Copyright Infringement Charged Over Tao Te Ching... Which Is Only Two Millennia Old
from the forever-minus-a-day dept
It's not often you hear of a copyright claim concerning a text that was supposedly written more than 2,500 years ago. The Hollywood Reporter has the news that Wayne Dyer, a "self-help" guru, has been sued for copyright infringement for using text from "Tao Te Ching: A New English Version," by Stephen Mitchell, in his own book. But, of course, if the Tao Te Ching is from two plus millennia ago, what's the copyright claim? Well, it turns out that Mitchell is now claiming that his new English version is very new indeed. So new that it's not actually a translation at all, but more or less his own version of what he thought the Tao Te Ching really meant:As a result, "rather than provide a literal translation, the book embodies language that conveys Mitchell's version of Lao-tzu's meaning and the spirit of his teaching," the complaint says. "Accordingly, Mitchell's book is a highly original work."If true, there certainly could be a new copyright on the work, though it does seem a bit odd to rewrite it, and then still call it the Tao Te Ching. Basically, it looks like Mitchell wants the best of both worlds. To be able to pretend his version is the ancient version when it works for marketing purposes, but then to consider a brand new work when it comes to copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, tao te ching
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
oh look, its mikey trying to reach again. fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that your argument, Anonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using individual words isn't going to be an infringement. When the amount of "new" material you contributed is small in comparison to preexisting material, your copyright is only over such new material (and considered "thin").
In practice, you'll need to show that they are copying a substantial portion of your new work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What you are saying is that if someone takes a work that is public domain, and translates it into another language, using their own embellishments, and another person uses that translation for something else, you feel they are indeed violating the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is the same with music. you can record a 200 year old song. you dont own copyright on the song, but you do have the copyright on your recording of it.
mike knows this stuff, but he is in such a rush to confuse people here (must be a bunch of morons in a hurry) that he posts up absolutely stupid stories like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward:
Mike , the
AC 1
AC 2
AC 3 ... etc ,, is a good idea if ,, it is do-able
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward:
". . . but he is in such a rush to confuse people here (must be a bunch of morons in a hurry)"
"BUT YOU'RE A PERSON HERE YOU FUCKING MORON!!!"
See, the AC that doesn't use capital letters is calling themselves a moron and another AC is pointing that out. How is it confusing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm confused why Mike thinks this is an absurd copyright claim (or why Mike is choosing to use the 'Two Millennia Old' attention getter in his headline). Mike makes it a point to emphasize that it's the expression, not the idea, that's copyrightable. And it's the expression that's been copied here, not the idea. In fact, if there was no attribution given (i.e. plagiarism), I'm not sure why Mike would consider the situation absurd in the least.
Frankly, I don't know how I feel about things like the NKJV Bible (supposedly a literal translation) being copyrightable. Is a new literal translation really a new expression?
Every far once in a while I think Mike reaches for absurdity when it's not there, and I think this is one of those cases. But it gets a catchy headline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that an acronym?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti Mike" who now posts as an AC,
I at first thought "TAM" -- was "that axx-hole Mike",, but now you explained, it ,
I think ,
, say it again ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
right wrong or whatever just to be the devils advocate.
that is how we learn.
Remember debates in school ?
Gota be able to debate well from either side ,, or you don't understand either side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's pathetic, but we sometimes get a little entertainment out of calling him out in between serious discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright infringement is the same as bank robbery"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "copyright infringement is the same as bank robbery"
When hundreds of millions of people infringe on copyright, everyday, the only threat that exists is to lazy artists who don't like working, everyday!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that's a problem I have with copy protection law itself and another reason why I think that the law tends to be abused and should be either done away with or substantially diminished.
No one in congress or any federal judges , will ever endorse doing away with copyright. It would take an amendment to the constitution -- almost impossible.
No amendments have ever diminished right.
Except for "Prohibition". It failed, and was repealled .
All others expanded rights,, free slave , women and 18 right to vote & etc ,,,,,,, ( OR the amendments were procedural ,, like if the Pres. gets ill or something.).
It failed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, that's a problem I have with copy protection law itself and another reason why I think that the law tends to be abused and should be either done away with or substantially diminished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Copyright will be rendered obsolete in the near future."
explain fully how and why
Copyright will be rendered obsolete in the near future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, that's a problem I have with copy protection law itself and another reason why I think that the law tends to be abused and should be either done away with or substantially diminished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:OOPs
Sorry - my mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @2
http://ccgi.serviceplanner.force9.co.uk/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @2
"Religious truth is captive in a small number of little manuscripts which guard the common treasures instead of expanding them. Let us break the seal which binds these holy things; let us give wings to truth that it may fly with the Word, no longer prepared at vast expense, but multitudes everlastingly by a machine which never wearies to every soul which enters life."
