Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > question for the copyright nazis

Reply
Thread Tools

question for the copyright nazis

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:55:20 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
> [..]
> An activity is neither moral nor immoral. The morality or immorality
>
> is in the perception of those who are aware of the act. It is
>
> perfectly logical for the same activity to be perceived to be
>
> acceptable or unacceptable by different people.
>


Sure, but the same person can't consider homosexuality to be
moral and immoral simultaneously, depending on the location of
the homosexual.

Or smoking pot. Legal in some states, illegal in other states.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A602D20121107

Claiming pot smoking to be moral or immoral is a matter of
opinion, but you can't hold the opinion that it's moral
and immoral simultaneously, depending on your location.


> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:42:00 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>
> Duck, this guy is tugging you around like a farmer leading a bull by
>
> the nose ring. He knows his position is indefensible, but his uses of
>
> "fascist police state", "nazi", and comparisons of the US to North
>
> Korea are just button-pushing.
>
>
>
> Have some compassion for this guy. He's incapable of creating
>
> anything worthwhile on his own without piggybacking on the stolen work
>
> of others. He's unable to garner any attention for his own feeble
>
> alterations without acting out like a child eating a booger to be
>
> noticed.
>
>


Another copyright nazi chimes in with the usual propaganda that
anyone who refuses to swallow the lies from the intellectual
property mafia must lack creativity.

The copyright nazis are unable to defend their misguided
position by simply explaining why filesharing is immoral, so
they must resort to unfounded accusations of theft or
parasitism to support their feeble and moronic claims.

>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:04:01 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:55:20 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>> [..]
>> An activity is neither moral nor immoral. The morality or immorality
>>
>> is in the perception of those who are aware of the act. It is
>>
>> perfectly logical for the same activity to be perceived to be
>>
>> acceptable or unacceptable by different people.
>>

>
>Sure, but the same person can't consider homosexuality to be
>moral and immoral simultaneously, depending on the location of
>the homosexual.
>


Homosexuality is an extreme on the morality scale. There are other
actions that *can* be considered to be either acceptable or
unacceptable by the same person based on location. For example,
I consider it to be unacceptable for a woman to walk down the street
in my town with her breasts fully exposed. I did not consider it
unacceptable when I saw a woman walking down her street with her
breasts fully exposed in a village in Africa.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:04:01 PM UTC, sobriquet wrote:
> On Friday, December 7, 2012 3:55:20 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>
> > [..]

>
> > An activity is neither moral nor immoral. The morality or immorality

>
> >

>
> > is in the perception of those who are aware of the act. It is

>
> >

>
> > perfectly logical for the same activity to be perceived to be

>
> >

>
> > acceptable or unacceptable by different people.

>
> >

>
>
>
> Sure, but the same person can't consider homosexuality to be
>
> moral and immoral simultaneously, depending on the location of
>
> the homosexual.


They can and do espcially in muslim countries, you are only a homosexual ifyou are recieve another male, the male doing the penatrating is NOT a homosexual because he is or can say he was thinking he was having sex with a women, while trhe reciver can;t say such a thing because women don;t have penisis'

>
>
>
> Or smoking pot. Legal in some states, illegal in other states.


And decrimanailised in soome.

>
>
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A602D20121107
>
>
>
> Claiming pot smoking to be moral or immoral is a matter of
>
> opinion, but you can't hold the opinion that it's moral
>
> and immoral simultaneously, depending on your location.


The police do in Amsterdam it is legal to smoke in a cafe but not on the street.
Coffee shops that sell pot are only allowed to keep a certain amount in stock going above that is an arrestable offence, so depending on how much is on the premisis depends on whether you're breaking the law or not.

People like you see the law as being moral were in relaity it's not but laws attempt to shape the morals of the people.



 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Friday, December 7, 2012 4:38:27 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>
> Homosexuality is an extreme on the morality scale. There are other
>
> actions that *can* be considered to be either acceptable or
>
> unacceptable by the same person based on location. For example,
>
> I consider it to be unacceptable for a woman to walk down the street
>
> in my town with her breasts fully exposed. I did not consider it
>
> unacceptable when I saw a woman walking down her street with her
>
> breasts fully exposed in a village in Africa.
>


That seems to be a matter of taste or (arbitrary) social conventions
and to what degree people are open minded towards cultural diversity
or seek to impose their personal preferences on others.

