strictly, and they don't have any sure means to identify content as illegal vs. legal in many cases (they investigate peer denunciations, which they encourage a lot, and for the rest rely on notifications by copyright holders). They can't be expected to filter out links to sites with copyright infringments without getting such a list from some authority in the first place (which is what they get or would get, in some countries that want to ban DNS. Not that Google likes that one bit, and have even denounced it like in the case of China. And Twitter has decided it would censor content that would be illegal in a given country. Those companies are doing what they can to police themselves already, and to remove necessities of laws to control the internet). And yet, SOPA/PIPA gave them the right to get a blog DNS banned, or even the whole service if they could convince a judge the number of blogs with links to illegal content justified it.

Theorically, SOPA/PIPA gave them the means to pressure companies like Google to invest far more in policing its services (or run the risk of being targeted) and put at risk its advertisers, and both would put the whole Google business model in jeopardy (it relies on providing as many services as possible to the greatest number of users, all for free), and Facebook's, and the other giants.

I am fairly certain Google knows how to track and ban IPs; I may not be an expert, but neither am I an idiot. ;)


That's not the issue. People who put up "rogue blogs" and such aren't amateurs either. They know they'll be found and IP banned by Google eventually. They know how to make themselves more elusive than that.

This is not such a massive issue either. The few blogs like that I came accross over the years offered links to files on the servers of corporations like Megaupload, and this is already "old fashioned". The big problem remaining is that Megaupload was in a country with agreements in place with the US, so could be dealt with. Good luck going after similar companies in Russia and co., and banning their DNS won't help much, since we're dealing with more techno-savvy pirates than those using peer-to-peer.

Most likely, rather than bans, they would simply do as so many ISPs have done and cooperate with the FBI and other authorities in providing evidence of piracy to prosecute people posting copyrighted material and links to either that material or the means to acquire it.


I think even in the US that would raise much uproar, and in many nations they are laws introduced to further protect privacy. Here, it's the ISP that would provide any such information to a third-party without a court mandate that would be heavily fined. Not only that, but there are articles in the law that make it fairly difficult for the entertainment industry to come after individual private users. It's not a viable avenue anyway, few justice systems could cope with that, if the big industry suddenly decided to target thousands and thousands of people all of a sudden.

Keep in mind that practically all online activity in the US falls under the authority of the FCC, and anything crossing state lines (which, at various times, is all of it these days; the whole point of the internet is providing instant access to data anywhere on the planet) also falls under the authority of the ICC. If the US government wanted to impose a jackbooted crackdown, they already have authority to spare.


And won't use it for something like content piracy as they are perfectly aware of the risks involved if they open that Pandora's Box.


They also have bigger fish to fry, but being a low priority is making cyberanarchy and piracy increasingly fat flounders demanding more and more attention.


Increasingly fat flounders? They've just caught what pretty much everyone agrees was the bigger fish in the pond a few weeks ago. The trend is rather to small minnows, with no financial aspects involved in the "transactions".


The real moral is probably not that reducing piracy requires Big Media voluntarily accommodate user demands, but that preventing cybermartial law requires users voluntarily curtail currently easy cybercrime.


Of which they're very little hope without convincing a big enough portion of them to return to legal content, and part of that involves providing better them with better services, and more reasonable prices. That's also the only measure that can be expected to have impact on piracy outside the US as much as it has inside.

