Copyright Infringement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 02:58 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:56 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I agree technology seems a good place to find solutions, but we should also be careful not to fall in the usual places of DPI and other intrusive mechanisms.

Sorry, but what's DPI?

Deep packet inspection. Awfully simply put, it checks the content of the information packet you send or receive from the computer, violating your privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:03 PM)Escape Artist Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I bought the latest Star Trek movie because it was awesome. Its okay for me to lend it to a friend, as long as neither of us copy it... Right?

And then another friend wants to borrow it. And you know, maybe all my friends want to borrow it. Maybe I have thousands of friends... Does it ever become immoral or illegal?

That's a good point you bring up and that's sort of a gray area for me. I see nothing wrong with letting someone borrow it, so long as (like you said) no one is copying it. But also, as you said, you could have thousands of friends and if they only watch it once and never watch it again, never go out and buy the DVD for repeated viewing at home, that's money that didn't go to the folks who created it, and I'm always going to be more sympathetic to the people who made the movie than the consumer, because I feel like we're similar in that we're both in the entertainment business and I want to see them compensated for their work just like I'd want to be compensated for mine.

Libraries kind of bother me for the same reason. It's great that there's a way for those who are economically challenged to enjoy literature in that way, but I think if you can afford to buy your books, you should. Same for movies. Or any form of entertainment. It seems that people put creative things into a different category, assign them a lesser value than other things, and that bothers me.
You kinda lost me. Just because I can afford to buy a book I shouldn't go to the library? Even if I was a billionaire? Libraries are for everyone regardless of your financial standing and should not be limited.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:58 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Sorry, but what's DPI?

Deep packet inspection. Awfully simply put, it checks the content of the information packet you send or receive from the computer, violating your privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

Thats why they've already made quantum security on communications illegal in the states, right? Cause they wouldn't be able to see what you're sending or recieving without you knowing or it affecting the information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:58 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Sorry, but what's DPI?

Deep packet inspection. Awfully simply put, it checks the content of the information packet you send or receive from the computer, violating your privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

Thanks.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2013 03:23 PM by nach_in.)
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:11 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:09 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Deep packet inspection. Awfully simply put, it checks the content of the information packet you send or receive from the computer, violating your privacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

Thats why they've already made quantum security on communications illegal in the states, right? Cause they wouldn't be able to see what you're sending or recieving without you knowing or it affecting the information.

I have no idea about that, it sounds likely though, I'll check it out

EDIT: after a quick search, there are two interpretations about it, so I'm not sure. Privacy is quickly becoming a really hot topic in the US :/

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:07 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:53 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You're quite the apologist. Can we argue reality?

I was asking a legit question. You provided an answer, so I was just hoping you would explain why. Explain it as you would to a borderline sociopath who has trouble seeing where the line is drawn.

But I just don't want to. I see your point, but we'll argue ourselves blue in the balls if we go down that road.

If you were a sociopath wanting to steal my shit, I'd punch you in the throat. Tongue

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
10-10-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(09-10-2013 03:11 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  You kinda lost me. Just because I can afford to buy a book I shouldn't go to the library? Even if I was a billionaire? Libraries are for everyone regardless of your financial standing and should not be limited.

Lest you think I bowed out of the discussion (I didn't - just had to go and pick up my youngest offspring from after-school care and plus I needed more time to think this matter over), I'm back.

You asked, "So you're saying I shouldn't go to the library at all?" and here's my answer. A long-winded one, but here it is, and there are three main points I'd like to touch on, which are: reader habits, the valuation of books, and money:

Reader Habits
If every reader read each book more than once, I'd have no qualms with the library system.

I will say (just to get this out of the way) that I am by no means intimate with the behind-the-scenes workings of a library. I understand (simply by observation of a library I used to frequent) that libraries have books donated to them by individuals in the community as well as somehow get new books on their own (I don't know whether the government allocates a certain amount of funding for libraries to attain new hot-off-the-press books or whether they somehow have to get those funds on their own, but still - doubtless since you do work at a library, Grizzly, you are much more familiar with these things).

So back to reader's habits and how they affect my view on this issue. There are two schools of reader: one who reads a book, loves it to pieces, and thus will come back multiple times in their life and re-read it and those who, no matter how much they love and adore a book upon first reading, will never touch it again. It is those in the latter category that make me feel uncomfortable about the borrowing of books in any fashion. In fact, I am in the latter category.