It raises the question of *why* it should be acceptable or
unacceptable for women to expose their breasts in public and
why this should be a matter of personal preference or some kind
of social standard that must be imposed in the interest of
conformity or uniformity.
When people travel and experience different cultures, they might
realize how their own societal conventions are somewhat arbitrary
and hence they might be more tolerant towards people who diverge
from social norms in their behavior.

People might likewise arbitrarily condone the use of alcohol
for its intoxicating effects while simultaneously condemning
the use of cannabis for its intoxicating effects, but that
smacks of hypocrisy.

> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2012
In article <k9reen$u7b$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> On 12/6/2012 4:07 AM, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> > On 05/12/2012 22:53, nick c wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2012 7:41 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 04:36:29 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> : On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 12:59:35 PM UTC+1, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>> : > People are being abused, raped, tortured and killed for fun,
> >>> profit and
> >>> : > personal gain are you saying that is acceptable to you and that
> >>> you are
> >>> : > going to do it becuase these people can't be stopped so therefore
> >>> you
> >>> : > see it as OK to do the same ?
> >>> :
> >>> : Typical demonization attempt from a copyright nazi to compare
> >>> filesharing
> >>> : to abuse, rape, torture and murder.
> >>> : People who share files online are exchanging information and that is a
> >>> : human right. Sharing information freely is in the interest of
> >>> society and
> >>> : more likely to stimulate creativity and innovation than
> >>> counterproductive
> >>> : attempts to enforce intellectual property laws that have been rendered
> >>> : outdated and unrealistic given the context of modern information
> >>> : technology.
> >>> :
> >>> : There was a time when slavery was legal and people who owned slaves
> >>> : would compare the act of encouraging slaves to revolt to abuse,
> >>> : rape, torture and murder. But eventually social developments forced
> >>> : these businesses to restructure their business model so it no longer
> >>> : relied on slavery.
> >>> : It's very likely something similar will happen with intellectual
> >>> property
> >>> : laws under the influence of technological developments.
> >>>
> >>> But isn't it possible that you have the analogy backwards? That at
> >>> one time
> >>> slavery was considered to fall within the natural order of things, but
> >>> eventually social developments forced the realization that it fell
> >>> instead
> >>> into the same category as rape, torture, and murder? And that
> >>> technological
> >>> developments are making it increasingly plain that appropriating
> >>> intellectual
> >>> property without its owner's permission is merely a polite
> >>> description of
> >>> theft?
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>
> >> "..... appropriating intellectual property without its owner's
> >> permission is merely a polite description of theft."
> >>
> >> Now there is a phrase that would tax the minds of the great philosophers
> >> of the ages. It's so well expressed that taken at face value, one can't
> >> help but ponder its affect upon society. On the one hand, it opens the
> >> issue of what can be considered as theft. The envisioned limitations of
> >> that type of theft may be infinite. On the other hand it says the human
> >> thought process must be lawfully protected in such a manner that
> >> /thought/ becomes a reality substance that needs lawful protection.
> >>
> >> What is Intellectual Property? "Intellectual Property: .... is what
> >> results from from creativity." Presently, there are lawful limitations
> >> associated with what is considered to be Intellectual Property.
> >>
> >> However, as the social vicissitudes of time take place, "Thought" ....
> >> may become a tangible disclosed concept which someday may be considered
> >> as being a creation of the mind. Yes, lets face it ... the next step in
> >> the legal ladder may be any tangibly disclosed thought process may be
> >> considered as being Intellectual Property; to be owned by the person who
> >> created the thought.

> >
> > Next step? Actually, it's the starting point of the whole "copyright"
> > concept. I have an idea, I don't want my idea to be stolen, so I protect
> > my idea via copyright or patent or whatever. It's the very basis of IP:
> > someone has an original thought or idea and lays claim to it. "This is
> > _my_ idea!" and "I don't want you to steal my idea!"
> >
> > Small children in the playground come up with this very concept every
> > day, independently. It's human nature.
> >
> >

>
> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from
> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's
> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the
> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the
> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for
> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?


I think that any copyright or patent on the musical scale expired long
ago.

> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who
> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was
> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the
> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was
> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the
> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs. The
> question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves while
> those who created and use a system to transmit their software, who
> haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are not
> considered as being thieves.


If you're talking about the Internet I don't know where you get the idea
that nobody is paying for it. That would certainly be news to my ISP.




 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2012
In article <k9rm0d$27v$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> On 12/6/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> > On 2012-12-06 17:51:51 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> >
> >> On 12/6/2012 5:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> >>> On 2012-12-06 16:49:22 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> >>>
> >>> <<< Le Snip >>>
> >>>
> >>>> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from
> >>>> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's
> >>>> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the
> >>>> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the
> >>>> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for
> >>>> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?
> >>>
> >>> Pythagoras.
> >>>
> >>>> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who
> >>>> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was
> >>>> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the
> >>>> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was
> >>>> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the
> >>>> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs.
> >>>
> >>> That is an assumption, and not necessarily true. I don't know about you,
> >>> but I am paying for my access and use of the various strands of the
> >>> internet.
> >>> I have no reason to believe that any software developer, individual, or
> >>> corporation isn't paying for the same access.
> >>
> >> I too have paid for what I use, including access. I know of no one who
> >> uses Verizon who doesn't pay an access fee. But access doesn't cover
> >> creation. There must have been thousands of salaried people involved
> >> with the creation of the Internet, each making a talented contribution
> >> to its function. Are they not entitled to receive payment for what
> >> they have created?

> >
> > ...and there are certainly many who do not pay for their access to the
> > WWW. They are to be found in libraries, and near free WiFi hotspots, and
> > where they can poach from unsecured home and business WiFi networks.
> > There are those who exploit their employers by conduction personal
> > business on employer's time, computers and internet access. Some of that
> > access is legitimately free, and some of it is stolen.
> >
> > The who in the case of, to use a broad term, the WWW, were three
> > individuals, Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau at CERN and a student
> > at CERN. He is the actual inventor of the World Wide Web.
> > He is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and holds a
> > few other prestigious positions regarding the internet as we know it.
> >
> > As for payment, I guess we would have needed to be in on those
> > discussions at CERN and the arrangements made to use the product they
> > owned by other system users. I have no idea of what those arrangements
> > might be.

>
> Both you and Sobriquet are very good debaters. You both have presented
> valid points of view (at least I think so) that support your particular
> views. Still ... I remain at sea with the concept of what is considered
> to be "Intellectual Property" and how far that concept could expand.
>
> I do not support theft yet I see theft being accomplished even by those
> who do not support theft. I pay for programs and Internet access, yet
> I'm free to use the Internet that others have created. It seems to me,
> that challenges the issue of "Intellectual Property" ownership, as it
> affects the Internet.


You seem to be equating payment and ownership. Project Gnu owns a great
deal of software that is distributed at no charged--the license under
which it is released requires that it be made available at no charge.

The holder of a copyright can license the resulting product under any
terms he sees fit. If he chooses not to charge for it that is his
business.

In the case of the Internet several technologies and systems were put in
place. Some of those were developed by or at the expense of the United
States government, which chose to make them freely accessible instead of
charging fees for them. The basic technology of the Web was developed
at CERN. In all cases the people who did the work were paid.

> >>>> The question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves
> >>>> while those who created and use a system to transmit their software,
> >>>> who haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are
> >>>> not considered as being thieves.
> >>>
> >>> See above.
> >>> I have a hard time taking the leap to assume that an individual or
> >>> corporation involved in the commercial enterprise of online distribution
> >>> of their product, is stealing bandwidth and using Tim Berners-Lee's WWW
> >>> creation without incurring some cost for tapping into it.
> >>>
> >>> Theft remains just that regardless of where that theft takes place.
> >>> Consider the bicycle parked on a sidewalk while its owner goes into a
> >>> store. A bicycle thief might blame the owner by saying, "he shouldn't
> >>> have left it untended and tempted me."
> >>> That is similar to Sobriquet's argument that if the copyright owner or
> >>> the creator of the image, music or software didn't want it stolen, they
> >>> shouldn't be trying to distribute their property online where it is
> >>> vulnerable. Theft remains a property crime fueled by a lack of civil
> >>> morality on the part of the thief.
> >>>
> >>> Just because you might inadvertently have left your keys in your car,
> >>> does not mean that a potential thief has a right to steal your car, and
> >>> when caught he is still guilty of car theft, no matter what he claims in
> >>> Court.
> >>
> >> A thief who steals my car is certainly a thief 'cause I paid for the
> >> car. But shouldn't the car thief pay a fee for the use of the road
> >> that he drives the car on, even if it's a dirt road?

