Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is an example of how Objectivism might be applicable to ordinary life. The product is commercially available, for example here -- some people sell this item for a profit. The right to make copies is presumably owned by somebody (if somebody has a legal copy of the interview, there is a copyright statement at the beginning). So somebody took a copy and illegally posted it. It's imaginable, but in my opinion unlikely, that this is a legal copy. The choice that you are faced with, then, is whether you yourself will make a free copy on the basis of your not being certain that the copy is illegal, or will you buy what you can be certain is a legal copy. It's quite possible that you would not spend the $23 to own your own legal copy, so that it comes down to deciding whether a free watch of an inspiring interview is more important than the concept of "right" under the law. What makes this more challenging is that we have a real uncertainty issue -- I am not certain that this is an illegal copy, because there might have been permission. I'm not criticizing anyone here for having watched this video without thinking of the philosophical issues, but as of this post, you can't watch those clips via that link, without being either concerned enough about these issues to make a factual determination, or being immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused as to how watching the video in the link is immoral. If the claim of immorality rests upon a violation of copyright, then there must be an act of copying, i.e. duplication of data, involved. The streaming video enables me to view the copy of the data that is stored on the server, without copying it. The person who posted it, had to make a copy to place it on the server. The copyright violation would seem to be his, not mine. A salient point is that, were he to remove his copy from the server, my ability to view it would cease - this would not be true had I copied it for myself. I therefore draw a distinction between copying and merely viewing, conclude that viewing it does not constitute an immoral violation of copyright. Now, assuming that we disagree on this conclusion, I ask, which of my premises in your judgment are not correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden,

How would you respond to me if i said that illegal downloading of mp3 music is what forced record companies to supply their music via download? That in the long run, the record companies will make more profit by providing their consumers with lower prices and easier ways to access their music, and that these higher long term profits were caused initially by illegal downloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Seeker, you seem to be saying that copyright law is not being broken by the viewer. Firstly, it is debatable whether this is true, after all you cannot see anything unless it is streamed to you. A copy is streamed to your player, even if you do not save it to your disk. So, at least from a layman's viewpoint, the fact that you're a viewer would not absolve you from the effect of the law. In this case, the law protects YouTube, so one if is on firm legal ground, it is only because YouTube is on firm legal ground; if they weren't, then you -- as a viewer -- may not be.

However, David isn't speaking of the violation of the law, but of the moral issue. The law may be right or wrong, and one has to judge how one is going to deal with it, but let's talk about the moral issue that David raised.

From a moral perspective, someone owns rights to that video and is selling it for a price. If we know that the video has been placed on YouTube against their will, then it would not be moral to view it.

Of course, we do not know this for certain, so we have the uncertainty that David mentioned. Again, legally there is a framework that says that the owner is responsible for spotting the video and for asking YouTube to take it down. so, if we were in court, we could say "we went by the law and made the legally-permissible assumption". However, morally, the question is: what is your own personal judgement , in your own mind, as to whether the owner knows about it and wants his material there. We need to ask ourselves, in our own minds, what morally-permissible assumption we want to work with.

Mind you, I can fully understand the temptation: "It's not a physical thing, so my taking it does not stop the person from selling it... I'll never buy it for $23 anyway, so they aren't losing a sale... Come to think of it, I would buy it if it were $5, so maybe I'll buy one legal video and watch 5, bringing the price to the one I'm willing to pay... Maybe I'll buy a legal copy if I like it... Maybe I'll buy a legal copy anyway, but when I have the money...Everyone does it...and so on". But, then... there's also this pesky thing about the author's moral right to do what they want with the material, even the right to fix an irrational price, and so on. Simon may be right that owners of material are behaving irrationally, but that does not mean one can steal from them to make them see the light.

David's post is notice that you need to think about these things and make a decision as to what is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a moral perspective, someone owns rights to that video and is selling it for a price. If we know that the video has been placed on YouTube against their will, then it would not be moral to view it.

