Geez, this again? Can you quit ranting about me and discuss the subjects at hand?
1 - "TAM still hasn't admitted that copyright is intended to be a limited-duration, State-granted monopoly *privilege"." - keyword is limited, and what you consider limited (an hour) and what the law considers limits (70 years or so) is the subject of debate. Nor does it grant a monopoly of any sort, as it doesn't stop anyone else from creating other content. A monopoly would stop everyone else from making movies, music or books. Copyright does none of those things, it only grants protection in a very narrow way, over the specific work, characters, and settings, and even then in very narrow ways. A monopoly would stop everyone from writing a science fiction book because there is already 1 science fiction book out there. That is not the case, there is no monopoly. One look around a book store will tell you that.
2 - "Nor does It admit that It's corporate overlords/pay-masters have been very busy buying themselves term-extensions WHICH ARE THEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THEIR MONOPOLIES FROM EXPIRING." - Actually, outside of some VERY RARE CASES, material has not been pulled back from the public domain. No matter what you think, the "overlords" (not my overlords,I don't work in music or the movie industry) would have to be extremely powerful to overwhelm 50% of the house and senate and somehow bamboozle a sitting president into signing a bill into law. I would suggest you ask your sitting Representative why this happens.
3 - "TAM *still* regards digital files and physical objects as equivalent." - no, I consider the CONTENT of digital files and physical objects to be the same. Nobody is out shoplifting empty books, and nobody is out illegally sharing empty P2P files. The media or medium isn't relevant. You obtain something that you haven't paid for or don't have the rights for, the result is exactly the same for you. You have something you don't legally have the rights to have.
"TAM is either a corporate plant, stupid beyond comprehension, or an extremely finely-crafted parody of the worst forms of IP-apologist "argument" imaginable." - Not a corporate plant, not stupid (not mensa material, but not a drop out either), and with no intention of parody (except the name and the mike image).
More than anything, I can take from your comments that you have never produced anything of true value in your life, nothing you are proud of, nothing that took great time or effort on your behalf. You have never had someone steal your ideas or your products and resell them for their own benefits. I would say that you are the worst for of IP-minimalist, a child who gets upset when there aren't enough free toys to play with in his pram, and always looking to take the toys from everyone else's pram too.
Yup, and if you extension included a payment model or added advertising, you likely would be enjoying getting blocked off as well (or potentially sued for reselling without permission).
It depends how you look at it. I think that NBC is one of the partners in Hulu, and that as a partner, they have a say on what goes on. If they said to Hulu Management "either block boxee or we exit now", the choice is made by NBC, and Hulu Management have to make their choice based on what is on the table.
In the end, both statements are true, what isn't exposed is the pressure and the influence between the parties involved. Effectively, NBC has their hand up the Hulu management's asses, using them as puppets, but it doesn't make the statements less true, just not clearly showing all of the relationships.
The problem here is that you look at Boxee as a "browser", when in reality is it a presentation system for videos.
My firefox browser doesn't go out and automatically catalog the contents of Hulu and present it in a format other than the way Hulu presents it (web page). A browser would just connect users to Hulu, nothing more. Boxee gets the information from Hulu, and processes it to present it in a manner other than what is on the original page, thus it isn't a browser.
If it was only a browser, you would click a link to Hulu and see Hulu's site, not a formatted boxee screen.
Total worldwide feature film revenue for major U.S. studios is expected to soar from $34.9 billion in 2007 to $41.6 billion by the end of 2011 - with the U.S. contributing nearly half of that, or $20.4 billion in revenue.
The US film industry being more than 10 times the size of Australia, just on the revenue side, and I am not clear this includes all the same revenues.
So yeah, Australia is a small market, likely in the 2 or 3% range of the worldwide total.
At the top of each comment section, there is this thing marked "threaded". It allows the discussion to flow naturally, with replies showing up in order, such that it is easier to have a discussion inside the discussion.
