RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/19/2008 9:34:27 AM)

This world is a fallen place. This should not come as a surprise to long time Christians. Intellectual property laws can and are used to magnify injustices sometimes. So are laws regarding physical property, like oil refineries.

That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't have gotten into defining intellectual property, starting in 1789. It also doesn't mean that the injustices in present law rise to the level where Christians ought to disregard these laws.

We ought to be involved in changing these laws, if they are unjust. Our power, as ordinary citizens, is limited. But it's greater than the power of ordinary citizens in most countries.

We also shouldn't presume that all of us who agree that Christ is Lord are going to agree on what just copyright laws would look like.



Jeffo -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/19/2008 1:51:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
quote:

Making up your own rules is really in dangerous territory. As others have said, the law is the law.


Not the best argument. By that standard abortion is OK because our government has not declared it illegal. Obviously most of us find abortion to be against God's law. This case is nowhere near comparable but I do think our copyright laws need to change. People should not have the right to sit on a copyright forever. Use it or lose it.


Not the best argument. Comparing abortion with buying illegal copies of DVDs is rather absurd. The law regarding abortion is for it. The law regarding DVDs as stated here is against it. You are not violating God's laws by not buying illegal DVDs. That sounds rather absurd but so is the argument for it.

Again, if you can rationalize this law away then you can do that with just about anything else. You're basically just stating your opinion without even having all the facts.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/19/2008 4:16:47 PM)

quote:

Not the best argument. Comparing abortion with buying illegal copies of DVDs is rather absurd. The law regarding abortion is for it. The law regarding DVDs as stated here is against it. You are not violating God's laws by not buying illegal DVDs. That sounds rather absurd but so is the argument for it.


I wasn't saying that not buying illegal DVDs was against God's law. But the statement was "The law is the law" not "The law is the law unless it violates God's law". In public debate I am going to take the statement as it was given and not assume something that is not there.

I don't believe anyone here would obey the law in every single circumstance and I would have no respect for them if they did. If you buy illegal DVDs you are breaking the law. If you block access to an abortion clinic you are probably breaking the law (depends on the exact circumstances). If tomorrow our government made praying illegal and you prayed to God you would be breaking the law.

The problem with "The law is the law" argument (as stated and without the assumption "unless its God's law" or "unless it violates civil liberties" etc.) is that it falls apart if I can find one instance where the presenter would violate the law.

You will note I took no issue with those that stated we are bound to obey the law unless it violates God's law as it is a perfectly legitimate argument that can be backed up by Scripture. Only one passage is used usually but it is a strong one.

quote:

Again, if you can rationalize this law away then you can do that with just about anything else.


No you can't. I am perfectly entitled to have a difference sense of right and wrong than the government. Or have you not noticed that those in charge are often corrupt? God help us if our government and the people in it ever become the moral arbitors of our society. Now I will accept that just because I disagree with a law does not mean I can ignore it. But that doesn't mean my next thread is going to be "Breaking into someone's house (without violence) is OK, here's why!".

Note: I noticed you said "about anything else" otherwise the example would have been "Why Murder is OK if Someone Makes You Mad".

quote:

You're basically just stating your opinion without even having all the facts.


What facts am I missing that would make me change my mind? I think unused copyrights should be public domain after ten years. You disagree and thats fine but what facts am I missing that would change my mind?

And of course I'm stating my opinion.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/19/2008 6:49:03 PM)

quote:

We also shouldn't presume that all of us who agree that Christ is Lord are going to agree on what just copyright laws would look like.


Obviously I agree with this. Thanks for posting.

My last post may have seemed aggressive and "nit picky". I get it but I feel this person presented their point aggressively (not saying rudely or unfairly but definitely aggressively) and also I truly believe that words matter. Here is the point I would like to explain:

quote:

quote:

Again, if you can rationalize this law away then you can do that with just about anything else.


quote:

No you can't. I am perfectly entitled to have a difference sense of right and wrong than the government. Or have you not noticed that those in charge are often corrupt? God help us if our government and the people in it ever become the moral arbitors of our society. Now I will accept that just because I disagree with a law does not mean I can ignore it. But that doesn't mean my next thread is going to be "Breaking into someone's house (without violence) is OK, here's why!".

Note: I noticed you said "about anything else" otherwise the example would have been "Why Murder is OK if Someone Makes You Mad".