Frequently, I will name Orwell's 1984 as my favorite book ever. But the thing is, I read it back in high school. Borrowed it from the library, loved the fuck out of it, got weird looks from my peers for actually enjoying a classic work, and then returned it and have never read it again. Never. Put aside for a second the fact that Orwell is dead and therefore not receiving any proceeds from that classic work (though I'm sure it's entirely possible that posterity is still profiting from his talent - I am not super-knowledgeable in this area either, as I'm not myself published yet and do not know the inner workings of the publishing world), this is a man whose work I deeply appreciated and still do and yet I never purchased the book. Several times I've seen it in the bookstore and wanted to purchase it to show my appreciation, even though I know I'd never read it again. That's just how I feel about it.

So yeah, it's folks like me that make me not too keen on any kind of borrowing of books. If you're the type of reader who reads favorite books many, many times over, then I see no problem with borrowing a book, loving it, then purchasing a copy of your own. So long as the author is shown appreciation for his work via a sale, it doesn't bother me. If you're still that kind of reader and happen to borrow a book that quite frankly sucks, then the author didn't deliver and therefore does not deserve your hard-earned money. If you'd bought the book the first time out, you would - I think - return it for a refund, so it's the same deal in my mind. Either way, the author didn't get paid because you didn't enjoy it. But if you did enjoy the book, and then do not go on to purchase it, that's where I have a problem.

The Valuation of Books
If books were sold according to the value their respective authors put on them, then they'd cost a fuck of a lot more than they do. From concept to the final editing pass, a novel of average length can take anywhere from a few months to a few years to bring to completion. There are mitigating factors at work, of course - the author's productivity level and whether or not writing is their full-time occupation, just to name a couple - but regardless, writing a book is anything but a walk in the park.

Yes, it is very enjoyable (some writers claim not to enjoy the process but this one does, very much so) but it is also a lot of work. There is research involved, there is the feeding of your imagination so that you'll have a well of inspiration to pull from, there is the sheer amount of time involved, there is the purchase of a computer and software (or equivalent writing equipment, if you prefer to write longhand) but the point is that, if one were to put that much time and effort into any "regular" job, how much would they expect to be paid? More than $7.99 (what seems to me to be the average cost of an e-book these days), I guarantee it. So, if an author were to, say, value the sum of their efforts at a price of - just to be crazy here - $5,000 and sold just one copy, there'd be no problem. He's gotten out of it what he feels it was worth, and so subsequent copies could be free of charge.

But the author of a work is going to be inherently biased toward his creation and therefore he cannot, imo, objectively valuate it. This is the audience's job, and while the writer IS the first to view his work, the first audience, the "alpha" reader, it is still his baby, and therefore he will deem it worth very much more than probably anyone else would. Pertinent questions as to how much a work is worth seem to me to be:

Does it entertain?
Does the artist, as my username hints at, provide an escape for his reader?
Does the work shed light on some aspect of the human condition?
In short, does it deliver?


Only the audience can determine this. If it's of high value, it will - in the best possible scenario - sell lots of copies and thus reward the author justly. In a more unfortunate scenario, someone will purchase the book, love it to pieces and let everyone and their dog borrow it and worse yet, none of that person's friends will be inclined to read a book more than once, no matter how much they love it.

In the latter scenario, the author loses out. The audience deemed his work worthy enough to spread to others like wildfire, but not worthy enough to reward his efforts monetarily. I don't know why this is. Clearly people have a need to be entertained. Once our basic needs are met and we are not concerning ourselves with food and shelter, other desires and needs come into play. Authors, filmmakers, and the like are very much willing and able to provide for these needs, but yes, they would ideally like to be compensated for them (usually so they can pursue these things exclusively, rather than do them only in whatever spare time they have after working a full-time job) and it seems to me that many a consumer is not willing to pay for it.

Is it that the arts are deemed less worthy? Are not deemed as work at all? If the latter is your (in a general sense of the word "you") stance, I challenge you to look at any "making of" section on a DVD and see just how much goes into that 1 1/2 hour film. If the former is how you feel, that these people are just "making money playing pretend" and you find that unworthy of your money, then by all means, pen your own novel, or make your own movie. Don't dismiss the hard work of the many, many people it takes to get a film into the theaters or a book onto the shelves and just steal it.

Money
It seems to me that money is also of importance.

I think we've all thought, at one time or another, "Don't they have enough money?" and "Couldn't they just give it away at this point? They've made their millions." I know I have, but the question is, at what point has the author (or filmmaker, or whoever it may be) been sufficiently compensated for his labors? Should we say that once he has earned X number of dollars that any further enjoyment of this particular work of his should be free of charge? A cap of sorts on how much one can gain from any particular creation? Who would determine such a thing?