Can you guess who said that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translations will also vary with the era in which they were done; "the Iliad" translated by the Victorians comes out quite a bit different than translations for a 21st century audience.
If Dyer and his publisher didn't get clearance, the publisher's legal department messed up and they will be reduced to seeing if they can make a fair use defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Copyrights can't be applied to a translated work? I'm overjoyed that that issue has been resolved."
That's what this argument is about; the copyright infringment of an interpretation....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts can't be copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It takes VASTLY more faith to believe that the exact right series of events and situations just randomly occured in the exact right sequences. You'd think that if it happened once billions of years ago, it would have happened AT LEAST once more...but it hasn't...not even once. THAT is a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, you're saying it's a fact that life has arisen only once? Where do you get that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's exactly what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a quick question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a quick question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a quick question
That means it is like redoing gone with the wind from another characters perspective. Or me rewriting the "Art Of War" from my perspective and make it all about bunnies and cotton candy I shouldnt call it Sun tzu's the Art Of War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a quick question
I'm sorry, how do you get from "convey's Mitchell's version" to "it's like redoing a novel from a different character's perspective?"
If he changed the original as much as you're suggesting (bunnies and cotton candy), then I agree with you, but there's nothing to suggest that he did that, is there?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a quick question
Oh, so NOW you advocate taking someone else's work, changing it, and calling it your own? So I can take Catcher in the Rye, update it, change some characters around, give them different names, alter a few plot points, and call it "The Rye is Toast" and that will be OK with you and your corporate overlord masters? Its legal, moral, ethical and no one will cry "thief! or "pirate!" right? RIGHT? 'Cause, you know, you cant have these things both ways, and play both sides at the same time, just so you can be right in an argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a quick question
If something is out of copyright (e.g., the Tao Te Ching), then doing your own translation or other derivative work, and claiming rights in your own contributions, is perfectly proper.
If something is still under copyright (e.g., Catcher in the Rye), then you'll need permission from the copyright holder, unless your use is considered fair use from some reason. Also, the law is not entirely clear on this, but you might not be able to claim any rights in your new contributions if you used the preexisting copyright protected material without permission.
Does that answer your question, or were you just looking for someone to be angry at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a quick question
Lets translate the bible using the original documents used for the King James Bible. But lets do it from my perspective which is atheistic. Do you really believe imy version will be the same book? Or do you believe it will be something totally different?
definition : atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rubaiyat
A slightly more interesting text to compare would be the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. He was a 12th century Persian astronomer and the Rubaiyat was a particularly beautiful book of poetry. In fact, when my mother first immigrated to Canada from Ireland decades ago, this was the only book she took with her.
The poetry was divided into quatrains and the different translators would rearrange the quatrains to better capture their interpretation of the philosophy of the author. Wikipedia has a pretty interesting write up on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubaiyat_of_Omar_Khayyam
I'm no expert on the law but it does seem that if there was a fair amount of creativity and decision making in the process of making a translation, a copyright over that particular translation does not seem out of order. But of course, what if someone else does a translation, and they choose the same words as the best fit for some sections? it does get messy pretty quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rubaiyat
But it's hard to make a snarky headline/article out of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tao that can be written
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting from Amazon:
"In this book, Dr. Wayne W. Dyer has reviewed hundreds of translations of the Tao Te Ching and has written 81 distinct essays on how to apply the ancient wisdom of Lao-tzu to today’s modern world. This work contains the entire 81 verses of the Tao, compiled from Wayne’s researching of 12 of the most well-respected translations of text that have survived for more than 25 centuries. Each chapter is designed for actually living the Tao or the Great Way today."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pretty clear fair use
For example the New International version says:
"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."
In the current case only 200 lines have been copied so I would say that Dyer bhas a pretty strong fair use case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's pretty clear fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's pretty clear fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's pretty clear fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's pretty clear fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen Mitchell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen Mitchell
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that an article in Techdirt would be written with a misleading tone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that an article in Techdirt would be written with a misleading tone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen Mitchell
If that is the case, then two things are instantly evident:
1)Mr. Dyer is in violation of current copyright laws
2)Mr. Mitchell should somehow have made it clear ON THE COVER, that his book was not an attempt at a direct translation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen Mitchell
What's misleading about it?