Change "about anything else" to something less grandiose like "about many things" and quite frankly my only possible response would shaking my head in agreement (unless I wanted to be intellectually dishonest or clueless). But instead of going for "the single over the shortstop's head" he wanted the "home run". Well "about anything else" covers a ton of ground. It assumes that I would be able to rationalize most any bad behavior. So I eliminated murder, rape and violence but I don't think I could eliminate much else considering the statement as written. And I think the statement was written to make me / others who might hold my position look bad and it was stronger than necessary. My example may have been over the top but if you think about it you'll probably find its legit.

So I'm willing to accept criticism, I knew my position would be unpopular. Engage in the hyperbole if you must but prepare to be challenged based on the words you say.

I do appreciate everyone's input. My responses aren't personal, I just like to aggressively make my case. At the end of the day its God who decides.



Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/20/2008 7:01:29 AM)

I'm going to quote Kris Kristofferson:

"The law is for protection of the people.
Rules are rules and any fool can see,
We don't need no riddle speakin' prophets,
Scarin' decent folks like you and me!"

(The reference is to the savior).

It's possible to get too hung up on respect for the secular law as being God ordained, when the secular law is a prouct of fallible men. But it's also possible to use the argument that "God's law is higher than man's law" to justify lawbreaking that has nothing to do with the kingdom of God.

People who make illegal copies of DVDs are suiting their own convenience. So are people who break speed limits, to take another law that is often breached. That self oriented convenience may or may not coincide with God's purposes on earth.

Civil disobedience should be viewed as a last resort, not as a first response. And casual lawbreaking is not civil disobedience.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/20/2008 11:33:32 AM)

quote:

Civil disobedience should be viewed as a last resort, not as a first response. And casual lawbreaking is not civil disobedience.


I would never view buying or making DVDs of unavailable series as civil disobedience. That would be an insult to MLK, Ghandi and many other freedom fighters.



Jeffo -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/20/2008 12:53:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
What facts am I missing that would make me change my mind? I think unused copyrights should be public domain after ten years. You disagree and thats fine but what facts am I missing that would change my mind?


So you are above the law.

Read some of the previous posts on why a company might apparently be "sitting on a copyright".



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/20/2008 1:57:00 PM)

quote:

So you are above the law.


Uh no, the quote you used only says I disagree with the law and would like to see it changed.

Disclosure: if you had quoted my very first post instead of what you quoted you would have had a point that I advocate other people breaking the law. I personally have not confessed to any such law breakage because I specifically stated I would not have any interest in bootleg DVDs (due to the quality). I did say that I thought what my friend did was OK so you would have had me on that, except you didn't quote the right post.

quote:

Read some of the previous posts on why a company might apparently be "sitting on a copyright".


Only one (waiting till 2009 to tie in with the movie), perhaps excluding my own posts. Most of them have been basically they can sit on their copyright as long as they want. Fine but it says nothing about why?

Show me a post beside the one I mentioned that gives any possible reason why a company might be sitting on a copyright. I realize they exist but they have not been brought up here. You did not catch me in a "duh" moment. [;)]



tafkam -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 7:42:44 AM)

The copyright holder does not owe anyone an explanation of "why". It's their property to do with as they see fit. Period.

I am a Christian musician, and I'm preparing to record a new CD. I've gotten e-mails from folks familiar with me wanting this and asking when it would be out. Once I have recorded it, it is my property and mine to do with as I see fit. If I were to choose not to release it, am I to understand you would be in favor of fans being able to FORCE me to release the work?

This is wrong on so many levels.....



everythingat -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 10:51:46 AM)

Question, tafkam. What if you recorded your music, but then the record company that distributed it owned the copyrights? What if the record company refused to distribute it, even though it was your desire for it to get out there? And it got to the point that you didn't care if anyone paid money for it, just as long as it was listened to? Would it be wrong of you to burn cd's of it for those you wanted to listen to your own music that you wrote and recorded?



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 10:56:05 AM)

No, as I previously stated if you never choose to release it then it has not been offered for public consumption. You should not be forced to release it.

So rest assured that if your music ever gets out there without your consent I will refuse to buy it no matter how much I may enjoy it. [;)]

I'm finding many of these comments to be disingenuous (albeit perhaps not intenionally). The initial subject was the lack of Shazam DVDs. Nobody who had anything to do with the creative process of Shazam has any control over whether it gets released or not. They would probably like to see them released. It gets them cash and allows their work to be seen.

Reality check: copyright holder usually does not equal partner in the creative process. Copyright holders are simply companies with big pockets in most cases.

So if we want to call me out on wanting to force painters, musicians, writers etc. (i.e. creators) to release stuff whether they want to or not (a false charge) then lets call out the big media companies that own these copyrights and often times make decisions to release stuff or not without any regard to the wishes of those who created it (the group of people my ideas are supposedly victimizing).

