|
| Thread: OMG You Guys Won't Believe This: Mother Owes For Illegal Downloads |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
I would like to attempt a proof.
John Rockefeller had a strategy. He built a large oil company and built up a reserve of cash. Then he started selling his oil at a loss. He sold the oil so cheap he was actually losing money on it. All his competition couldn't sell any oil because they couldn't afford to match Rockefeller's prices. Rockefeller's competition went bankrupt and he bought them all up. Successful monopoly! Then he raised the prices of oil to higher than ever before and made a fortune.
The whole country cried foul. While Rockefeller never actually stole any oil, what he did is considered to be unfair business practice. He stole customers. He took them away from his competition not because his oil company made a better product or made a cheaper product, but because he had more cash reserves.
File sharing is stealing customers. Not because haxxors have better music but because they give it away for free. This is unfair business practice that leads to monopoly.
That's not a very good proof, it just came to me off the top of my head. I'm just trying to point out that theft of customers is as bad as theft of product.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:11 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:13, 21 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that they'd be putting their intellectual property on in when selling. They'd just be selling it.
You can only sell something, at least according to the definition, that you own or have been instructed by the owner (or someone else who has been instructed by the owner, etc). Trading isn't the same thing. I mean people can even give you money for no reason at all. Does that mean you necessarily sold them something? Nope.
Quote:
In many ways, it is. But when it discourages people from being creative, then it has a negative effect.
Yeah sure it does, discourage 20th century people. I mean, telephone machines or automatic telephone operators discouraged a lot of people in becoming telephone operators too, until they vanished. Bad thing?
or some learned to adapt. Using mixed solutions. Or actually building the damn things.
Quote:
Though I view piracy as generally bad, I don't think it's something that can really be stopped, and businesses will have to adapt.
Actually stopping it would be artificial, so thus capitalism's arguments against socialism are hypocrisy and FAIL. I mean, if you say that free trade is good, and then that you want to change or stop people from sharing, then obviously you are trying to bend the rules or the people to what you want. Therefore every arguments are senseless.
Quote:
That's not a very good proof, it just came to me off the top of my head. I'm just trying to point out that theft of customers is as bad as theft of product.
That is ridiculous as it assumes that people can be "stolen" as if they are objects, or that potential "objects" can be stolen, which is even more ridiculous.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can only sell something, at least according to the definition, that you own
If you burn a CD of something, do you not own it?
Quote:
I mean, telephone machines or automatic telephone operators discouraged a lot of people in becoming telephone operators too, until they vanished. Bad thing?
Your analogy is off. Replacing humans with machines had no effect on whether the telephone system itself worked or not - because the "content" came from the callers, not from the operators. But here the content comes from the sellers.
Quote:
Actually stopping it would be artificial, so thus capitalism's arguments against socialism are hypocrisy and FAIL.
Whenever you install software, you agree to a contract that you will not distribute it. If you do, you are breaching the contract. You're free to not agree to the contract - but that just means you can't use the software.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A business has some sort of product and it doesn't matter what that product is. You can't walk into a store and steal a television then inform them that it's ok because their business model should be advertising, and the TVs should be free.
Thats breaking the law. Now lets say i went to the store and looked, then went home and made my own copy based on that TV. That would be more realistic, as an analogy.
Read this: Wikipedia Article on GPL
GPL is a license mostly used for opensource software, it aims at free software:
*run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
*study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
*redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
*improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)
This is the main point, whereas there is something called copyleft. Aka respect the author(s).
There is 2 GPL licenses:
*GPL
*LGPL
GPL = all code used directly with this, must be free software. And the software is free.
LGPL = The software is still free, but it can be used in conjuction with proprietary software.
In a socety where everything is free, well we must respect copyleft in its ways. Thats truth.
"Free Beer" and "Open Cola" is examples of "normal" products licensed under GPL.
Quote:
Regardless of how you think they should make their profit you will still get arrested for stealing the TV.
"FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!1"
-random 1337 gamer
Quote:
The lady in this article apparantly thought the same thing, that it was OK to steal things. And she suffered the consequences.
1. Do not draw random conclusion without actual logic
2. She was not stealing, she was using likely p2p to get music.
3. I highly doubt she would be charged for listening to radio, which is not that far from the actual case.
Quote:
File sharing is stealing customers. Not because haxxors have better music but because they give it away for free. This is unfair business practice that leads to monopoly.