Stephen Mitchell, who is also a poet, created his own 'translation' of the Tao Te Ching.
But, as is noted, it wasn't really a translation. More his own version of it.
Yes, it is based on his reading of the ancient text. Mitchell's work, published in the early and mid-90's, is clearly a derivative work based on a text in the public domain -- but it is clearly not equivalent to the public domain text itself.
Nor did I claim it was. In fact, I said quite clearly in the post that it sounds like his copyright is legit. What's misleading there?
Dwyer should have asked for permission or paid for a license -- or simply circumvented the whole issue by using one of the many translations of this text that are 100% in the public domain.
As others noted, it looks like Dwyer has a strong fair use claim, as his book is commentaries on different translations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
In fact, copyright infringement is charged over a relatiely new translation (or "version") of the Tao Te Ching.
Are you honestly claiming that's not misleading at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
Indeed, as clearly explained in the post.
Are you honestly claiming that's not misleading at all?
I don't believe it's misleading at all, no. Why do you think is misleading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
"Indeed, as clearly explained in the post." - you think? your words say otherwise: "there certainly could be a new copyright on the work, though it does seem a bit odd to rewrite it, and then still call it the Tao Te Ching. Basically, it looks like Mitchell wants the best of both worlds. " - dont you think this is sort of like 100% fudge factor? it reads like you didnt understand the story, didnt take the time to dig into it at all, and were more interested in hitting a hot button issue title.
go ahead mike, its good to admit that you punted this one into the weeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
Oh please. Grasping straws.
I think the nit pick department is down the hall and to your left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
That's what the case is about, but Mr. Masnick's title (at the very least) makes it seem like the guy is claiming rights in 2000 year old material. He is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't believe it's misleading at all, no. Why do you think is misleading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"To be able to pretend his version is the ancient version when it works for marketing purposes, but then to consider a brand new work when it comes to copyright"
well put Mike .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
You're obviously not a moron. I do not believe you are stupid enough to think there is nothing misleading about this article title.
Unfortunately, that means you're being disingenuous, which is a lot worse IMO than just being stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
But highlighting the fact that the claims are based on a book called the Tao Te Ching, it points out the ridiculousness of the situation -- which is that the whole thing is based on a derivative work... and yet the new author freaks out when someone else creates a derivative work. The point is made quite clearly. There is nothing misleading about the headline.
You're obviously not a moron. I do not believe you are stupid enough to think there is nothing misleading about this article title.
When you don't have facts to back up your statement, you resort to insults. I'm sorry that you don't believe me, but I swear that I do not see how the title is misleading, and all of the details are clearly in the post.
Either way, there is plenty of discussion on this in the comments -- which as we've discussed plenty of times, is part of the point of the site. It's a discussion site. If you think we're wrong, we expect you to back up your position in the comments.
Calling me "stupid" or "disingenuous" without any basis doesn't further the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
Please, if you will, just answer me this question:
Do you believe it is likely or unlikely that the following title "Copyright Infringement Charged Over Tao Te Ching... Which Is Only Two Millennia Old" would lead readers to believe that copyright infringement has been charged based on copying of the 2000-year-old Tao Te Ching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
I would assume that most people can read the details in the article. Are you honestly suggesting that because I can't fit 500 words worth of nuance into a headline, I'm being misleading?
Everything in the headline is accurate. The lawsuit is over Tao Te Ching. And Tao Te Ching is over 2,000 years old. From there, I do explain the nuances of the situation -- highlighting the ridiculousness of the guy being able to both call his work the Tao Te Ching *and* then getting upset about others doing a criticism on his work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
That's ok, "I would assume that most people can read the details in the article" says it all.
You certainly need not fit "500 words of nuance into a headline," to avoid being misleading. For example, "Copyright Infringement Charged Over English Tao Te Ching Version" would not be misleading, while not incorporating 500 words of nuance.
"Everything in the headline is accurate." Mmm...not quite.
"The lawsuit is over Tao Te Ching. And Tao Te Ching is over 2,000 years old." The lawsuit is over "Tao Te Ching: A New English Translation," which is significantly less old, no?
I don't see any ridiculousness in accurately describing your work as a new version of an old public domain work work (e.g., "Tao Te Ching: A New English Version") and claiming copyright protection for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
I'll answer any question asked accurately. If you ask a "when did you stop beating your wife question" forgive me for answering the more relevant question.