I actually do like the idea of there being a limit as to how much could be earned on any one particular work. I don't know how it would be kept track of, but let's say, after X number of sales or X amount of dollars earned, a book would be free to the public. No publisher would print a book for free, that much is obvious (it costs money to print them and they'd have to recoup those expenses) but maybe e-books could be downloaded freely. That would probably piss off the folks who spent money on the books, which is another can of worms, but still. The nebulous idea of there being a cap does seem fair.

...

Anyway, those are the three main things that came to my mind this morning as I thought more about the whole thing. The parts that seem, at least for me, important in reaching a decision as to what's right and what's not in regards to obtaining music, literature, or movies for free.

For now, as I'm not entirely settled on where I stand in regards to this issue, I tend to err on the side of caution: if I want a book (or movie or album), I'll do my best to purchase it brand-new (not used), and if I can't afford to buy it brand-new, then it's just a matter of how badly I want the book as to whether I'd borrow it from the library or get a used copy from Hastings or similar stores; ideally, if I could not buy the book brand-new and therefore contribute to the author's income by doing so, I'd just hold off on buying it; in reality, this does not always happen. I am, alas, not perfect.

Feel free to pick apart my "arguments" as I know logical thinking and reasoning are hardly my strong suit and I'm almost certain that someone will find my way of thinking about this highly laughable. But I am actually having fun mulling all this stuff over. It's one of those things I've thought about in passing many a time, but never got back around to really hashing out and it's something I've always meant to get back to.

Consider Perhaps the most shocking thing to come out of this thread is that yes, Danielle (aka Escape Artist, EA, "that chick that's always cracking pervy jokes or talking about her inner kink-beast") does think about more than just sex. Not much more, mind you, but more nonetheless. Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Escape Artist's post
10-10-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(08-10-2013 03:49 PM)Ferdinand Wrote:  So today, my ISP (I receive my internet through a cable company) caught me illegally downloading music. I'll admit I've done so for years, probably since I started high school (basic programs, popular websites, no precautions, no cares) but didn't think I'd ever get caught by my provider. This weekend I went on a spree and figured I was slowing down the network or something, which caused them to go and look at what I was doing. But when called, I was told my ISP received a written complaint or something.

Oops. Unsure

I received my first of four warnings.

I won't say much about what I do at my job... but I will say that this happens more than you think. Many ISPs ignore them. Others take action. There are very few ways you can do it anymore without your ip being logged. If there is enough data, they send it to the ISP and they send the complaint to you. Most ISPs have a 3 strikes you're out type policy (meaning, you're told that you need to cancel your service and not to come back).

Some, on the other hand, will send a lawyer nastygram which asks for payment in damages. Not always, but sometimes. In this case they ask for the person caught to pay $50 or something for a song or threaten to sue them. Doesn't happen all the time, but it happens. Movies and video games are taken more seriously. Although technically, without a subpoena, it's more of a threat than anything, but they can take it a step further if they really want to. The RIAA has shown that in the past to be true.

While rarely it's really taken that far, it is taken as far as to cancel service with an ISP if you're caught enough times. I can't download stuff since if I get caught in the job I have, I get fired, no questions asked, looks bad on the company. I can tell you that on a weekly basis I see probably hundreds of complaints.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
Open question.
My situation means I have 0 money for music, movies and games.
So the question, what if the person wasn't going to buy it in the first place?
Stealing is often seen as taking something from someone, but how can I take something they never had?

What I mean is that pirating is stealing money off the companies. You don't pay them, so they never receive your money for their goods.
So what you're stealing is your money (that sounds weird but hopefully you get what I'm saying).
BUT if you never would have given them your money in the first place how can I steal it off them?
It's not even like I'm stealing the product, it's a copy of the product. I use my bandwidth to download it, I use my mb's to store it on my computer, I download it off someone else's computer.
What I'm saying is, I'm not taking anything from the company, so how can it be stealing?

Think of it like if you watch a dvd with a friend. Your friend didn't pay for that dvd, is he stealing?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Copyright Infringement
(10-10-2013 10:30 AM)Escape Artist Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:11 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  You kinda lost me. Just because I can afford to buy a book I shouldn't go to the library? Even if I was a billionaire? Libraries are for everyone regardless of your financial standing and should not be limited.

Lest you think I bowed out of the discussion (I didn't - just had to go and pick up my youngest offspring from after-school care and plus I needed more time to think this matter over), I'm back.

You asked, "So you're saying I shouldn't go to the library at all?" and here's my answer. A long-winded one, but here it is, and there are three main points I'd like to touch on, which are: reader habits, the valuation of books, and money:

Reader Habits
If every reader read each book more than once, I'd have no qualms with the library system.