If you want the definition of breaking the laws of competition in a marked, check out Microsofts history. There is a reason they got a ridicules amount of antitrust cases against them.
File sharing does this:
*The real pirates is still real pirates
*Must people buy music anyway
*Others go to gigantic conserts with their favorite bands and buys t-shirts and all that.
*Some people will download to se if they like it
*If they like it then they buy it
A research also shows that the "casual" pirates, buys more music and video than the ones that does not pirate at all.
>Source
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you burn a CD of something, do you not own it?
Did you make the content yourself?
*Ownership = True
Are you just disturbing them, but not your content?
*Ownership = False, but breaking the law? Subjective, very.
Are you selling of somebodys else work?
*You ARE violating the law
Quote:
Your analogy is off. Replacing humans with machines had no effect on whether the telephone system itself worked or not - because the "content" came from the callers, not from the operators. But here the content comes from the sellers.
It did have an effect, the price of calling went down and it also become alot easier to call people(no random central talks to get there).
Quote:
Whenever you install software, you agree to a contract that you will not distribute it. If you do, you are breaching the contract. You're free to not agree to the contract - but that just means you can't use the software.
What does this have to do with the topic? I want to know.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you burn a CD of something, do you not own it?
*sigh*
what is your point?
I am saying that, if I am against people using "intellectual property" as an argument, why would I not be against those which you describe: i.e people "owning" CDs (the blank CD) and then selling it for "the intellectual property in it". I am against BOTH cases because BOTH are a case of intellectual "property" being sold.
Quote:
Your analogy is off. Replacing humans with machines had no effect on whether the telephone system itself worked or not - because the "content" came from the callers, not from the operators. But here the content comes from the sellers.
No I am comparing the machines with computers or more precisely, the internet (as I don't see people were making a fuss if you copied audiotapes).
Quote:
Whenever you install software, you agree to a contract that you will not distribute it. If you do, you are breaching the contract. You're free to not agree to the contract - but that just means you can't use the software.
Contracts are subjective. Let me tell you why.
What if you crack the installation program, or extract its contents (like I do it) without ever reading the contract and/or agreeing with it (i.e pressing that button)? Does that mean I can do whatever I want with it? (I extract them because I don't like them messing around with my registry -- they don't say that in the contract either)
These laws are archaic, make no sense scientifically or quantitatively speaking, and only serve to keep us backwards.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
...or that potential "objects" can be stolen, which is even more ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It's called Opportunity Cost, it's a real economics principle, and people really get sued over Lost Opportunity in court.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
It did have an effect, the price of calling went down and it also become alot easier to call people(no random central talks to get there).
Read it again. I said it had no effect on whether the system worked or not.
Quote:
What does this have to do with the topic?
The fact that you agreed to the restriction.
Death:
Quote:
what is your point?
You said that you can only sell something that you own. If you burn a CD, do you not own it? If so, according to you, why can't you sell it?
Quote:
No I am comparing the machines with computers or more precisely, the internet (as I don't see people were making a fuss if you copied audiotapes).
The only reason they weren't making such a fuss was because the barrier to entry was a lot higher, so there wasn't quite as much of it going on. But if creativity and effort aren't rewarded, then why try?
Quote:
What if you crack the installation program
Implicit contract.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People really get sued over Lost Opportunity in court.
Is there any case where all people in an area is sued for not buying?
And what is they buy AFTER hearing the music they have pirated?
Edit: These 2 are separate, sorry for the confusion.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...or that potential "objects" can be stolen, which is even more ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. It's called Opportunity Cost, it's a real economics principle, and people really get sued over Lost Opportunity in court.
Oh I'm pretty sure it's good for analysis. Not for actual labelling people though. You know, they can just say "**** you for thinking I'm a resource!" and be done with it, unlike a static object.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said that you can only sell something that you own. If you burn a CD, do you not own it? If so, according to you, why can't you sell it?
Do i own this key?
Do i then own the object it unlocks?
I think this is a good analogy.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes there is a big difference. By downloading you do not affect others' property in a negative way.
Of course you do. If you get this song/program in a legal way, you have to pay for it. You download it illegal, therefore you do NOT pay for it. There are a bunch full of people who now miss the money you should have paid. Starting from the workers in the music shop who sell the cd's, and ending in the company who contracted the artist.
Quote:
Steal a cookie, and you deprive the owner of it.
"Download" a cookie, and the owner is just as happy as before and have his cookie.
Wrong idea again. It is NOT about stealing a cookie from someone who already had paid for it! it is about stealing a cookie out of a bakery. The idea is, there should be money running around for TWO cookies, because 2 cookies are left. In your example, there are 2 cookies left, but only money for ONE cookie in the market. That way, all kind of business would die sooner or later.
Quote:
A business out of it?
So if I invent a device that can copy food and give to starving children in Africa... I'm a criminal for making business out of others' food?
Again it seems you really don't get it uh? Of course you can invent such a thing, as long as you do NOT copy special food which has a copyright, for example a BIG MAC, or a bottle COCA-COLA. If you would do that, you would break a law (copyright), and therefor act illegal. Is that so hard to understand?
Quote:
And the law is not an argument. It would be like using the Bible as an argument. Not to mention, it's different in different countries.
What a ridiculous comment...lol. Of course law is an argument, because even if YOU do not know, there are international laws. And only because in a jungle in brazil killing your neighbor isn't against the law, you can't argue "Killing people isn't bad in general, because it is not a crime in the WHOLE world".
But exactly this is the way you argue...and not only here...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said that you can only sell something that you own.
Yes.Quote:
If you burn a CD, do you not own it? If so, according to you, why can't you sell it?
err, because I would go against my word?
Tell me something, what makes that different than a company selling the CDs?
So why would I allow people to do it when I have a bone to pick with the corporate dudes for prohibiting stuff? It means that I would go against my word!
Quote:
The only reason they weren't making such a fuss was because the barrier to entry was a lot higher, so there wasn't quite as much of it going on. But if creativity and effort aren't rewarded, then why try?
Read the video of an actual "creativity" such person.
Here again, for reference since I keep repeating the same stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtFv89M04Oc
Stars and artists whose fame derives not from talent, but from the fact that they've accumulated wealth and thereby power and control within these industries would move on to find their fortunes elsewhere, leaving only the real talented ones available.
Isn't the law supposed to be for the majority? The majority pirate (at least majority of computer users). I sense capitalism bending the rules here because the world is not how it says it is and needs to change it to suit its arguments.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course you do. If you get this song/program in a legal way, you have to pay for it. You download it illegal, therefore you do NOT pay for it. There are a bunch full of people who now miss the money you should have paid. Starting from the workers in the music shop who sell the cd's, and ending in the company who contracted the artist.
my source disagrees with you.
Its in Norwegian, i think google supports translation.
Quote:
Wrong idea again. It is NOT about stealing a cookie from someone who already had paid for it!
............... But we are not stealing it. Which again flaws this logic.
Quote:
Again it seems you really don't get it uh? Of course you can invent such a thing, as long as you do NOT copy special food which has a copyright, for example a BIG MAC, or a bottle COCA-COLA. If you would do that, you would break a law (copyright), and therefor act illegal. Is that so hard to understand?
Those are copileft secured, but they are not propitary in the software sense of the word. Cola Cola is alot harder to copy than the Big Mac, since it got a delicate ingrediens list and mixture list. Its closer to the idea of proprietary software than the Big Mac which we can copi just looking a little at it.
What if i make Cola Cola, but i do not sell it? In a way i would not be violate the copyright. If i make a copy of Cola Cola and then sells it, then I AM breaking the LAW. Because then i am breaking the copyleft.
Quote:
But exactly this is the way you argue...and not only here...
Depends on the law and subject. And what is moraly questionable.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:07, 21 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
There are a bunch full of people who now miss the money you should have paid. Starting from the workers in the music shop who sell the cd's, and ending in the company who contracted the artist.
I'm not a "potential" profit. The only profit/revenue is when I DO it, not a potential.
Quote:
Wrong idea again. It is NOT about stealing a cookie from someone who already had paid for it!
No, he baked the cookie.
Doesn't matter.
He will still have it.
Quote:
In your example, there are 2 cookies left, but only money for ONE cookie in the market. That way, all kind of business would die sooner or later.
No again wrong. Doesn't matter it's a bakery at ALL. Suppose you invented a device called "the duplicator".
Here are two scenarios:
1st: So you go in a store and see a cookie. You copy it, put it back in its place, and leave.
Please tell me how is that stealing the cookie -- I still see it in the store!
2nd: You go to a store, buy the cookie, copy it at home, and give it to people. You're a bad person for sharing them with people out with your devilish device that copied it. Ironically, most people would disagree.
Quote:
Again it seems you really don't get it uh? Of course you can invent such a thing, as long as you do NOT copy special food which has a copyright, for example a BIG MAC, or a bottle COCA-COLA. If you would do that, you would break a law (copyright), and therefor act illegal. Is that so hard to understand?
Yeah like I said, I would be criminalized for giving starving children free copied copyrighted food (let's assume that it is), while most people would see me as a hero. The law is in the interest of the majority huh?
To be honest, I'm prepared to take on the risk if I ever had such a device. I mean I might go to jail because of the arrogant and backwards society but at least I'll help more people (children) in this regard. (and doing this while NOT depriving anyone of anything -- so it's not even stealing from the rich as they still have their products/money).
It would be like a Robin Hood that, instead of stealing money from the rich to give to the poor, would copy that money. If the original Robin Hood isn't so evil, then this one is even less!
Quote:
What a ridiculous comment...lol. Of course law is an argument
Of course the Bible is an argument too...
prove yours is more worthy of consideration than debating with a religious zealot using Bible scripture to "prove" his point that X is wrong. What makes the law different? Both are written texts by humans (let's assume that the Bible is human written).
Either way, for a non religious person, none are sent by God or some higher being. Therefore how can they be arguments?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
stankelbenet
Adventuring Hero
bringer of nostalgia & darknes
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:17 PM |
|
|
 JESUS CHRIST! I've been gone for 1 day (I posted in the morning and this is late evening) and the thread grown 3 pages!.
At this rate it will pass the science vs religion thread in no time .Quote:
FOR THE LAST TIME, I CHALLENGE YOU (anti-sharing ppl) TO SHOW ME HOW THIS AND STEALING ARE THE SAME THING since obviously if both use the same word they must be.
If people were interested in understanding eachother, they would've done it a long time ago . The clues are there you just need to read them.Quote:
wow, just wow
so free food is a bad thing now? Or the ability to multiply food at will is bad? WOW!
I guess if I had superpowers to do just that I would be considered a criminal instead of a hero.
Some people make me sick. Such things would be wonders and would solve starvation forever, and you find it bad
Maybe food was a bad relation. Multiplying food(though it sounds like fairytales) would really be a good thing and I would support it. As well with free energy. The rules of conservation is just an assumption and can't be proved so why not?
On the other hand; (since consumption and especially with the mass-prefix is seen as a bad thing by many I know, I haven't used the word yet)In a system of mass consumption the purpose is to keep everybody with a work. This way everybody earns money and can consume the goods that are produced.
In case we delete the whole entertainment industry, jobs will be lost and some people can't consume anymore because they don't have the money. This will damage the other industries as well.
The rich countries are the ones with well developed consumption systems, which have eradicated poverty. A world with enough and free ressources would be utopia, but making goods free shouldn't be done step by step, because we then just would destroy the economy we've built up.
@ Baklava and Doomforge: I didn't know what kind of incomes you have, nor where you live. I can't stop you from downloading and now I won't convince you anymore. Doomforge said something about paying too much for two good songs. Then you could download itunes and buy the songs one by one instead of a full CD.
Still I believe that people living in countries with economic stability like me should buy their entertainment.
Finally Utopia: No work. All the goods we want. I don't think I would support the idea. We would get lazy and not able to act when something terrible happened. The utopia we should seek should be destroying the differences between poor and rich countries.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There we go again.
Ok, another explanation:
You guys try to make it sound bad, but you fail to give a single reason why it's bad.
Maybe because you are a bit too young to understand the principles of common business laws?
Quote:
The arguments about "it reduces the companies' profits", I think I addressed that already. I don't want to repeat this for a millionth time, I think that argument is BS, I won't repeat that over and over though. I gave enough arguments already.
So you think it is ok everybody can download Windows Vista for free? Or another example: Big football match in Poland: Legia vs Lech. Big stadium. 50,000 visitors. 1 buys a ticket and makes 49,000 copies afterwards. Why should they all pay full prize, when only 2 minutes of this game will be interesting?
Quote:
When we talk about crime, it's the accuser who must prove the guilt, not the accused the lack of it. Right now guys, you are speaking about rights, but give no logic (except the weak logic I addressed 1000 times) and no reasons WHY it's bad.
As I stated in my reply to theDeath already, it seems you are too young for the principles of business laws and all stuff which belongs to that. Ever heard of the term "patent"? If so, please explain why you think such a law exists. If you can explain it correctly, you will have your answer about illegal downloads.
Quote:
I gave examples why my behavior doesn't hurt anyone's pocket, and I don't give a flying **** about some distributor's hurt ego.
What argument is that? If you take away 1 dollar from a billionaire, it will surley NOT hurt his pocket in anyway. But it is STILL stealing. Think about your arguments a bit more doomforge, because you are still on the "what no one knows/hears is not bad" trip.
Quote:
Right now you say: It's bad because you make companies poor, and when I give counter-arguments you can't really counter, you start the "it's bad because it's bad" thing. But you never say WHY it's bad, and now angelito stated "because copyright states it is". Lol. Great explanation.
Ok..now I will take your role and argue the way you do: I go on the street and kill a homeless guy. No one will miss him. It is even better if those people don't sit around on our streets and disturb our views. No one (except the homeless of course, but his life was doomed anyway) is harmed.
So my action was justified and all good!
Quote:
I never meant it's only because... I never even meant it as a justification. I meant that the poor won't buy it anyway, so it fact it doesn't matter whether they copy it or not.
Wrong. If a poor could get everything he wants for free, the richer people will do the same sooner or later. Business broken. If I can't afford a ferrari, I have to look for a cheaper car instead of stealing a ferrari.
Quote:
It's not stealing because you don't make it vanish out of anybody's pocket. You only "deny profit" that you would deny anyway because of being poor.
Sorry, also wrong. Our modern business works mostly in a quite simple way: "Supply and demand". If he "demand" part won't work well because there is a different way of getting hand on the supplied things, the market will break.
Quote:
What does my behavior cause?
money loss? Don't make me repeat that again: I'm NOT going to buy anything. I either download it or not use it. Thus, no profit deny takes place.
Market principles. Things only get cheaper if enough people buy it. Just look back 10 years and tell me the prices of cell phones in Poland. And then take a look now. Look 3 years back how much a 21" flatscreen monitor cost, and now look the price today. Check how much the price for a computer game rose in the last 5-10 years. The price for a product is a big calculation with many things to imply. One of those things is the "expected sales figures". This is a mulitplier. If this number goes down, the price goes up. If the price is too high due to such things, the expected sales figures will decrease even more. And this will probably lead to bankrupcy...3DO anyone?
You have to forget the "fact", every company is as rich as Microsoft or IBM or Coca-Cola. There are millions of companies who calculate close to a zero line. They can't survive a year of big losses.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What a ridiculous comment...lol. Of course law is an argument
Of course the Bible is an argument too...
I knew why I stopped arguing with you weeks ago. I'm blaming myself to have started it again today. I promise I stop it now and will never start it again.
I wonder if you have ever looked for help......
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:26 PM |
|
|
angelito this is really pointless because I have made that point in almost EVERY post and no one has EVER replied to why it is false or countered it, they just ignore it.
Here's a simple example (I quote from you):Quote:
What argument is that? If you take away 1 dollar from a billionaire, it will surley NOT hurt his pocket in anyway. But it is STILL stealing.
It's stealing right?
Mathematically: Person A's money increase, Person B's money decrease, by the same amount.
So stealing 1$ from a millionaire:
A = 0$+1$
B = 1,000,000$-1$ = 999,999$
ok, that is stealing. I agree!
Let's see downloading 1$ from the millionaire:
A = 0$+1$=1$
B = 1,000,000$-0$ = 1,000,000$
yeah it "hurt" the millionaire, even objectively!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if you have ever looked for help......
I asked a question, before that reply.
What makes the law different than Bible law. What makes it more a basis for moral "truth"?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