And yes I understand the big media companies are well within their legal rights to do this.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 11:11:20 AM)

quote:

The copyright holder does not owe anyone an explanation of "why". It's their property to do with as they see fit. Period.


OK fine but I was told that I was lacking information in order to form my opinion. The info I was told I lacked was these posts in the forum that explain why someone may want to sit on a copyright. I simplly pointed out there was only one such post.

I think copyright holders morally have an obligation to explain to at least the creators why they are sitting on it. But big media companies usually don't worry about moral obligations do they?



tafkam -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 2:22:45 PM)

They don't have to. They are under no moral or legal obligation to explain why they choose to do something or not do somethiing with a property they own.

If somebody creates a show like SHAZAM, and the only way to get it seen is to sign away your copyright or ownership or percentage or whatever to a production company, that's the chance you take.

It would seem to me that the company has done it's homework and discovered that there isn't enough market demand for SHAZAM! DVDs to warrant the cost of producing and distributing them. But they do not have to explain their decisions to anybody.

Sorry if that offends, but the law is on their side....



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 2:46:05 PM)

quote:

I'm finding many of these comments to be disingenuous (albeit perhaps not intenionally). The initial subject was the lack of Shazam DVDs. Nobody who had anything to do with the creative process of Shazam has any control over whether it gets released or not. They would probably like to see them released. It gets them cash and allows their work to be seen.


I can pretty much guarantee that all involved with the creation of the show were under contract to the studio, therefore they produced the work *for* the studio and never owned the copyright themselves.

There is a significant difference, there.

The work *is* the studio's work, and it was produced by emplyees of the studio, for the studio, who hired them for that specific purpose.

Now, if you were to write a script on your own, you would own the copyright for the script and could sell whatever rights you chose to MGM or whoever to produce your work. You would not own the final product (movie, television show), as I understand it, but you would retain certain rights (unless you were so desperate you sold all rights, which some people, in their desire to gain fame, have been known to do. But, if I write a movie script and convonce some studio to by my script, I can almost guarantee that there would be sigificant changes made to my script, and that no studio in its right mind would buy it if I insisted that it be filmed precisely as I had written it. That is why people form production companies[:D]. Good luck if you can come up with the money[;)]

But that doesn't work for television. I can come up with a great idea for a television show about online communities, pitch it to some network and get them to buy my idea--but *they* will hire a team of writers for the scripts (and I may or may not be included in that team), the actors and the production people. I may offer the idea that I think the role of Fritz should be played by Sean Connery, but chances are they will just ignore me on that[:D]. And the actor playing Rufas will not get any part of the rights, though he will benefit from his work and possibly residuals if the show ends up on TVLand or some other syndication venue. The director will not own the rights. The cameramen and technicians will not own the rights, The studio who pulls it all together will own the rights. So, years from now when your grandchildren want to see the tv show about grandpa's exploits from the old tv show, unless Viacom or whoever bought the thing thinks it is a good idea, you have no recourse. I will have no recourse (excpet that I will have kept every episode on some medium that is obsolete and while I have it I can't watch it[8|]).



Qtman -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 2:54:15 PM)

I wish I could give a moderator stars.



Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 3:35:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000


Reality check: copyright holder usually does not equal partner in the creative process. Copyright holders are simply companies with big pockets in most cases.



This surprises me. Authors, software writers, and even songwriters generally own the copyright to their own material. All they have to do is file a copyright copy with the US archives. They even have some amount of time to file it, but they have to mark every copy they release with a copyright notice.

Are you saying that performers are forced by some kind of negotiating strong arm tactics to sign over their rights to a record label in order to get produced? I would think that it's easier than ever to produce your own CD, and even make copies for sale.

Now, reaching the marketplace, that's another story. That's difficult for authors, software writers, and songwriters.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 3:56:24 PM)

Strider--

Songs, books and software are differnet than movies, tv shows and recordings.

If you write a movie, you copyright your script, but that is not a copyright on the movie, which is an entirely differnet animal and produced by someone else's work (other writers, directors, actors, costumers, set designers, etc.).

But, speaking of software--specifically games--I had a friend who had a small company with two other friends. They produced games (and would sometimes hire other friends to do the voice work for the games--at a set fee.)

They were delighted when a large and well-known studio wanted to buy their company. They thought they would all be moving to Hollywood and become rich and famous. Instead, they were given a fine sum of money, and their games were pretty much throm in the trash while the studio re-released their own version of the same. But they had sold all rights to everything the company had produced, no one forced them into it (and several people tried to talk them out of it.)