I will say (just to get this out of the way) that I am by no means intimate with the behind-the-scenes workings of a library. I understand (simply by observation of a library I used to frequent) that libraries have books donated to them by individuals in the community as well as somehow get new books on their own (I don't know whether the government allocates a certain amount of funding for libraries to attain new hot-off-the-press books or whether they somehow have to get those funds on their own, but still - doubtless since you do work at a library, Grizzly, you are much more familiar with these things).

So back to reader's habits and how they affect my view on this issue. There are two schools of reader: one who reads a book, loves it to pieces, and thus will come back multiple times in their life and re-read it and those who, no matter how much they love and adore a book upon first reading, will never touch it again. It is those in the latter category that make me feel uncomfortable about the borrowing of books in any fashion. In fact, I am in the latter category.

Frequently, I will name Orwell's 1984 as my favorite book ever. But the thing is, I read it back in high school. Borrowed it from the library, loved the fuck out of it, got weird looks from my peers for actually enjoying a classic work, and then returned it and have never read it again. Never. Put aside for a second the fact that Orwell is dead and therefore not receiving any proceeds from that classic work (though I'm sure it's entirely possible that posterity is still profiting from his talent - I am not super-knowledgeable in this area either, as I'm not myself published yet and do not know the inner workings of the publishing world), this is a man whose work I deeply appreciated and still do and yet I never purchased the book. Several times I've seen it in the bookstore and wanted to purchase it to show my appreciation, even though I know I'd never read it again. That's just how I feel about it.

So yeah, it's folks like me that make me not too keen on any kind of borrowing of books. If you're the type of reader who reads favorite books many, many times over, then I see no problem with borrowing a book, loving it, then purchasing a copy of your own. So long as the author is shown appreciation for his work via a sale, it doesn't bother me. If you're still that kind of reader and happen to borrow a book that quite frankly sucks, then the author didn't deliver and therefore does not deserve your hard-earned money. If you'd bought the book the first time out, you would - I think - return it for a refund, so it's the same deal in my mind. Either way, the author didn't get paid because you didn't enjoy it. But if you did enjoy the book, and then do not go on to purchase it, that's where I have a problem.

The Valuation of Books
If books were sold according to the value their respective authors put on them, then they'd cost a fuck of a lot more than they do. From concept to the final editing pass, a novel of average length can take anywhere from a few months to a few years to bring to completion. There are mitigating factors at work, of course - the author's productivity level and whether or not writing is their full-time occupation, just to name a couple - but regardless, writing a book is anything but a walk in the park.

Yes, it is very enjoyable (some writers claim not to enjoy the process but this one does, very much so) but it is also a lot of work. There is research involved, there is the feeding of your imagination so that you'll have a well of inspiration to pull from, there is the sheer amount of time involved, there is the purchase of a computer and software (or equivalent writing equipment, if you prefer to write longhand) but the point is that, if one were to put that much time and effort into any "regular" job, how much would they expect to be paid? More than $7.99 (what seems to me to be the average cost of an e-book these days), I guarantee it. So, if an author were to, say, value the sum of their efforts at a price of - just to be crazy here - $5,000 and sold just one copy, there'd be no problem. He's gotten out of it what he feels it was worth, and so subsequent copies could be free of charge.

But the author of a work is going to be inherently biased toward his creation and therefore he cannot, imo, objectively valuate it. This is the audience's job, and while the writer IS the first to view his work, the first audience, the "alpha" reader, it is still his baby, and therefore he will deem it worth very much more than probably anyone else would. Pertinent questions as to how much a work is worth seem to me to be:

Does it entertain?
Does the artist, as my username hints at, provide an escape for his reader?
Does the work shed light on some aspect of the human condition?
In short, does it deliver?


Only the audience can determine this. If it's of high value, it will - in the best possible scenario - sell lots of copies and thus reward the author justly. In a more unfortunate scenario, someone will purchase the book, love it to pieces and let everyone and their dog borrow it and worse yet, none of that person's friends will be inclined to read a book more than once, no matter how much they love it.

In the latter scenario, the author loses out. The audience deemed his work worthy enough to spread to others like wildfire, but not worthy enough to reward his efforts monetarily. I don't know why this is. Clearly people have a need to be entertained. Once our basic needs are met and we are not concerning ourselves with food and shelter, other desires and needs come into play. Authors, filmmakers, and the like are very much willing and able to provide for these needs, but yes, they would ideally like to be compensated for them (usually so they can pursue these things exclusively, rather than do them only in whatever spare time they have after working a full-time job) and it seems to me that many a consumer is not willing to pay for it.