Certainly there is a difference between the legal and the moral, and I am interested in the moral. One question I have is whether a copy has in fact been made, as that would be a clear violation of rights. I am inclined to say that it is not a copy of the copy on the YouTube server that is being streamed to my player, but the server's copy itself that is being read and streamed and that no copying as such has taken place by me. Without a copy having been made, streaming is analogous to viewing an unauthorized copy of someone else's, rather like borrowing a friend's illegal coursepack for a class. It may be immoral, but not because I've made a copy to keep for myself. Now, we would have to say that copyright extends not only to making unauthorized copies but also to using them, regardless of who made them, because the owner's right to compensation by each individual user has been denied. The problem I have is in seeing how a "usage" right (as distinct from a "copy" right) would not also apply to authorized copies, as with books in a library (or indeed, if the YouTube copy was legit), wherein the owner is likewise denied separate compensation by each individual that uses it. Compensation for widespread shared use is denied either way, so it is hard to see how that factor makes things any worse for the owner in the unauthorized copy case than in the authorized copy case. Which brings me back to what the actual wrong is, namely making the copy. If I haven't made a copy, so haven't morally wronged the owner, then I cannot see why it would be wrong to view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeker, I'm sure you'll concede that a copyright is simply one application of an owner's right. So, the question really is: from a moral perspective, what are the owner's rights?

Let's assume that one is not questioning moral fact of the right itself. For instance, one could make an argument as follows: ownership in things like this should reasonably be for 10 years. After that, ownership ends. Also, there may exceptions like a ex-felon owning a gun, where we say that he may not own one. All those are special situations, and I assume they're outside the context of this discussion. For this discussion, we assume that someone continues to legitimately and morally own the "thing" in the first place.

Well, the owner's moral right is to use and dispose of this property as he sees fit. Everyone else, qua moral beings, should respect that right. That is the essential from a moral perspective.

In practice, one has to delve further. For instance: how do I know the owner's intent?

Suppose someone steals a Lamborghini and you go for a ride in it, you may not be guilty of theft (and I don't know what else the law would find you guilty of), but if you know the car is stolen, you're not being moral by taking "just one ride" in it.

But... how did I know that the guy didn't want people to take his car for a ride? The law lays down standards for such presumption (or ought to); but, morally, one has to decide for oneself. This is similar to the discussion a while back about using a neighbour's wireless connection if it is not blocked. Does one assume that the owner is okay with other people using the connection, or does one assume that he doesn't want people to use it even though he left it open? The law may make one presumption, but you may make another. In one's own presumption, one must also consider everything that one knows about the issue, not just things the law might consider: e.g. is my neighbour part of the "Free Wi-Fi" alliance, or a 70 year old retired school teacher who doesn't know how to configure equipment. If the latter, perhaps I can ask politely the next time I spot him in his driveway.

So, one can argue that what YouTube is doing is perfectly legal, and the owner ought to act within the current legal framework, and therefore the author's intent is clear. I myself would make a similar argument in a host of situations, but not in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am inclined to say that it is not a copy of the copy on the YouTube server that is being streamed to my player, but the server's copy itself that is being read and streamed and that no copying as such has taken place by me.
If you analyze the concepts (and perhaps the technology), the server makes a copy of the file, and transmits it to some node between them and you, and ultimately, a copy is delivered to your network card. At that point, your CPU copies the data into your computer memory, and frequently also copies it to your hard drive. Why did that YouTube serve send this copy? Because you requested it, thereby allowing your computer to receive the copy. (I can't push a copy of a file onto your computer). "Streaming" is just a kind of copying. It is entirely different from ordinary analog playing, or viewing something. Maybe SN can comment on the technical aspects of streaming, but if you take ordinary playing of a sound file on a web page like my Saami lexicon, not only do you make a copy when you play, but it is not that difficult to keep a copy.
It may be immoral, but not because I've made a copy to keep for myself. Now, we would have to say that copyright extends not only to making unauthorized copies but also to using them, regardless of who made them, because the owner's right to compensation by each individual user has been denied. The problem I have is in seeing how a "usage" right (as distinct from a "copy" right) would not also apply to authorized copies, as with books in a library (or indeed, if the YouTube copy was legit), wherein the owner is likewise denied separate compensation by each individual that uses it.
With a library copy, only one person can use it at once, and therefore they may need to buy 10 copies to keep up with the demand. These online stolen items can be simultaneously viewed by millions of people at once. It is true that if a library were to buy one copy of a CD and lend it out, in principle they could lend it to a million people if there were fast enough turnover. But you'd have to go downtown, wait around until the thing comes back on the shelf, check it out, go home, read it, take it back, they have to reshelve it and so on. That's why libraries do actually buy many copies of popular items, and why many branches have many copies -- it would be completely impractical to have just one copy. Illegal online copies service not just the neighborhood, they basically destroy the market for the item on a worldwide basis, because one original can me multiplied into millions of copies, for almost no cost and certainly next to no royalties.