Congress isn't about to pass anything like cybermartial law merely to curtail piracy of copyrighted content (and just on US soil, at that), not after even far less ambitious bills like SOPA/PIPA got rejected (and found fairly very little support abroad among authorities - except notably France where Sarkozy loves anything if it's American but appears to be on his way out - meaning not many nations would have imitated the US and pass similar laws. Even our very pro-US (though definitely more pro-Republican than pro-Democrat, especially in economical matters) government found those laws went way too far and threatened the development of our internet economic sector (which is fairly big). The next proposals won't widen the bills even more, they'll narrow them down until they become acceptable and don't raise as much opposition.
Reply to message
You will never kill piracy, and piracy will never kill you - 05/02/2012 06:56:57 PM 1096 Views
Pretty much - 05/02/2012 08:39:16 PM 319 Views
The article both raises good points and is full of shit - 05/02/2012 11:36:25 PM 587 Views
Re: The article both raises good points and is full of shit - 06/02/2012 02:07:01 AM 486 Views
Re: The article both raises good points and is full of shit - 06/02/2012 02:11:38 AM 517 Views
Then it really seems to differ between our countries - 06/02/2012 10:52:39 AM 459 Views
What are your ticket prices? *NM* - 06/02/2012 12:53:04 PM 200 Views
are those theaters all hollywood movies or from european studios? - 06/02/2012 03:01:37 PM 511 Views
Both, basically - 06/02/2012 04:55:36 PM 512 Views
I just want to comment on a couple things. I feel like you're a little bit behind the times. - 06/02/2012 05:23:40 AM 584 Views
Disagree. *NM* - 06/02/2012 09:38:56 AM 346 Views
Feel like explaining? *NM* - 06/02/2012 03:25:11 PM 178 Views
Well, call me old-fashioned but I think that'll be my preference for a while now. - 06/02/2012 10:36:41 AM 449 Views
It's not just a matter of taste when one technology is demonstrably superior. - 06/02/2012 04:04:27 PM 466 Views
Re: It's not just a matter of taste when one technology is demonstrably superior. - 06/02/2012 04:27:09 PM 351 Views
It's rare, I'll admit. - 06/02/2012 06:19:20 PM 338 Views
My age is gonna show even more in the next reply, but here we go - 06/02/2012 06:25:09 PM 453 Views
Re: My age is gonna show even more in the next reply, but here we go - 06/02/2012 08:13:48 PM 488 Views
I'll give you a hint. - 13/02/2012 03:31:56 PM 582 Views
Re: I'll give you a hint. - 14/02/2012 01:52:50 AM 389 Views
yeah, cinemas here aren't doing so well - 06/02/2012 01:33:06 PM 408 Views
That subject line well encapsulates this whole debate, IMHO. - 07/02/2012 07:52:22 PM 440 Views
That pretty much echoes my opinion on the subject - 06/02/2012 12:56:49 AM 496 Views
Holy text-wall, Batman! - 06/02/2012 12:49:28 PM 396 Views
I did not ask for alternative LAWS, Obama did; I merely quoted him, and this article mentions no law - 07/02/2012 04:50:14 AM 519 Views
you're confusing the issue - 07/02/2012 06:22:30 AM 388 Views
No, I am clarifying the issue. - 07/02/2012 06:54:40 AM 508 Views
again, you are taking the wrong approach - 07/02/2012 03:57:03 PM 485 Views
I disagree, and there are factual errors in your statements. - 07/02/2012 07:36:16 PM 463 Views
actually, there are not - 08/02/2012 04:15:09 AM 373 Views
Yeah, actually there are. - 09/02/2012 01:53:02 AM 479 Views
Re: Yeah, actually there are. - 10/02/2012 04:11:10 AM 413 Views
Technically, the first point is true, but I disagree the distinction is important in terms of piracy - 12/02/2012 01:09:01 AM 410 Views
Without realizing Joel, you're getting closer and closer to some of our views... - 12/02/2012 09:24:22 AM 431 Views
To a large extent my issue is with means rather than ends. - 13/02/2012 09:45:39 AM 504 Views
Re: To a large extent my issue is with means rather than ends. - 13/02/2012 11:43:02 PM 388 Views
Re: To a large extent my issue is with means rather than ends. - 04/03/2012 01:06:26 AM 481 Views
Re: No, I am clarifying the issue. - 07/02/2012 07:52:42 PM 432 Views
It is not the same as taping an album for a friend. - 09/02/2012 01:18:42 AM 478 Views
Re: It is not the same as taping an album for a friend. - 09/02/2012 10:39:05 PM 379 Views
Re: It is not the same as taping an album for a friend. - 12/02/2012 12:04:57 AM 466 Views

Reply to Message