If you are viewing the comments as flat, it is exceedingly difficult to know which comment replies to which comment, making it hard to follow. For someone viewing the comments threaded, your comments end up at the bottom of the page and not in the middle of the discussion.
So even if you are personally viewing the board flat, clicking on "reply to this comment" rather than just adding to the end of the page assures that people using the threaded method get your comments in the right place, and can understand what you are talking about.
Otherwise you are effectively mumbling in the corner by yourself, because they aren't going to scroll all the way down the page to see if you happened to add a comment, and try to divine where it was in the overall discussion.
You can either make yourself easier to understand and easier to engage in discussion, or you can mumble to yourself and hope people listen. That is entirely up to you. Just don't get your panties in a knot because people aren't answering you, because they likely aren't reading your stuff either.
Digital sales seem to be doing pretty well for the music industry, how about trying digital sales of movies?
If everyone has an internet connection, and piracy is 100% legal (no risk of getting caught), why would anyone pay?
Counterfeit goods get shipped through the mail all the time. Should the post office be required to open and inspect the contents of every package?
Actually, the post office inspects a lot of packages. The percentage of illegal goods in the mail is low compared to the overall amount of mail going through. If the amount of illegal goods in the mail was as high as the amounts of piracy traffic on the internet, you can be sure they would be checking every package closely.
You are almost right. Murder and Cancer both support the funeral home business. But one is an over act from someone else, and the other is just an illness.
Ticket sales: if they lowered ticket prices to, say $5, I think you'd see an uptick in attendance, and you offset the price change by the methods to follow.
Okay, this is one of those rare cases where I will apply real world job experience to a comment. One of my past jobs (for about 10 years) was what is called "yield management". It is why nobody on an airplane pays the same price for the same flight.
You first have to look at how busy the theaters are. If you are playing to packed houses, there is no reason to lower ticket prices. If you are playing to full houses sometimes and empty rooms other times, that is where you play with ticket prices.
In many cities, you have a "cheapie day". In my area, it's "Cheapie Tuesdays" where tickets are 50% off. Now, it's a good thing to do because Tuesdays use to be the weakest night for movie attendance, with rooms playing less than half full. By cutting prices in half, they have pretty much filled the rooms, and they sell more popcorn and soda, which is what really makes the theater owners grin.
They also do things on daytime showings, including running movies at lower volumes for mommies with their young kids (quiet enough for young children to sleep) and they don't charge for children. Again, it is an issue of looking at an empty room and finding ways to fill it.
Thursday to Sunday, the rooms are full (and many theaters run an extra midnight screening on friday and saturday to keep up with demand). There is no reason at this point lower ticket prices on those days, that would just be cutting revenue. If the room is full, the price is right.
As for 3, a good theater doesn't have bad seats.
4 - it would create a massive system to support, and little in the way of returns. Most people would just use their ipod headphones, and they would be stuck having to repair and replace headphone jacks on a regular basis. Little income for many costs.
5 - Theaters are all about seats per showing. If you add tables and food, you limit the number of chairs per show. With half as many seats, you need twice the ticket price to break even on the movie.
Most of the theaters up here now include everything from video games to bumper cars to chain food (taco bell, KFC, etc) inside the building. They have wisely moved the lineup areas from outside the building (as it use to be done) to inside, which encourages people to come early and spend extra money. They are already doing it. There is a balance though, against having people hanging out all day in the place and making the entire experience less desirable rather than more desirable.
Even parody has it's limits. If the video was done in such a manner that people viewing the video would not be aware of the parody, it might cross the line to slanderous or libelous speech. Example, if the video appears to be of the original person, and there is no way to know if the words are their words or not, it could be the equivalent of writing a newspaper story with quotes they never said. (and wasn't Mike all up about that about a week ago?)
Parody does at some point require context, what Kevin Smith calls the "tee-hee", where we all understand that there is some humor in the comments or they are made in jest.
Putting words in someone mouth without context, even if the words are correct, can be misleading. The old "idiot in a hurry" might understand the humor, and actually think this is what the person said.
Without seeing the video, it is hard to draw conclusions. I would say that the poster not contesting the take down notice says a whole bunch about the content, however.
If everyone downloads, nobody buys. There might as well have been shoplifitng, because the effects are the same, no sales.
Not selling it isn't a choice to force people to P2P, it is to stop wasting money in a market that isn't buying. Australia is a very small market. If their legal system is going to permit unlimited piracy, why would anyone want to retail in that market?
My feeling is you would see movies in theaters, maybe on pay per view, and that would be it. No retail, no rentals (movie not available in the market, importing for rental would be actionable), no nothing. If the people are going to P2P anyway, why bother getting into the market?
Further, it would greatly hurt the Australian home market business. With such a small marketplace, the income from retail sales of DVDs and such is very important. Without a vibrant retail market, the funds to produce Aussie films would disappear, and with it an entire industry.
They are isolated enough that they could show us all exactly what happens when you remove the income from the movie industry.
Theft and infringement has the same results: Someone has what they didn't pay for, and the owners have one less potential sale. Since everyone keeps telling is here that reproduction costs are so low, the stealing of the physical DVD isn't really the big part of the discussion, unless you want to change things and say the plastic disc is a significant part of the retail price.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
I do have to add this, considering one of the songs is called "only idiots assume", I might think that the song is about intentionally misreading my post in another thread and assuming something that it does not say.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Paul, those numbers are the only ones I have seen from "the band side" that discuss the issue directly in that sort of format.
1 - There is plenty of vague stories out there about advances and costs, but this is the only one that actually details it out. If you have something newer, I would love to see it.
2 - if the AC was reading Techdirt as a whole, he would have seen those numbers come up in the previous discussion (which this AC actually posted in after my comments and a fairly long discussion back and forth on the issue). The AC was just trying to troll by bringing unrelated information into this discussion, trying to get my goat. He instead gave me a good laugh.
3 - My original post does not suggest that a single song costs 250,000. Few artists (if any) product just singles, they produce albums (even the sainted Corey Smith makes albums). If I cite my sources for all my comments in each post, the comment section might run 20 pages. That is meaningless.
4 - So you are saying that only Mike and this AC can run with half truths and dumb theories?
I can't help but think that various services are trying to position themselves as "friends of the bands", while really just trying to come up with a way to get a cut of the action.
Imagine that you take each of the pieces that the labels provide, from management, promotion, booking, inventory control, distribution, image, representation, local, regional, and national contacts, etc... you break each one of them off as a separate business. Now the artists end up contracting each of those pieces out to various companies at a cost, potentially higher because each of these companies has to make a profit on each piece, not on the overall.
So if you look at things, it would appear that the artists make more money (because the income is paid to them, not a label), but they end up spending all that money (and more, because they would have to spend money to make money, not the other way around). So a band might have to max out their credit cards or mortgage their homes in order to afford to buy services.
What spotify appears to be doing is trying to position themselves to get a nice piece of the "CwF" style action, and potential in the long run becoming as much of a drag on things as a label might be, without having to finance anything up front.
Good move for them, but is it really a good move for artists?
Mike, what better business models are you talking about? If everyone is stealing your product outright, and not paying for it, what business should you be in?
It isn't like a movie company is suddenly going to start giving live performances of it's movies, so that it can charge huge ticket prices for the events.
What a judgment like this does is encourage content producers to not bring their product into the Australian market, because there is no supportable business model. Perhaps they will run movies in theaters, but never release them in any other format.
What the government is considering is similar to what they would have to do if a judge ruled that shoplifting was legal, because it was too widespread and to difficult to pick the suspects off of store video. They are having to consider what the fallout would be to entirely legalizing online piracy.
I have not been caught out. The $250,000 is the amount of money needed to be put on the table to "produce and distribute a new studio recording". That includes promotion, marketing, and all that other stuff. I am using an industry insiders own numbers. If you have a problem with the numbers, talk to him.
it isn't even a mistake, it's just taking numbers put out there from someone in the industry. I don't see anyone else putting numbers out there, so I have to go with what I can see.
So in the end, I didn't say it costs $250,000 to record a new song, the 4 songs used in this example didn't cost a million to produce, nor did I suggest that in any way.
Too bad you guys are busy trying to set up a high tech lynching for me rather than anything else. Keep going, it doesn't make me want to go away, just makes me laugh.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Why bother?
1 - "TAM still hasn't admitted that copyright is intended to be a limited-duration, State-granted monopoly *privilege"." - keyword is limited, and what you consider limited (an hour) and what the law considers limits (70 years or so) is the subject of debate. Nor does it grant a monopoly of any sort, as it doesn't stop anyone else from creating other content. A monopoly would stop everyone else from making movies, music or books. Copyright does none of those things, it only grants protection in a very narrow way, over the specific work, characters, and settings, and even then in very narrow ways. A monopoly would stop everyone from writing a science fiction book because there is already 1 science fiction book out there. That is not the case, there is no monopoly. One look around a book store will tell you that.
2 - "Nor does It admit that It's corporate overlords/pay-masters have been very busy buying themselves term-extensions WHICH ARE THEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THEIR MONOPOLIES FROM EXPIRING." - Actually, outside of some VERY RARE CASES, material has not been pulled back from the public domain. No matter what you think, the "overlords" (not my overlords,I don't work in music or the movie industry) would have to be extremely powerful to overwhelm 50% of the house and senate and somehow bamboozle a sitting president into signing a bill into law. I would suggest you ask your sitting Representative why this happens.
3 - "TAM *still* regards digital files and physical objects as equivalent." - no, I consider the CONTENT of digital files and physical objects to be the same. Nobody is out shoplifting empty books, and nobody is out illegally sharing empty P2P files. The media or medium isn't relevant. You obtain something that you haven't paid for or don't have the rights for, the result is exactly the same for you. You have something you don't legally have the rights to have.
"TAM is either a corporate plant, stupid beyond comprehension, or an extremely finely-crafted parody of the worst forms of IP-apologist "argument" imaginable." - Not a corporate plant, not stupid (not mensa material, but not a drop out either), and with no intention of parody (except the name and the mike image).
More than anything, I can take from your comments that you have never produced anything of true value in your life, nothing you are proud of, nothing that took great time or effort on your behalf. You have never had someone steal your ideas or your products and resell them for their own benefits. I would say that you are the worst for of IP-minimalist, a child who gets upset when there aren't enough free toys to play with in his pram, and always looking to take the toys from everyone else's pram too.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re:
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re:
In the end, both statements are true, what isn't exposed is the pressure and the influence between the parties involved. Effectively, NBC has their hand up the Hulu management's asses, using them as puppets, but it doesn't make the statements less true, just not clearly showing all of the relationships.
On the post: Is Spotify Looking To Enable CwF+RtB For Musicians?
Re: Ok...
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
My firefox browser doesn't go out and automatically catalog the contents of Hulu and present it in a format other than the way Hulu presents it (web page). A browser would just connect users to Hulu, nothing more. Boxee gets the information from Hulu, and processes it to present it in a manner other than what is on the original page, thus it isn't a browser.
If it was only a browser, you would click a link to Hulu and see Hulu's site, not a formatted boxee screen.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re:
The US box office alone is 5 times the entire Australian industry from end to end.
or this one:
http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/10512814-1.html
Total worldwide feature film revenue for major U.S. studios is expected to soar from $34.9 billion in 2007 to $41.6 billion by the end of 2011 - with the U.S. contributing nearly half of that, or $20.4 billion in revenue.
The US film industry being more than 10 times the size of Australia, just on the revenue side, and I am not clear this includes all the same revenues.
So yeah, Australia is a small market, likely in the 2 or 3% range of the worldwide total.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Erm...right
At the top of each comment section, there is this thing marked "threaded". It allows the discussion to flow naturally, with replies showing up in order, such that it is easier to have a discussion inside the discussion.
If you are viewing the comments as flat, it is exceedingly difficult to know which comment replies to which comment, making it hard to follow. For someone viewing the comments threaded, your comments end up at the bottom of the page and not in the middle of the discussion.
So even if you are personally viewing the board flat, clicking on "reply to this comment" rather than just adding to the end of the page assures that people using the threaded method get your comments in the right place, and can understand what you are talking about.
Otherwise you are effectively mumbling in the corner by yourself, because they aren't going to scroll all the way down the page to see if you happened to add a comment, and try to divine where it was in the overall discussion.
You can either make yourself easier to understand and easier to engage in discussion, or you can mumble to yourself and hope people listen. That is entirely up to you. Just don't get your panties in a knot because people aren't answering you, because they likely aren't reading your stuff either.
On the post: Is Spotify Looking To Enable CwF+RtB For Musicians?
Re: Exactly
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re:
If everyone has an internet connection, and piracy is 100% legal (no risk of getting caught), why would anyone pay?
Counterfeit goods get shipped through the mail all the time. Should the post office be required to open and inspect the contents of every package?
Actually, the post office inspects a lot of packages. The percentage of illegal goods in the mail is low compared to the overall amount of mail going through. If the amount of illegal goods in the mail was as high as the amounts of piracy traffic on the internet, you can be sure they would be checking every package closely.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, but still a fail.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Question:
Okay, this is one of those rare cases where I will apply real world job experience to a comment. One of my past jobs (for about 10 years) was what is called "yield management". It is why nobody on an airplane pays the same price for the same flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management - this is a pretty good explanation of what it is.
So, let's talk about dropping ticket prices.
You first have to look at how busy the theaters are. If you are playing to packed houses, there is no reason to lower ticket prices. If you are playing to full houses sometimes and empty rooms other times, that is where you play with ticket prices.
In many cities, you have a "cheapie day". In my area, it's "Cheapie Tuesdays" where tickets are 50% off. Now, it's a good thing to do because Tuesdays use to be the weakest night for movie attendance, with rooms playing less than half full. By cutting prices in half, they have pretty much filled the rooms, and they sell more popcorn and soda, which is what really makes the theater owners grin.
They also do things on daytime showings, including running movies at lower volumes for mommies with their young kids (quiet enough for young children to sleep) and they don't charge for children. Again, it is an issue of looking at an empty room and finding ways to fill it.
Thursday to Sunday, the rooms are full (and many theaters run an extra midnight screening on friday and saturday to keep up with demand). There is no reason at this point lower ticket prices on those days, that would just be cutting revenue. If the room is full, the price is right.
As for 3, a good theater doesn't have bad seats.
4 - it would create a massive system to support, and little in the way of returns. Most people would just use their ipod headphones, and they would be stuck having to repair and replace headphone jacks on a regular basis. Little income for many costs.
5 - Theaters are all about seats per showing. If you add tables and food, you limit the number of chairs per show. With half as many seats, you need twice the ticket price to break even on the movie.
Most of the theaters up here now include everything from video games to bumper cars to chain food (taco bell, KFC, etc) inside the building. They have wisely moved the lineup areas from outside the building (as it use to be done) to inside, which encourages people to come early and spend extra money. They are already doing it. There is a balance though, against having people hanging out all day in the place and making the entire experience less desirable rather than more desirable.
On the post: ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech
Re: satire, parody, and criticism
Parody does at some point require context, what Kevin Smith calls the "tee-hee", where we all understand that there is some humor in the comments or they are made in jest.
Putting words in someone mouth without context, even if the words are correct, can be misleading. The old "idiot in a hurry" might understand the humor, and actually think this is what the person said.
Without seeing the video, it is hard to draw conclusions. I would say that the poster not contesting the take down notice says a whole bunch about the content, however.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re:
If everyone downloads, nobody buys. There might as well have been shoplifitng, because the effects are the same, no sales.
Not selling it isn't a choice to force people to P2P, it is to stop wasting money in a market that isn't buying. Australia is a very small market. If their legal system is going to permit unlimited piracy, why would anyone want to retail in that market?
My feeling is you would see movies in theaters, maybe on pay per view, and that would be it. No retail, no rentals (movie not available in the market, importing for rental would be actionable), no nothing. If the people are going to P2P anyway, why bother getting into the market?
Further, it would greatly hurt the Australian home market business. With such a small marketplace, the income from retail sales of DVDs and such is very important. Without a vibrant retail market, the funds to produce Aussie films would disappear, and with it an entire industry.
They are isolated enough that they could show us all exactly what happens when you remove the income from the movie industry.
Theft and infringement has the same results: Someone has what they didn't pay for, and the owners have one less potential sale. Since everyone keeps telling is here that reproduction costs are so low, the stealing of the physical DVD isn't really the big part of the discussion, unless you want to change things and say the plastic disc is a significant part of the retail price.
On the post: UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
Sort of classic, isn't it?
On the post: UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
1 - There is plenty of vague stories out there about advances and costs, but this is the only one that actually details it out. If you have something newer, I would love to see it.
2 - if the AC was reading Techdirt as a whole, he would have seen those numbers come up in the previous discussion (which this AC actually posted in after my comments and a fairly long discussion back and forth on the issue). The AC was just trying to troll by bringing unrelated information into this discussion, trying to get my goat. He instead gave me a good laugh.
3 - My original post does not suggest that a single song costs 250,000. Few artists (if any) product just singles, they produce albums (even the sainted Corey Smith makes albums). If I cite my sources for all my comments in each post, the comment section might run 20 pages. That is meaningless.
4 - So you are saying that only Mike and this AC can run with half truths and dumb theories?
On the post: Is Spotify Looking To Enable CwF+RtB For Musicians?
More thoughts on this...
Imagine that you take each of the pieces that the labels provide, from management, promotion, booking, inventory control, distribution, image, representation, local, regional, and national contacts, etc... you break each one of them off as a separate business. Now the artists end up contracting each of those pieces out to various companies at a cost, potentially higher because each of these companies has to make a profit on each piece, not on the overall.
So if you look at things, it would appear that the artists make more money (because the income is paid to them, not a label), but they end up spending all that money (and more, because they would have to spend money to make money, not the other way around). So a band might have to max out their credit cards or mortgage their homes in order to afford to buy services.
What spotify appears to be doing is trying to position themselves to get a nice piece of the "CwF" style action, and potential in the long run becoming as much of a drag on things as a label might be, without having to finance anything up front.
Good move for them, but is it really a good move for artists?
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
It isn't like a movie company is suddenly going to start giving live performances of it's movies, so that it can charge huge ticket prices for the events.
What a judgment like this does is encourage content producers to not bring their product into the Australian market, because there is no supportable business model. Perhaps they will run movies in theaters, but never release them in any other format.
What the government is considering is similar to what they would have to do if a judge ruled that shoplifting was legal, because it was too widespread and to difficult to pick the suspects off of store video. They are having to consider what the fallout would be to entirely legalizing online piracy.
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
On the post: Is Spotify Looking To Enable CwF+RtB For Musicians?
On the post: UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How much did the songs cost
it isn't even a mistake, it's just taking numbers put out there from someone in the industry. I don't see anyone else putting numbers out there, so I have to go with what I can see.
So in the end, I didn't say it costs $250,000 to record a new song, the 4 songs used in this example didn't cost a million to produce, nor did I suggest that in any way.
Too bad you guys are busy trying to set up a high tech lynching for me rather than anything else. Keep going, it doesn't make me want to go away, just makes me laugh.
Next >>