You certainly need not fit "500 words of nuance into a headline," to avoid being misleading. For example, "Copyright Infringement Charged Over English Tao Te Ching Version" would not be misleading, while not incorporating 500 words of nuance.
But would totally ignore the important point that the article is trying to highlight.
I'm glad you're not my editor.
I don't see any ridiculousness in accurately describing your work as a new version of an old public domain work work (e.g., "Tao Te Ching: A New English Version") and claiming copyright protection for it.
That's because you're probably an IP lawyer who thinks all sorts of things like this make sense.
But for most other people, they implicitly recognize the insanity of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stephen Mitchell
If you think a misleading headline is ok as long as you correct misperceptions in the article, just say so.
You're right that my headline is not "grabby," nor does it highlight the point you are trying to make. However, I think the point you are trying to make depends on a misleading characterization of the facts.
I think this is shown by your comments saying the lawsuit is about the Tao Te Ching, which is 2000 years old. It's not! It's about a new translation/version!
I realize putting that in the title/article makes for a boring title/article, but THOSE ARE THE FACTS!
That's the problem, the article/title is juicier than the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Point
What I would have rather seen is more highlighting of the hypocrisy going on here.
The Author uses someone else's work as the base for his own work, and then turns around and sues someone else who used his work as a base for their work. The hypocrisy here is astonishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Point
His work is based off of previous work.
Someone else's work is based off of his work.
He's not happy that someone else is building off of his work, even though he did the same thing.
I think that's hypocritical.
Yes, what he did was legal. Yes, what the self-help guru did was illegal. So he does have the legal right to file suit. I just think he's being hypocritical for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong Point
It is entirely consistent to claim that it's ok (and, separately, legal) to incorporate/copy really old public domain works, but not ok (nor legal) to incorporate/copy relatively new works whose authors still are around and claim rights to them.
We have no way to know whether his position is "no works should be based on any prior work." If that *is* his position, then he is being hypocritical. But I highly doubt he believes that or would argue for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He calls it "A New English Version." I don't know what else the guy is supposed to call it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that about sum it up then ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A single day of sub-zero temperature is not enough to create three feet of ice
Three monks have no water to drink
Hit a dog with a meat-bun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do you have any real understanding of the following chinese proverbs?
Short . Focused . Profound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chinese_proverbs
There is nothing profound about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Moral: Great things cannot be accomplished in a short period of time.
* Compare: Rome was not built in a day (Roma non fu fatta in un giorno, Italian proverb).
enDOTwikiquoteDOTorg/wiki/Chinese_proverbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is always copywrong
Once something has been released to the public whether be it commercial or free it no longer has the exclusive rights it once had. We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it.
No one is arguing we can "steal" from anyone but the argument has always been what can we borrow? Since there is no real tool out there to determine this that isn't arbitrary we should always error on the side of caution.
What I would propose is that unless the author can prove it is a literal copy beyond a shadow of doubt word for word including formatting that they have no rights to control it whatsoever.
It is important to set the bar high for this test because even allowing something silly like copyright to exist means it will be abused and it has been more than just abused in the last century.
This would protect someone from making an exact copy of you book but would still allow our culture to continue building on itself without some meaningless time restriction that is solely designed for monetary benefit.
The gall of the intellectual property maximalists that they can somehow rewrite how our culture works is profound. That they can control the discourse of culture for their monetary benefit? Sick and wrong IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is always copywrong
-----------
Reply : That is mostly in reality true,, and the risk the Artist takes by putting his Art /soul out there.
This is also why J.D. Salinger refused to any movie deals or other derivative works to "catcher in the rye. It is also why JDS , locked all his writings and letters away. He knew he would not be able to fully control them , if he made his writings public.
--------------------
"We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it."
Reply :
*As long as your pay proper royalties. OK
* Parody is OK & protected.
*Danger Mouse ,,I got mixed feelings,, I lean towards calling a new work , but he should pay royalties to Jay-Z , and the Beatles, but "danger mouse" too , is a NEW protected copyrighted work in my humble opinion. ( but it ain't a cut and dry thing here.)
====================
In the realm of Artist to Artist , the culture is MUCH different , than it is Artist to Pirate.
Artist unite ( for the most ) against Pirates.
Artists acting in good-faith ,, are rarely sued for infringement by other Artists.
( In cases where the Copyright holders are not the original Artists ,, and then in it only for the $$,, these types of biz folks sue on Artist infringement issues at a higher rate.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]