How can one copy exist on the main server, and also exist on the computers of millions of people, if it is not copied? It can't be the literally same file in millions of different locations -- it's millions of copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, then... there's also this pesky thing about the author's moral right to do what they want with the material, even the right to fix an irrational price, and so on. Simon may be right that owners of material are behaving irrationally, but that does not mean one can steal from them to make them see the light.

Well I definitely think that the Ayn Rand Bookstore is a complete joke, and is not thinking through its business decisions properly. Selling a half hour VHS tape (like we are in the 1980s or something) for $23, wtf.

If I owned the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I would upload all of the CDs, DVDs, audio tapes and VHS tapes onto a subscription only website and charge between $50 - $1000 a year (I would base the final figure on market research but would guess at this being around $199) for access to all material. If marketed and priced properly I think they could make far more profit than I speculate they are making now. Imagine the residual income from the renewed subscriptions every year!

Anyway, until they wake up, lets all dust off our VHS players and enjoy the interview for $23. What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YouTube has signed deals with several major media companies and is in the process of signing deals with others, so let's not assume that anything posted there is pirated solely by virtue of being on there. I don't want to have a copyright debate every time a YouTube link gets posted.

Furthermore, lots of things are sold that are out of copyright - such as Ayn Rand's Anthem.

If I owned the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I would upload all of the CDs, DVDs, audio tapes and VHS tapes onto a subscription only website and charge between $50 - $1000 a year (I would base the final figure on market research but would guess at this being around $199) for access to all material. If marketed and priced properly I think they could make far more profit than I speculate they are making now. Imagine the residual income from the renewed subscriptions every year!

I completely agree. I started this website because ARI's online strategy is perpetually five years behind the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you analyze the concepts (and perhaps the technology), the server makes a copy of the file, and transmits it to some node between them and you, and ultimately, a copy is delivered to your network card. At that point, your CPU copies the data into your computer memory, and frequently also copies it to your hard drive.

Yes, and what convinced me of this is the progress bar that shows file loading and the rewind/fast-forward capability of the player, which is proof that a local copy was made.

How can one copy exist on the main server, and also exist on the computers of millions of people, if it is not copied?

The best analogy I can think of is a live video telecast. Millions see it, but no one necessarily makes a copy. I see a principled distinction between a telecast that is viewed in realtime, does not create a whole copy at its destination, and does not allow re-use (as rewinding or subsequent viewing) of any sort. I would not call that a copy, but that is not the case here.

The law may make one presumption, but you may make another. ...

So, one can argue that what YouTube is doing is perfectly legal, and the owner ought to act within the current legal framework, and therefore the author's intent is clear. I myself would make a similar argument in a host of situations, but not in this one.

So far I have the evidence that a lot of what is posted on YouTube is against the owner's intent, and ARI is selling a VHS tape of this interview. I think that GreedyCapitalist's post offers a compelling case for why that is not necessarily enough to conclude contrary owner intent here.

It is very unfortunate that the best we can come up with is making our own individual determinations about what presumptions to apply in determining owner intent. As a practical matter I think we would be well-served by being able to agree upon the presumptions to be applied in cases such as this. One, it seems to me, is a presumption that public availability on YouTube generally indicates owner approval unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. YouTube removes videos at owner's request. Why should I presume that YouTube's content is immoral? I see no convincing proof of contrary owner intent and conclude that watching this YouTube video is moral.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, it seems to me, is a presumption that public availability on YouTube generally indicates owner approval unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.
I don't follow the logic here. They do nothing to actively check permissions -- they simply wash their hands of the question. There is no "posted by permission of..." notice (and permissions statements are a standard condition insisted on by rights-holders for most if not all copying), and the video is actively sold and recently licensed on VHS, so this undercuts the profits if the owner. On the contrary, I would assume that no commercial produced videos posted on YouTube are actually legal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you David. I had indeed forgotten the philosophical aspects involved, not only with this particular video, but with a few others on YouTube. Thanks for reminding me of the copyright issues. As on aside, do you think YouTube is going undergo the same lawsuits as Napster and other illegal music downloading sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As on aside, do you think YouTube is going undergo the same lawsuits as Napster and other illegal music downloading sites?
No, because the current law has good responsibility clauses. Basically, a provider like YouTube has to have and advertise a "take-down" and a "leave-up" counterclaim procedure, and they do have that. They aren't doing anything to actively encourage copyright infringement, and the law allows them to back off from actively checking rights, which would make the service impossible, otherwise. One fundamental difference, apart from the new legal protections that now exist for providers, is that Napster was basically a 100%-infringement service whereas YouToube is a largely-legal service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, then the context of commercially available videos may warrant a different presumption than the general case on YouTube, as commercial availability may be taken as evidence of copyright. But how would you answer GreedyCapitalist's point that lots of things are sold that are out of copyright? I see my choices as:

A. Commercial availability is independent of copyright, i.e. it furnishes no proof at all

B. Commercial availability is evidence of copyright to the extent of possible or probable copyright (why is this so?)

I take your position to be B (though I am not sure whether it is probable or merely possible) and that, in either case, the onus is then on me to overcome the presumption of violation with greater evidence of the owner's consent. Since YouTube doesn't provide such proof, I have to find it myself, or I can't morally view the video. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how would you answer GreedyCapitalist's point that lots of things are sold that are out of copyright?
When I indicated that I was not certain, there was a reason. The applicable law (in 1958) said that works are protected for 28 years i.e. to 1986, but can be extended by 47 years. If the copyright was renewed, it is still property, otherwise it is unowned. Anthem was not renewed, which is why it is now unowned. The VHS is a different work, and given the date of the technology, that would almost necessarily been created within the scope of the life plus 70 law. This is a fine-points issue, needing an IP attorney to give a professional opinion, but I think that the VHS version has a different copyright date.
A. Commercial availability is independent of copyright, i.e. it furnishes no proof at all

B. Commercial availability is evidence of copyright to the extent of possible or probable copyright (why is this so?)

B would be closest. Pirated copies are sold by companies, though this is very uncommon in civilized countries, so I would not focus on the availability as much, and more on the probable owner. If you limit yourself to responsible business, it's likely that the business owns the copyright or has a license -- a business which produces copies would know that it is incumbent on them to determine who has the right (but a service like YouTube is statutorily excused from that obligation).

If the copyright owner posts the video, that is sufficient evidence of permission. There are Letterman clips ("Lindsay Lohan drives to rehab") posted by CBS, so it's fair to assume that CBS gives permission to download this clip. It may be very hard to determine if that is really the case, for instance, a recent storm-worm video by FSecure seems to be posted by FSecure labs, but it's posted by a user in Finland with the username "fslabs", probably not the actual owner. Some of the videos are home videos posted by the owner (and they look it), which is fine.

Since YouTube doesn't provide such proof, I have to find it myself, or I can't morally view the video. Correct?
I think if I wanted an easy answer, I'd just say "Yes, stop it". Instead, I would approach the issue by asking myself certain questions (meaning, actively using your mind to think about the issue is, IMO, more important than happening on the right action). Is this my property, and can I do what I want with it by right? Or has the owner of the property given me permission to use it? Is it more likely in this case that the video was posted illegally by somebody ripping off a purchased copy of the interview, and taking advantage of the laxness of the internet to get away with posting an illegal copy; or is it more likely that the video was posted with permission of the owner? How important would it be to your values to care? If you reject the notion of copyright (a number of people on the forum do) then the problem lies in your concept of property and not your application of the concept to internet postings.

I want to emphasize, again, that this is a tough moral decision. Respect for copyright is rapidly disappearing, as is the feeling that a man should take responsibility for his actions and that the burden lies on him if he is going to make a claim on another person's property. It seems to be a standard assumption that if it's available on the internet, it's free and you can do anything you want with it. Changes in the law as applied to the internet over the past 10 years are, I believe, the first step towards effectively repealing copyright laws. (There's another direction which counters the internet exceptions by requiring active checking at a hardware level, which I'll disregard as the topic of another thread).

It is hard for the end user to be certain that a work that he is copying is copy-allowed, and people often the simplest route, of assuming permission unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The provider can't keep up and check permissions (it's a huge hassle, I know from having done it, because it's hard to find the right-holder). And I think most uploaders don't understand copyright -- it is commonly believed, by very intelligent people, that copyright only prohibits the unauthorized copying and mass distribution for profit of a work, without giving credit. The person who posted that stolen video may have thought it was okay, YouTube doesn't check for permissions, and the end-user has no way of determining whether they have permission from the owner. This leads to the prevailing "If it's on the Internet, it's free" logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the video is actively sold and recently licensed on VHS, so this undercuts the profits if the owner.
How do you know that in this particular case, the profits of sales of the interview are being undercut, and that the video's circulation on Youtube is not instead serving as free advertising that will increase sales of the VHS? I don't know one way or the other, but as I've heard of the latter scenario being the case for similar things, I just wonder how you know that it is as you say (i.e., is it based on actual evidence, or just an assumption).

On the contrary, I would assume that no commercial produced videos posted on YouTube are actually legal.
But that assumption would be false. There are commercially produced videos posted on YouTube that are legal, and sometimes even ones posted by the actual copyright or license holders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that in this particular case, the profits of sales of the interview are being undercut, and that the video's circulation on Youtube is not instead serving as free advertising that will increase sales of the VHS?
That's a standard counter-reply to any free posting. Given a choice of paying $23 for the video, or watching it for free, what would you do? What would most people do? I think most people would take the free copy, and would see no reason to pay money for something that they can get for free -- wouldn't that be altruism? A few people might pay the money on principle. If this were the work of some starving artist, more people might think that they should pay the money, but I don't think that many people hold that CBS deserves the $1 or so royalty that they may get from legal copies.

I know of these beliefs from observing people articulate them and act on them. (If you want to hear loud yelling, raise the subject of textbook prices in an undergraduate class). We have had people who have hosted / sold pirated materials (on Ebay) and even attempted to defend the practice. I know people who have violated my copyright because they mistakenly believe that copying two or three chapters for a class is "okay". I myself used to misunderstand the concept copyright until recently. I don't know with certainty that this results in loss of profit, because it is also imaginable that the instructors would just decide to not use any part of my book. In the same vein, if I were to make illegal copies of my favorite CD and distribute them to 100 friends, I don't know that this would result in a loss for the artist. It could well lead to a profit, since these 100 friends don't know the artist's music and would never have bought the album. However, I do know one thing for sure, that it is the sole right of the owner to decide whether to take that risk.

I have a suggestion for the proper way to give away as advertising: the rights-holder should host the online version, and interested people can then propagate the file by posting the link, not the content. That way, we can be more certain that the owner has given permission -- they are hosting the file. It's not a bullet-proof system, but it is trivially implementable and significantly better, from a moral POV, than running a dumping ground for illegally copied media.

But that assumption would be false. There are commercially produced videos posted on YouTube that are legal, and sometimes even ones posted by the actual copyright or license holders.
I mentioned the CBS contributions; now, what others do you have in mind that you know are legal? We're looking at default assumptions, not universal rules. Are you claiming that it is reasonable to assume that at least 50% of the commercially produced online content at YouTube is legal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the subject back to it's original topic:

This is the first time I've actually seen a video of her. She speaks just like she writes. Mike Wallace is more confrontational than I would expect. Am I the only one who is annoyed by the fact that she can't keep her eyes still?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect. Am I the only one who is annoyed by the fact that she can't keep her eyes still?

Yeah, me too. I think one of the potential misinterpretations of such movements is that they indicate some sort of evasiveness.

I also know that when I'm engaged in a very tough, intellectual discussion with someone (say where we're trying hard to solve a problem) that my eyes drift all over the place. I have a habit of staring past someone or staring off to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden, after reading your recent posts, recent interaction, and pondering that resulted from a live chat I had a few weeks ago, I concede that my previous conclusions regarding my moral condemnation of the viewers and posters of these clips were simplistic and erroneous. :read: That being said ...

How would you respond to me if i said that illegal downloading of mp3 music is what forced record companies to supply their music via download? That in the long run, the record companies will make more profit by providing their consumers with lower prices and easier ways to access their music, and that these higher long term profits were caused initially by illegal downloading. (emphasis mine)

You could use this same "you don't know what's best for yourself" argument for just about any kind of force. The ends don't justify the means. How would you respond if I said that I'm taking over your financial accounts whether you like it or not, that I'm a better investor, and that it will be better for you in the long run?

but the server's copy itself that is being read and streamed and that no copying as such has taken place by me. Without a copy having been made, streaming is analogous to viewing an unauthorized copy of someone else's"

The best analogy I can think of is a live video telecast."

My first thoughts were questions like "what is copying?" or "what is a copy?."

Morally, the issue is ultimately "Have I acted in accordance with the copyright owner's intended contract?" In most cases, I think answering this question (have I acted...) elimates the need to answer that what-is's. Is its reasonable to assume that the copyright owner would be okay with someone broadcasting his content over the internet?

"Streaming" is just a kind of copying. It is entirely different from ordinary analog playing, or viewing something."

I think this is overly simplistic. With the caveat that my understanding of how these devices function may not be 100% correct ... you could use this same argument to morally condemn playing DVDs via certain methods (DVD software?) or skip-protection on CD players... perhaps even playing a standard CD since the bits are "streamed" to the digital/analog converter. I don't see how this can't resolve without arbitrary standards on how much constitutes a copy (3 bytes? 2 frames?) or how temporary is temporary.

The problem I have is in seeing how a "usage" right (as distinct from a "copy" right) would not also apply to authorized copies, as with books in a library (or indeed, if the YouTube copy was legit), wherein the owner is likewise denied separate compensation by each individual that uses it."
Which brings me back to what the actual wrong is, namely making the copy. If I haven't made a copy, so haven't morally wronged the owner, then I cannot see why it would be wrong to view it.

The licensing agreement would determine what is "fair use" since, morally speaking, "fair use" is use with the owners consent. Anything else is force. As sNerd said...

the owner's moral right is to use and dispose of this property as he sees fit

As an example of such a license, when you purchase an ARI lecture, your license includes up to you and one other simultaneous listener.

Ideally, these licenses would be explicitly stated more frequently.

"so let's not assume that anything posted there is pirated solely by virtue of being on "

Let's not assume, but there is often compelling evidence.

Instead, I would approach the issue by asking myself certain questions..."
and also ...

If the copyright owner posts the video, that is sufficient evidence of permission. There are Letterman clips ("Lindsay Lohan drives to rehab") posted by CBS, so it's fair to assume that CBS gives permission to download this clip.

For starters, you can look at who posted the video and consider the content. As an extreme example ... if the clip it contains copywritten material and was posted by JoeBlow, who has also posted a grainy copy of The Godfather and the most recent episode of American Idol, then I think its reasonable to conclude that he doesn't have permission.

I have a suggestion for the proper way to give away as advertising: the rights-holder should host the online version"

This is one possibility; the obvious downside is potential cost to the advertiser when others are willing to bear it. Another would be some kind of database license and verification system. After the license expires the material no longer plays. This could potentially be searchable by users / providers as well.

Edit: Split thread?

Edited by Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...