Similar things have happened with computer programs.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:06:39 PM)

quote:

Are you saying that performers are forced by some kind of negotiating strong arm tactics to sign over their rights to a record label in order to get produced? I would think that it's easier than ever to produce your own CD, and even make copies for sale.


I wouldn't say strongarm, but the record labels have the upper hand. And thats OK, not preferable but it is what it is. I just don't see the copyright law as generally designed for protecting writers, painters and musicians and when somebody attempts to frame the issue that way I'll come against it.

quote:

This surprises me. Authors, software writers, and even songwriters generally own the copyright to their own material. All they have to do is file a copyright copy with the US archives. They even have some amount of time to file it, but they have to mark every copy they release with a copyright notice.


I might have painted with too broad a brush there truth be told. I was basing it on the amount of product record labels produce with little or no input or even approval from the artist as well as TV shows where the writers and actors are employed by the studio and so have no control of the product.

quote:

They don't have to. They are under no moral or legal obligation to explain why they choose to do something or not do somethiing with a property they own.


Legally I have no choice but to agree. But morally? You really think its OK to not even have enough respect to the people who worked on the show as actors, writers, extras etc. to not even explain why it won't be on DVD. If you worked on a show and put your heart and soul into it you wouldn't be a bit miffed if the corporation that owns the rights just sat on it? Wouldn't you feel better if the company was decent enough to contact you and explain why they decided it won't be coming on DVD or whatever new medium comes up? Seems to me to be the decent thing to do and thats all I meant when I said they have a moral obligation to respect the people who worked for them.

Nice post PS103. I understand it but it just proves my point. Copyright laws are in place to protect big corporate studios and not the "little guy" who creates something. Every new poster comes along and says copyright laws protect the little guy but no one has stepped up to show why it does. It just as often hurts the less famous artists.

When you sell the rights its a choice you make, the price some choose to pay for fame. The big companies are well within their rights to choose to not market something and the law is on their side. And usually not on the side of the not so famous painter, writer or musician.



Qtman -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:11:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

Are you saying that performers are forced by some kind of negotiating strong arm tactics to sign over their rights to a record label in order to get produced? I would think that it's easier than ever to produce your own CD, and even make copies for sale.


I wouldn't say strongarm, but the record labels have the upper hand. And thats OK, not preferable but it is what it is. I just don't see the copyright law as generally designed for protecting writers, painters and musicians and when somebody attempts to frame the issue that way I'll come against it.

quote:

This surprises me. Authors, software writers, and even songwriters generally own the copyright to their own material. All they have to do is file a copyright copy with the US archives. They even have some amount of time to file it, but they have to mark every copy they release with a copyright notice.


I might have painted with too broad a brush there truth be told. I was basing it on the amount of product record labels produce with little or no input or even approval from the artist as well as TV shows where the writers and actors are employed by the studio and so have no control of the product.

quote:

They don't have to. They are under no moral or legal obligation to explain why they choose to do something or not do somethiing with a property they own.


Legally I have no choice but to agree. But morally? You really think its OK to not even have enough respect to the people who worked on the show as actors, writers, extras etc. to not even explain why it won't be on DVD. If you worked on a show and put your heart and soul into it you wouldn't be a bit miffed if the corporation that owns the rights just sat on it? Wouldn't you feel better if the company was decent enough to contact you and explain why they decided it won't be coming on DVD or whatever new medium comes up? Seems to me to be the decent thing to do and thats all I meant when I said they have a moral obligation to respect the people who worked for them.

Nice post PS103. I understand it but it just proves my point. Copyright laws are in place to protect big corporate studios and not the "little guy" who creates something. Every new poster comes along and says copyright laws protect the little guy but no one has stepped up to show why it does. It just as often hurts the less famous artists.
When you sell the rights its a choice you make, the price some choose to pay for fame. The big companies are well within their rights to choose to not market something and the law is on their side. And usually not on the side of the not so famous painter, writer or musician.


The copyright laws offer the same level of protection to the little guy as they do the big corporations. However there is no copyright law that will protect someone from themselves. If they do not sell their products to the big corps. or the right to production then they are protected under the copyright law.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:12:24 PM)

quote:

Songs, books and software are differnet than movies, tv shows and recordings.

If you write a movie, you copyright your script, but that is not a copyright on the movie, which is an entirely differnet animal and produced by someone else's work (other writers, directors, actors, costumers, set designers, etc.).

But, speaking of software--specifically games--I had a friend who had a small company with two other friends. They produced games (and would sometimes hire other friends to do the voice work for the games--at a set fee.)

They were delighted when a large and well-known studio wanted to buy their company. They thought they would all be moving to Hollywood and become rich and famous. Instead, they were given a fine sum of money, and their games were pretty much throm in the trash while the studio re-released their own version of the same. But they had sold all rights to everything the company had produced, no one forced them into it (and several people tried to talk them out of it.)

Similar things have happened with computer programs.


Thanks, I learned something there.

If you'll indulge my curiousity (and really thats what it is):

Were the changes made to cut costs or to improve the product or both? Were the changes dramatic? Did your friend think the final product was good? Beyond the fact that his / her idea was changed?

I promise I won't use your response to start a rant on "big evil media companies". [:)]



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:19:01 PM)

quote:

The copyright laws offer the same level of protection to the little guy as they do the big corporations. However there is no copyright law that will protect someone from themselves. If they do not sell their products to the big corps. or the right to production then they are protected under the copyright law.


I concede the point. I still think copyright laws were made because big media companies lobbied to DC and got their way but they do offer the same protection to the little guy. There just seems there should be a better way to get your creations out there without having to take the (usually fairly bad) deal the big guys will give you. To be fair, those big guys are taking big risks so they need to protect their investment and maximize their return because I'm sure they lose the money often; the idea just doesn't catch on.



tafkam -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:22:24 PM)

No, I don't believe they are under any moral obligation to explain ANYTHING. They either want to release it or they don't. Nothing personal, just business.....

Would it be nice if they did? Sure, but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to share the same conviction.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:46:12 PM)

quote:

No, I don't believe they are under any moral obligation to explain ANYTHING. They either want to release it or they don't. Nothing personal, just business.....

Would it be nice if they did? Sure, but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to share the same conviction.


Guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Treat others the way you want to be treated, I don't see where corporations are exempt from that.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 4:50:14 PM)

Hey, Rufas--long time, so see[:D]

Sam pretty much said what I was about to say about "little guys." Copyright laws are copyright laws--they do not discrminate in who they protect, and they protect the owners of the copyrights.

If you write the most brilliant book imaginable about Hoovervilles, it is copyrighted (technically) the minute you type it into Word. To protect yourself to the fullest extent of the copyright law, it is advisable to pay to have the copyright registered, but there are ways to still prove that it is your work that will hold up in court when I steal it and try to publish it myself.

Now, if you decide to publish it, you would most likely be wise to sell only the first North American rights, or something like that to the pubishing company. Or, if you divide it up and get it published in pieces in Great Depression! magazine, you could sell first serial rights. The rights you would have sold would be for the specific use intended, and unless you agreed and sold further rights, the publisher would only have rights to their part of the work, and you would retain the rest.

If I write a song and record it, I would most likely retain the rights to the song itself, but when I record it, (unless I do it all myself) the recording studio would put a great deal of production work into the CD--it is not going to just be me and my penny whistle. So when you come along and want to record it, you are most likely going to have to deal with me about it--unless I did something like the aforementioned Beatles and do not retain the rights for myself.

See, there are different levels of rights, all of which can be negotiated, bought and sold.

The song Happy Birthday is copyrighted, btw. Now I doubt that the owners would howl too much if you sang it to your seven-year-old on the appointed day, but if you use it in a movie, record it, or sing it from outer space and broadcast it over the airwaves, you will need to get permission from the owners.

For the most part, I would say those who sell copyrights are adequately compensated. I have no proof--just a strong suspicion. If I refuse to sell *any* rights, no company in its right mind would deal with me. Artistic temperments are notoriously unstable (and I have one, so I am not insulting anyone here) and dealing with a steady stream of primadonnas who are firm in their conviction that everything they do is golden...well, ya gotta have someone who knows what the public actually will pay for[;)]. (Suddenly Yoko Ono's screeching Whhhhy on the back of an old 45 flashed into my brain[&:])

Anyway--with regard to the large company that bought out the small one: it wasn't so much a matter of the large company's product being "better," it was more that they were, in effect competing with the studio and buying them out put an end to that. I know you think that proves your point about the "little guy," but it was more about their wanting to be rich and famous. They had a good gig going, and they would have done just fine to stay as they were, but they thought they got the golden ticket. They got lots of money, though--just no big mansion in Hollywood and the guard at the studio greeting them by name every morning[;)]



Qtman -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 5:03:34 PM)

A brief history lesson. The modern Copyright Laws was birthed in Great Britain in 1662. In the Eighteen Hundreds most soveriegn Nations sign on to one set of copy right laws. It was not until 1989 that the US signed on to the same set of Copyright laws. So considering their age I have serious doubt about the influence of the Big Corporations.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI