If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law.com)   Judge: "You want how much from LimeWire?" Records Execs: "75 trillion dollars." Judge: "You do know that's five times the national debt, right?" Record Execs: "Potato"   (law.com) divider line 288
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

36920 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2011 at 2:30 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-22 08:46:24 PM  

Theaetetus: What if my lawn is freakin' awesome, so much so that people pay me money to lie on it?
If you make a perfect copy, you've reduced the value of my lawn.


By this logic, though, all competition is theft.

Suppose that instead of copying your awesome lawn, I acquire one by legitimate means and then let people lie on it for free. I have reduced the value of your lawn. Is that stealing?

Of course, in real life it is not theft to reduce someone else's earning potential. You're not robbing a grocery store if you grow a bushel of carrots in your back yard, and you're not robbing a book store if you open a library down the street.
 
2011-03-22 08:49:11 PM  

The Great Gazoo: It is so past time for the RIAA to just die already.


^This^

Also I seriously doubt it was the record execs arguing with the judge; that's why lawyers are always so happy. They make money regardless of the verdict.

/haha 'dict'
//dictNRTFA
 
2011-03-22 09:05:02 PM  

CygnusDarius: I want a Brazilian dollars.


What you do in your own time is nobody's business - and my name isn't "dollars".
 
2011-03-22 09:08:52 PM  
250 comments and no ???...come on guys....

technology-corner.com


whistles a happy tune.....

/*kazaa*

fftttt....

fires up turntable and produces whitelabel demo 33s acquired by use of bribery with cheap drugs to British record execs 77-79 (seriously; and yes, I sound old, but oh so much smugger with my absolutely awesome record collection on vinyl than you downloading a$$hats can ever hope to be).....
 
2011-03-22 09:38:49 PM  
I'm pretty sure real piracy on the open seas involves it's fair share of theft. Illegally sharing copies of licensed material seems like it would fall under copyright infringement to me...not theft. That is a pretty great picture heartburnkid (if you realize it's talking about pirating software).
 
2011-03-22 10:05:33 PM  
And yet these execs and these lawyers can, with a straight face, claim that those are accurate damage figures.

Amazing. And terrifying.
 
2011-03-22 10:06:54 PM  
Anybody who gets caught in the RIAA's dragnet by downloading Rebecca Black or whatever the hot new pop shiat is these days gets what they deserve.

I tend to only listen to music by dead and/or foreign artists, so I'm getting a kick...

/filestube FTW
 
2011-03-22 10:17:32 PM  

fluffy2097: If you love making music, why wouldn't you learn to record it properly yourself so you can get exactly the sound you are looking for? Getting someone to produce it just takes away large amounts of creative control.


This (new window)
 
2011-03-22 10:35:17 PM  

midigod: I would never say that I'm pro-industry, but I think you're not being fair to the record companies. Back in the day (maybe not today, but ideally), there was such a thing as artist development, and if a label believed in someone, it could take a year, two years of work for that tree to bear fruit. And some of the best artists in recording history take (took?) months or years to put together a great album. It's not because they're untalented, it's because of the way they need to put it together. Saying that it just takes a few hours is too simplistic. Even if SRV or (insert favorite artist here) only took two days to record their masterwork, that doesn't mean it can realistically be done that way for the majority of talented artists. Hell, it probably takes less time for a no-talent hack, because there's only so much they're going to be able to do. The producers and engineers have to do all the work after the painful sessions.

Perhaps instead of encouraging people to do an album in a day or two, we (and the labels) should be demanding more out of them - maybe then we'd have less crap.


As a musician who has played with several talented individuals, I have to cry bullshiat on this one. The artists are already talented before the industry will pick them up -- either as artists or studio musicians. Many serious musicians already have a whole lot of recording equipment, and pretty professional stuff to boot. They learn how to use it and get the sounds they like.

What the modern recording industry adds is marketing and distribution, plain and simple. As a consumer, you don't even have to care about music much to see what that does -- everything becomes homogenized so it will make as much money as possible for the recording industry.

The reason the album is crap is because of changes made to content to try to increase mass appeal, just like a network sitcom. Sometimes the work improves and is strengthened through some smart tweaks, but usually it falls under the weight of changes made to satisfy bean-counters.

Screw the industry, unless you own a radio station or are involved in other marketing channels (I would say MTV if they still played music), you're better off without them.
 
2011-03-22 10:44:40 PM  

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk: Anybody who gets caught in the RIAA's dragnet by downloading Rebecca Black or whatever the hot new pop shiat is these days gets what they deserve.

I tend to only listen to music by dead and/or foreign artists, so I'm getting a kick...

/filestube FTW


Wait people actually torrent that Rebecca black stuff? I think we should be able to win a class action lawsuit for the music industry inflicting it upon us.
 
2011-03-22 10:51:58 PM  

Xcott: Theaetetus: What if my lawn is freakin' awesome, so much so that people pay me money to lie on it?
If you make a perfect copy, you've reduced the value of my lawn.


By this logic, though, all competition is theft.

Suppose that instead of copying your awesome lawn, I acquire one by legitimate means and then let people lie on it for free. I have reduced the value of your lawn. Is that stealing?


Remember, the lawn is a metaphor for a specific piece of intellectual property - my song, my book, my photo, etc. If you make your own lawn, then you've created a new work of art. Hooray!

So, let's hear your new song.

Of course, in real life it is not theft to reduce someone else's earning potential. You're not robbing a grocery store if you grow a bushel of carrots in your back yard, and you're not robbing a book store if you open a library down the street.

Oh, wait, you don't have a new song. You want to legitimately purchase a single copy of my song, make ten thousand copies, and give them away... and get all incensed when I object.
Go write your own song, jackass.
 
2011-03-22 10:54:39 PM  
Every piece of music I own was a gift of -hopeful- [and possibly satirical] advertising for the artist.
 
2011-03-22 11:22:44 PM  

Theaetetus: ZAZ: My understanding of U.S. copyright law says the plaintiff can always elect at least the statutory minimum per work copied, even if the evidence proves there was only one copy made at a fair market value of $1.

Pretty much. The plaintiff can elect the statutory damages, at which point they don't have to provide any evidence of fair market value or damages. The defendant can affect the range, by providing the evidence, but yeah, the minimum is going to be $750 unless they can establish that they were innocent infringers and get to the $200 level.

In reality lawsuits where there was really only one copy made are rare. The statutory award is designed to compensate for a pattern of violations.

Yep. Similarly, that $200 level for innocent infringement has never been applied. Bringing the suit costs several thousand, so you aren't going to bother doing so unless the award outweighs that.


When this RIAA greedfest began a few years ago, they seemed to like to sue any time they could prevail. It apparently was a cynical strategy to get case law well established on their side so they could prevail in other cases. I don't often hear of such suits any more, probably since they have prevailed in a mountain of these essentially undefended cases (small users can't afford attorney fees) and have all the precedent they apparently need.

But your argument, which seems to be that citizens are safe because it's not practical for the RIAA to sue people when their attorney's fees or costs are not covered seems to be a pretty tenuous and weak protection for us to rely upon. I'd like to see reasonable laws passed to protect us instead. Otherwise, it appears the RIAA/MPAA is free to resume their outrageous agenda again, any time they see fit.
 
2011-03-23 12:18:28 AM  

Strix occidentalis: I was having a hard time visualizing this ridiculous sum.


It's as much money as two and a half times the Gross National Product of the entire world.
 
2011-03-23 12:27:05 AM  

zleviticus: pffft

/opens itunes
/searches on song
/see price of song
/opens secure FTP to hidden share in russia
/downloads song
/#bi-winning


Remember when you could open plain \\ip shares to any windows computer in the world? Man, those were the days.
 
2011-03-23 01:27:33 AM  
CleverGuy81: the only companies i can think of that would have that much money are umbrella corp and north central positronics.

RobCo.
 
2011-03-23 01:58:03 AM  

foxyshadis: Remember when you could open plain \\ip shares to any windows computer in the world? Man, those were the days.


I cried when my ISP dumped newsgroups. Of course they were getting full of spam, but some of them were still good.
 
2011-03-23 02:05:13 AM  

Xcott: Of course, in real life it is not theft to reduce someone else's earning potential. You're not robbing a grocery store if you grow a bushel of carrots in your back yard, and you're not robbing a book store if you open a library down the street.


Not to step into an argument in process or anything, but I can't find any way to make the carrot analogy make sense - you can't copy carrots, and unless you are literally stealing them from the grocery store you are entitled to any money you make after taking the effort to actually produce them. No pun intended.

As for the library, does your analogy assume that you've photocopied all the books from the bookstore to stock it or does it assume that you've obtained them legally with fact that you will be loaning them out on a short-term basis known up front?

Either way I think you can pick your own analogy apart from here without my help...

Just so you don't think I'm taking the industry's side, I think the potential damages in this case should be cause alone for all parties to step back and consider the fact that things just might have gotten a bit out of hand here before we proceed any further.

I don't think the industry is right, I just thought your analogies were crappy.
 
2011-03-23 02:53:05 AM  

Zombalupagus: Strix occidentalis: I was having a hard time visualizing this ridiculous sum.

It's as much money as two and a half times the Gross National Product of the entire world.


That... that's... yeah. These guys have no sense of practicality. And even if someone could magically procure it, just what would the RIAA *do* with that much scratch? (Obviously not curing cancer or ending world hunger.)
 
2011-03-23 05:05:05 AM  

Focusin: Judge Kimba?


That big lion is going to fark that little cute whatever-it-is cruelly in the ass, isn't it ?
 
2011-03-23 05:11:14 AM  

Strix occidentalis: Zombalupagus: Strix occidentalis: I was having a hard time visualizing this ridiculous sum.

It's as much money as two and a half times the Gross National Product of the entire world.

That... that's... yeah. These guys have no sense of practicality. And even if someone could magically procure it, just what would the RIAA *do* with that much scratch? (Obviously not curing cancer or ending world hunger.)


They could...heh heh...pay off everybody who ever had a copyright on anything, then...LOL...go out of business.

More likely they would buy Congress, then sue God for giving us ears.
 
2011-03-23 05:30:23 AM  
People still use LimeWire?


Not since December. :(
 
2011-03-23 06:58:44 AM  

Theaetetus: untaken_name: Theaetetus: If they're copying it and distributing it for free, it still means that the person who put in the hard work creating it can't charge anything for it.

Why not? Soup kitchens give away food every day, and yet restaurants are still in business.

... Okie, I'll take you in good faith and not assume you're a trolling idiot. I've volunteered in a soup kitchen. I'll pay for restaurant food any farking day of my life before I would make that sort of stupid comparison.

Similarly, the producers often offer product at higher quality than that which is found for free.

Huh, maybe you've been using different peer to peer sites than I've seen, but I don't see any that confine themselves to 32kbps or 64kbps MP3s only. In fact, most of them now offer FLAC or ALE encoded stuff.
I think you'd have a really good argument for the existence of a file sharing client that automatically resampled everything down to a really low bit rate prior to transmission. It would let people listen to full tracks and decide if they want to purchase higher quality versions.
But, of course, we're talking fantasy land here, 'cause that's not what's out there.

Additionally, were you aware that at one time in history, people were not paid for the music they produced? Yet musicians still existed.

Heh. You're funny. You think patronage didn't exist.

And they managed it without any copyright laws, too.

Actually, you'd be wrong. Copyright monopolies have existed for 500 years, and there were public performance monopolies prior to that.
And, to stay on topic, for as long as there have been recorded embodiments of musical works, there have been copyrights.

Of course, none of that music, by people like Mozart, survives to this day.

What's your point? That copyright shouldn't exist, or that it should be limited in duration? You should probably figure this out as a first step.

Furthermore, no one makes money today selling Mozart music since it is public domain. Oh, wait.

... I think it's clear from this statement that not only have you never been in the classical section of a record store, you also don't understand copyrights.

Y'know, I think I was wrong at the beginning. You are trolling. Goodbye.


did your little rant make you feel better?

/didn't think so
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-03-23 07:46:53 AM  
And yet these execs and these lawyers can, with a straight face, claim that those are accurate damage figures.

Check back on Fark next time somebody sues over a fax, email, or phone call. People here will be saying how heroic the plaintiff is for demanding $500 per trivial annoyance and how the penalty ought to be death instead.
 
2011-03-23 08:23:19 AM  

Theaetetus: Joce678: Um, the statutory damages weren't set by congress, they were paid for by the RIAA.

If you mean that the RIAA lobbied for them, yeah, and? Tell us something we don't know, Kreskin.


Yeah, that's what I meant. At no point has a normal person sat down and calculated what the real/reasonable damages are.
 
2011-03-23 09:17:10 AM  
Produce music first, than we'll talk. The shiat passing as music noways isn't worth the disc it's printed on. Sorry, you got no case.
 
2011-03-23 09:21:32 AM  

xCO2MANx: Produce music first, than we'll talk. The shiat passing as music noways isn't worth the disc it's printed on. Sorry, you got no case.


Most music today isn't even worth stealing.
 
2011-03-23 10:16:16 AM  

purple_duckk: Off topic, but Weaver, was it you so many years ago who thought he saw his step-sister nude on the internet and an epic thread ensued?


No, you're thinking of 3horn...
 
2011-03-23 10:34:50 AM  

Hypothetical Imperative: Not to step into an argument in process or anything, but I can't find any way to make the carrot analogy make sense - you can't copy carrots,


Are you kidding? Not only can you copy carrots, but left alone they will copy themselves.

I'm not making this analogy to justify copyright infringement, or to argue that infringement doesn't hurt anyone. I am instead debunking this daft notion that reducing someone else's earnings is a form of theft. There are plenty of legitimate acts that do this, including gardening, and fair competition against a company. The carrot example and library examples are not meant to be analogies to copying, or analogies to anything: they are
real examples of real acts that result in less revenue for a retailer.

This dude argued that copying is wrong because it reduces the value of his property. This is wrong on two counts: first, your song is not property, which is why you can't have someone arrested for theft or trespassing for humming it on the way to work. Second, infringement is not illegal because it reduces your property value. It's illegal simply because you are granted a temporary monopoly on your work's distribution, and someone is violating that monopoly. This is not based on any moral principle that reducing someone else's profit is somehow theft.
 
2011-03-23 10:45:48 AM  

Xcott: Hypothetical Imperative: Not to step into an argument in process or anything, but I can't find any way to make the carrot analogy make sense - you can't copy carrots,

Are you kidding? Not only can you copy carrots, but left alone they will copy themselves.

I'm not making this analogy to justify copyright infringement, or to argue that infringement doesn't hurt anyone. I am instead debunking this daft notion that reducing someone else's earnings is a form of theft. There are plenty of legitimate acts that do this, including gardening, and fair competition against a company. The carrot example and library examples are not meant to be analogies to copying, or analogies to anything: they are
real examples of real acts that result in less revenue for a retailer.

This dude argued that copying is wrong because it reduces the value of his property. This is wrong on two counts: first, your song is not property, which is why you can't have someone arrested for theft or trespassing for humming it on the way to work.


Under that naive theory, your house is not your property, because someone can't pick up the land it's on and run off with it.

Sorry, no. Property doesn't work the way you think it does... you're thinking of the subset of property known as tangible property.

Second, infringement is not illegal because it reduces your property value. It's illegal simply because you are granted a temporary monopoly on your work's distribution, and someone is violating that monopoly.

... and the penalty for that violation is compensatory damages due to the reduction in property value.

This is not based on any moral principle that reducing someone else's profit is somehow theft.

No, you're the only one making the "theft" comparison.

This is a strawman. Every single thread on copyright infringement inevitably draws a handful of people shouting about how it's not theft. You're right. It's not. 'Course, no one was calling it theft until you showed up to insist that anyone calling it theft was wrong.
 
2011-03-23 11:03:34 AM  

Theaetetus: Remember, the lawn is a metaphor for a specific piece of intellectual property - my song, my book, my photo, etc. If you make your own lawn, then you've created a new work of art. Hooray!


Yeah, hooray for me, but according to your analogy it's wrong for other people to make a new song---because this reduces the market value of your "lawn." That was the actual argument you were making, and if you translate it from lawns back into songs it sounds pretty dopey.

Basically you're pushing a bunch of fake ideas about copyright. Fake idea #1: infringement is illegal because it cuts into your profit. No, infringement is illegal because it violates a statutory monopoly granted to you by the government. People cut into your profit by legal and legitimate means all the time, and it isn't wrong to do so.

In particular, it is not infringement if I buy your CD and make a copy, instead of buying two CDs. That is widely regarded as fair use, even though I end up paying you half as much money.

Fake idea #2: infringement is illegal because it negates all the hard work someone put into their creation. Actually, it doesn't matter if you worked 10 years on your magnum opus or you just farted out a platinum album. The "sweat of the brow" doesn't make the album any more or less yours to control.

I think your use of moral arguments are conflating copyright law with natural, rather than statutory law, and conflating copyrights with property rights. It is actually impossible for congress to grant you property rights over your song: they can only grant temporary monopolies over distribution. You don't get to physically "own" a melody you compose.
 
2011-03-23 11:16:20 AM  

Xcott: Theaetetus: Remember, the lawn is a metaphor for a specific piece of intellectual property - my song, my book, my photo, etc. If you make your own lawn, then you've created a new work of art. Hooray!


Yeah, hooray for me, but according to your analogy it's wrong for other people to make a new song---because this reduces the market value of your "lawn." That was the actual argument you were making, and if you translate it from lawns back into songs it sounds pretty dopey.


No, it wasn't. I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you. Everyone else seemed to understand it.
When you make your own song, you're making a new lawn. My argument was about copying an identical lawn - e.g. copying the song. Not making your own.

Basically you're pushing a bunch of fake ideas about copyright. Fake idea #1: infringement is illegal because it cuts into your profit.

Yeah, I'm totally pushing that fake idea. You can tell I am when I say in my prior response to you that infringement isn't illegal because it cuts into your profit, but instead this is merely how damages are calculated. You could also totally tell I'm pushing that idea when I discussed trespass earlier.

Pro-tip: When someone has expressly agreed with your idea, you shouldn't go telling them they're pushing a fake idea. Since, y'know, it's the same one you're saying.

Fake idea #2: infringement is illegal because it negates all the hard work someone put into their creation. Actually, it doesn't matter if you worked 10 years on your magnum opus or you just farted out a platinum album. The "sweat of the brow" doesn't make the album any more or less yours to control.

Are you sure you're responding to my arguments, rather than the ones in your head?

I think your use of moral arguments are conflating copyright law with natural, rather than statutory law, and conflating copyrights with property rights.

And I think your belief that I'm using moral arguments is probably based on either confusion or sheer lack of reading comprehension.
 
2011-03-23 11:31:48 AM  

fluffy2097: xCO2MANx: Produce music first, than we'll talk. The shiat passing as music noways isn't worth the disc it's printed on. Sorry, you got no case.

Most music today isn't even worth stealing.


Truest statement in this thread.
 
2011-03-23 11:51:05 AM  

Theaetetus: Under that naive theory, your house is not your property, because someone can't pick up the land it's on and run off with it.

I have no idea how you derived this. My house is property because I bought it and I own it. There is nothing more to it than that.

I can't have someone arrested for reducing my house's value, say by erecting a Wal-Mart across the street. But so what? That doesn't somehow undermine my claim of property ownership.

All of these bogus arguments about hard work and reducing profits are bogus for exactly this reason: property rights have nothing to do with any of that. Property is yours because you buy it or you build it.

... and the penalty for that violation is compensatory damages due to the reduction in property value.

Complete nonsense. There is no property value, because copyrighted works are not "property" under US law. Lots of laypeople use the term "intellectual property," but copyrights are still just copyrights, temporary monopolies over distribution that are limited in scope.

These is completely different from property rights. the ownership of your house does not expire after a fixed number of years. Nobody can steal your car and then keep it by making a "fair use" defense that he's only driving it 10 miles a day for educational purposes. Likewise, you can't have anyone arrested for stealing or for trespassing on your essay.

'Course, no one was calling it theft until you showed up to insist that anyone calling it theft was wrong.

To wrongly call a song "property" is to imply as much. Ditto for your supposedly nonexistent moral argument: the mere act of conflating copyrights with property rights smuggles the morals of property ownership into the argument. We all know that it's wrong to take or destroy someone else's stuff, and by treating a sentence as "property" you implicitly invoke a moral position on copying that sentence.
 
2011-03-23 12:07:05 PM  

Xcott: Theaetetus: Under that naive theory, your house is not your property, because someone can't pick up the land it's on and run off with it.

I have no idea how you derived this. My house is property because I bought it and I own it. There is nothing more to it than that.


So, until someone sells a house, it's not property? They can build it, live it, etc., but if it hasn't been bought, then it's not property?

I can't have someone arrested for reducing my house's value, say by erecting a Wal-Mart across the street. But so what? That doesn't somehow undermine my claim of property ownership.

Look up "nuisance" as a tort action.

All of these bogus arguments about hard work and reducing profits are bogus for exactly this reason:

Is the reason that no one except you was making arguments about hard work being the determining factor about whether something was property or not?

property rights have nothing to do with any of that. Property is yours because you buy it or you build it.

No, legal title is yours because you buy it or build it. Whether something is property or not is a different determination.

... and the penalty for that violation is compensatory damages due to the reduction in property value.

Complete nonsense. There is no property value, because copyrighted works are not "property" under US law. Lots of laypeople use the term "intellectual property," but copyrights are still just copyrights, temporary monopolies over distribution that are limited in scope.


I... I just...
Wow.
You are so wrong that it would be tough to know where to start. Probably Davoll v. Brown, but maybe even Pierson v. Post.
 
2011-03-23 12:38:58 PM  
Judge Kimba Wood:

www.law.harvard.edu

I wood.

She's the one who sentenced Michael Milken (the Junk Bond King) to 10 years in the Federal Country Club. A Reagan appointee, she was Clinton's second choice for Attorney General. Unfortunately, she ALSO had problems with hiring illegals to do domestic work.

This issue reminds me of a short story written 50-60 years ago. A man lived next door to a bakery for years. One day the man received a summons to court. The bakery was suing him for enjoying the wonderful odors the bakery emitted, without paying. The man pled guilty, then took all his coins and poured them from one hat into another, then claimed he'd paid in full. His reasoning was that he enjoyed the SMELL of the bakery, so he was repaying by allowing the owner of the bakery to HEAR his money. Judge dismissed the case. That's how it works in fiction, anyway.
 
2011-03-23 05:30:29 PM  

Theaetetus: My house is property because I bought it and I own it. There is nothing more to it than that.

So, until someone sells a house, it's not property? They can build it, live it, etc., but if it hasn't been bought, then it's not property?


I think you're having trouble reading sentences at a basic level. None of those things are even remotely implied by what I said. I said that my house is my property because I bought it. This is not a universal statement about houses.


You are so wrong that it would be tough to know where to start. Probably Davoll v. Brown, but maybe even Pierson v. Post.

You are confusing the use of a phrase with its enshrinement in law. Lots of people use the phrase "intellectual property," including lawyers and judges. This does not, however, alter the constitution, or copyright laws.

This is not the only area of law in which a concept is very commonly mischaracterized. In real estate, for example, it is very common for homeowners to mistakenly refer to their mortgage lenders owning part of their house, or gradually buying their house from the bank. This is completely inaccurate---the lender does not own any fraction of your house---yet the language is so pervasive that even lawyers and economists will talk this way. Not that it matters one whit from a legal perspective.

Even if we want to get all semiotic about the word "property," It remains invalid to analogize songs to possessable items like plots of land or wallets or whatnot. The moment you compare a song to a thing that can be stolen or trespassed upon, you gain instant access to an entire library of bogus conclusions.
 
2011-03-24 03:06:50 PM  
the funny thing is how many people actually believe that the artists see all of the money from iTunes.

A band I worked for a few years back said for every ALBUM that was downloaded - this is ALBUM, not SONG - the 5 man band got 12 cents to split between them.

per ALBUM.

Woo hoo.

(had #1 and #4 hits in 2 years, was on RCA, sold over 2 mil cds... not a small band).

So don't delude yourself - you'd be better off supporting your musicians by going to the show and buying the CD directly, they'll see more money out of it. Or at least recoup their losses faster. The only thing iTunes does is pad the pockets of Apple and the record execs.
 
Displayed 38 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report