> >
> > Why? He is a thief, and it is in the nature of thieves not to pay for
> > anything, this thief will probably not even possess a valid driver's
> > license.
> > You and I pay for road use via our vehicle registration and other taxes,
> > including fuel taxes. I don't believe that the car thief has even
> > considered that part of his civic responsibility.
> >

>
> There's an old saying "A thief who steals from a thief is pardoned for a
> thousand years."
>
> Under the present civic laws, if a person who breaks the law is caught,
> he (or she) is subject to being lawfully punished. However, if thousands
> of people break the law, at a given time, they get to keep what they
> have stolen.


You are conflating enforceability and legality. If enough people are
breaking the law the government does not have the resources to enforce
that law. That doesn't make what they are doing right, or legal.

> That is the way of those who riot and of the way of illegal entries. So,
> why is that not the way of the Internet?


Huh? Those who riot go to jail if they get caught. The same for those
who enter illegally.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
On 12/9/2012 1:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <k9rm0d$27v$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>>
>> On 12/6/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-06 17:51:51 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2012 5:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-12-06 16:49:22 -0800, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A composer of music can copyright his work and demand payment from
>>>>>> anyone who chooses to use the composers work for personal gain. What's
>>>>>> copyrighted is the melodic sequence (words as well as music) of the
>>>>>> composers work. But the composer uses a musical scale which is not the
>>>>>> work or the creation of the composer, so who does the composer pay for
>>>>>> the use of the musical scale, which he (or she) didn't create?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pythagoras.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've often wondered about Internet piracy. Surely the person who
>>>>>> downloads a pirated program is actually stealing a program that was
>>>>>> created buy someone who may demand payment for his work. But the
>>>>>> original software creator has placed his work into a system that was
>>>>>> created by many others and no payment for the creation or use of the
>>>>>> system is or was being made by the creators of software programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an assumption, and not necessarily true. I don't know about you,
>>>>> but I am paying for my access and use of the various strands of the
>>>>> internet.
>>>>> I have no reason to believe that any software developer, individual, or
>>>>> corporation isn't paying for the same access.
>>>>
>>>> I too have paid for what I use, including access. I know of no one who
>>>> uses Verizon who doesn't pay an access fee. But access doesn't cover
>>>> creation. There must have been thousands of salaried people involved
>>>> with the creation of the Internet, each making a talented contribution
>>>> to its function. Are they not entitled to receive payment for what
>>>> they have created?
>>>
>>> ...and there are certainly many who do not pay for their access to the
>>> WWW. They are to be found in libraries, and near free WiFi hotspots, and
>>> where they can poach from unsecured home and business WiFi networks.
>>> There are those who exploit their employers by conduction personal
>>> business on employer's time, computers and internet access. Some of that
>>> access is legitimately free, and some of it is stolen.
>>>
>>> The who in the case of, to use a broad term, the WWW, were three
>>> individuals, Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau at CERN and a student
>>> at CERN. He is the actual inventor of the World Wide Web.
>>> He is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and holds a
>>> few other prestigious positions regarding the internet as we know it.
>>>
>>> As for payment, I guess we would have needed to be in on those
>>> discussions at CERN and the arrangements made to use the product they
>>> owned by other system users. I have no idea of what those arrangements
>>> might be.

>>
>> Both you and Sobriquet are very good debaters. You both have presented
>> valid points of view (at least I think so) that support your particular
>> views. Still ... I remain at sea with the concept of what is considered
>> to be "Intellectual Property" and how far that concept could expand.
>>
>> I do not support theft yet I see theft being accomplished even by those
>> who do not support theft. I pay for programs and Internet access, yet
>> I'm free to use the Internet that others have created. It seems to me,
>> that challenges the issue of "Intellectual Property" ownership, as it
>> affects the Internet.

>
> You seem to be equating payment and ownership. Project Gnu owns a great
> deal of software that is distributed at no charged--the license under
> which it is released requires that it be made available at no charge.
>
> The holder of a copyright can license the resulting product under any
> terms he sees fit. If he chooses not to charge for it that is his
> business.
>
> In the case of the Internet several technologies and systems were put in
> place. Some of those were developed by or at the expense of the United
> States government, which chose to make them freely accessible instead of
> charging fees for them. The basic technology of the Web was developed
> at CERN. In all cases the people who did the work were paid.
>
>>>>>> The question is, those who pirate software are labeled as thieves
>>>>>> while those who created and use a system to transmit their software,
>>>>>> who haven't paid for using a system they haven't created yet use, are
>>>>>> not considered as being thieves.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above.
>>>>> I have a hard time taking the leap to assume that an individual or
>>>>> corporation involved in the commercial enterprise of online distribution
>>>>> of their product, is stealing bandwidth and using Tim Berners-Lee's WWW
>>>>> creation without incurring some cost for tapping into it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theft remains just that regardless of where that theft takes place.
>>>>> Consider the bicycle parked on a sidewalk while its owner goes into a
>>>>> store. A bicycle thief might blame the owner by saying, "he shouldn't
>>>>> have left it untended and tempted me."
>>>>> That is similar to Sobriquet's argument that if the copyright owner or
>>>>> the creator of the image, music or software didn't want it stolen, they
>>>>> shouldn't be trying to distribute their property online where it is
>>>>> vulnerable. Theft remains a property crime fueled by a lack of civil
>>>>> morality on the part of the thief.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you might inadvertently have left your keys in your car,
>>>>> does not mean that a potential thief has a right to steal your car, and
>>>>> when caught he is still guilty of car theft, no matter what he claims in
>>>>> Court.
>>>>
>>>> A thief who steals my car is certainly a thief 'cause I paid for the
>>>> car. But shouldn't the car thief pay a fee for the use of the road
>>>> that he drives the car on, even if it's a dirt road?
>>>
>>> Why? He is a thief, and it is in the nature of thieves not to pay for
>>> anything, this thief will probably not even possess a valid driver's
>>> license.
>>> You and I pay for road use via our vehicle registration and other taxes,
>>> including fuel taxes. I don't believe that the car thief has even
>>> considered that part of his civic responsibility.
>>>

>>
>> There's an old saying "A thief who steals from a thief is pardoned for a
>> thousand years."
>>
>> Under the present civic laws, if a person who breaks the law is caught,
>> he (or she) is subject to being lawfully punished. However, if thousands
>> of people break the law, at a given time, they get to keep what they
>> have stolen.

>
> You are conflating enforceability and legality. If enough people are
> breaking the law the government does not have the resources to enforce
> that law. That doesn't make what they are doing right, or legal.
>
>> That is the way of those who riot and of the way of illegal entries. So,
>> why is that not the way of the Internet?

>
> Huh? Those who riot go to jail if they get caught. The same for those
> who enter illegally.
>
>


...... /if/ they are caught. But, then again, having got caught,
depending upon the numbers, punishment may not be metered out.
In-any-event, acts of theft will continue.

Savageduck had provided me with more than enough information that
supports his views concerning the subject of copyrights. Regardless of
means, his presentations were convincing and in the final analysis I
must agree with him, /thievery/ is theft no matter how you say it.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Usenet Account
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
So why is protecting the author/artist's rights being a Nazi?


--
X-No-Archive: Yes
 
Reply With Quote
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2012
On 12/11/2012 1:53 PM, Usenet Account wrote:
> So why is protecting the author/artist's rights being a Nazi?
>
>


I was seeking an answer to a philosophical question that was greater in
scope than just considering the term "Intellectual Property." That was
accomplished.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Copyright (different question, honest) PcB Digital Photography 16 10-18-2006 05:57 PM
eBook copyright question Speed Demon Computer Support 3 08-03-2005 04:50 PM
COPYRIGHT DVD QUESTION stu DVD Video 3 10-18-2004 02:24 AM
Copyright question? Five Digital Photography 16 06-13-2004 03:06 PM



Advertisments