Is it that the arts are deemed less worthy? Are not deemed as work at all? If the latter is your (in a general sense of the word "you") stance, I challenge you to look at any "making of" section on a DVD and see just how much goes into that 1 1/2 hour film. If the former is how you feel, that these people are just "making money playing pretend" and you find that unworthy of your money, then by all means, pen your own novel, or make your own movie. Don't dismiss the hard work of the many, many people it takes to get a film into the theaters or a book onto the shelves and just steal it.

Money
It seems to me that money is also of importance.

I think we've all thought, at one time or another, "Don't they have enough money?" and "Couldn't they just give it away at this point? They've made their millions." I know I have, but the question is, at what point has the author (or filmmaker, or whoever it may be) been sufficiently compensated for his labors? Should we say that once he has earned X number of dollars that any further enjoyment of this particular work of his should be free of charge? A cap of sorts on how much one can gain from any particular creation? Who would determine such a thing?

I actually do like the idea of there being a limit as to how much could be earned on any one particular work. I don't know how it would be kept track of, but let's say, after X number of sales or X amount of dollars earned, a book would be free to the public. No publisher would print a book for free, that much is obvious (it costs money to print them and they'd have to recoup those expenses) but maybe e-books could be downloaded freely. That would probably piss off the folks who spent money on the books, which is another can of worms, but still. The nebulous idea of there being a cap does seem fair.

...

Anyway, those are the three main things that came to my mind this morning as I thought more about the whole thing. The parts that seem, at least for me, important in reaching a decision as to what's right and what's not in regards to obtaining music, literature, or movies for free.

For now, as I'm not entirely settled on where I stand in regards to this issue, I tend to err on the side of caution: if I want a book (or movie or album), I'll do my best to purchase it brand-new (not used), and if I can't afford to buy it brand-new, then it's just a matter of how badly I want the book as to whether I'd borrow it from the library or get a used copy from Hastings or similar stores; ideally, if I could not buy the book brand-new and therefore contribute to the author's income by doing so, I'd just hold off on buying it; in reality, this does not always happen. I am, alas, not perfect.

Feel free to pick apart my "arguments" as I know logical thinking and reasoning are hardly my strong suit and I'm almost certain that someone will find my way of thinking about this highly laughable. But I am actually having fun mulling all this stuff over. It's one of those things I've thought about in passing many a time, but never got back around to really hashing out and it's something I've always meant to get back to.

Consider Perhaps the most shocking thing to come out of this thread is that yes, Danielle (aka Escape Artist, EA, "that chick that's always cracking pervy jokes or talking about her inner kink-beast") does think about more than just sex. Not much more, mind you, but more nonetheless. Tongue

Okay..umm what? at that last line. I don't think that.
By all means, buy the books you want. I have plenty, too much infact that I have no room left. Borrowing from a library isn't stealing you do have to return it. And yes we do get donations and we also have deals with publishers and also we have a book buyer. I myself don't know all the inner workings of the library, just a lowly page (keep the whole place organized and make sure everything is placed properly when we get returns. Fuck the whole place would fall if it wasn't for us.) I will get back to you on all the finance issues later. Most libraries do give a small amount when a book is checked out. For your sake I hope you don't want to see libraries end, damn I would go ballisticTongue
Since you asked I am the type that reads a book, loves it then puts it back on the shelf. Why? Fuck, I only need to read it once its how my mind works. Same thing with movies. The book is still there I remember it and the impressions I got from it. But that is to say only most of the time, I do purchase books but not lately since as I said I have no space left and have trouble parting with books. So sad;(
Most of my books are largely reference material or books for study like animation, storyboarding, children book writing, figure drawing, anatomy, all that stuff that needs to be referred back to. I even have novels as well which I never actually read more than once. As I said its just how my mind works I know that book. Thats just my case. I don't know what other people do or their reasons just to borrow a book and never buy. Do I think that artists/author are underpaid? Yes of course, but how can you put a value on something like that? Think were on agreement there. Its a mistake to think that all are motivated by money.
Have you seen the making of Paranorman? That was incredibly complex and fucking oscar worthy, but of course Brave took that one. Its pixar, happens. I understand the complexity of how an animated stop motion movie is made since I took part in making a few of my own. Awe inspired and absolutely nerve wrecking. Who the hell thinks its just playing pretend? I hate for you to assume that I don't appreciate the worksTongue
In closing people are not obligated to purchase books, they will if they want to and sometimes libraries are a gateway to that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: