I don't know whether the copyright period should be 14 years or forever. But what really pisses me off is that the new copyright period is always applied retrospectively. By extending the copyright retrospectively the government is giving wealth to the copyright-holders by taking it away from the non-copyright-holders.
When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it.
If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.
You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.
> There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire.
The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection:
The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work.
Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years.
Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.
The incentives still exist in the present, even given a future when the creative artists are long dead. The ability to pass the rights down to descendants and the increase in the value of rights for the purposes of selling them to obtain cash can be significant incentives in the present.
That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.
Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.
There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. That is to say, the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire. So copyright keeps getting extended, because it's "obvious."
Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that?
You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.
If physical property could be copied and used without depriving its owner of its use, then I would be absolutely all for the abolition of physical property rights. After all, if I could simply take a copy of whatever you possessed without depriving you of possession or use of it, then why would anyone have any need to actually own anything? Our entire concept of property rights are predicated on the existence of scarcity; no such scarcity exists for intellectual property.
Justifying intellectual property through the analogy of physical property is flawed, as they are inherently different beasts.
That said, your core argument is entirely spot-on - our economic framework that is accepted in policy circles doesn't see the economic value of letting copyright expire. I'd also suggest that policymakers are rarely (if ever) dispassionate and unbiased; at the end of the day, their view of the world is closely aligned with the view of those who keep them in office through campaign contributions and whatnot. It doesn't even have to be as explicit as bribery - simply the fact that Congressmen (out of necessity) run in circles with wealthy people who have an interest in preventing the expiration of copyright is enough to color their opinions and views in favor of that particular position, even if they never knowingly accept a bribe.
Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights. Why can't I use my computer or printer however I wish, even if that means copying existing content?
The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.
If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.
So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.
I'm confused. More than one person can use "intellectual property" at the same time, which isn't quite true for physical property.
Also, I'm confused why this is an "economic value" issue. I was under the impression copyright existed solely for the benefit of the public, "to promote the sciences and useful arts" as I read.
You've got more insight than I do, so further elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
In the US, the constitutional basis for these rights is not the same as physical property rights. In fact, in addition to being limited in time and scope, it is explicitly to promote the general advancement of the arts and sciences... you might not like that as a reason, but that is the reason.
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works (called content these days). If Disney can just keep making money off Mickey Mouse forever and use that money to crowd newer ideas out of the market, I would argue that we're significantly poorer as a society than if new and original creations were being made.
Replace copyright with monopoly and your argument is equally sensible. Using textbook micro, the cost of copyright is clear. The copyright on Mickey Mouse raises the cost of goods featuring it. In a world without copyright, my expenditure on Mickey Mouse videos will decrease likely resulting in consuming somewhat more Mickey Mouse videos but for lower total cost and deploying some of the saved money to other goods that I desire. Hence, I will consume more of that good and a greater variety at the same income making me better off.
I'm not sure how to gauge whether I sound like a crunchy hippie, but I'll try not to.
It's nice that children and hobbyists can read and perform Twelfth Night without paying gratuitous royalties to a company that is now completely unrelated to the long-dead William Shakespeare. It would be nice if, in 3013, children and hobbyists could read and perform The Lady's Not For Burning without paying royalties to a company that is by then completely unrelated to Christopher Fry.
Of course there's a good reason: copyright exists to motivate the production of creative works, but creators typically are not motivated by the thought of royalties 80 years down the road.
Also, real/personal and intellectual property differ enough that I don't think the analogy from your second paragraph is particularly instructive. For example, with physical property I can't think of any obvious analogs to remixes and derived works.
Wow, I had a visceral, negative gut reaction to this comment. But upon further reflection it's actually an interesting point I'd never considered. So, hm, thanks.
We are now really comparing physical property rights with copyright? I have property rights to this copy of a banana, so it follows someone should have a right to all bananas?
Isn't the scope and intrusion worth considering?
(I ignored the part on economic theory because first of all 1) you're likely wrong on your assumptions 2) none of it is applicable to lawmakers as they exist today, they are not science-, but ideology-driven)
> So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character?
You seem to be confusing trademarks and copyright. Disney characters are in fact protected in perpetuity as long as Disney continues to use them commercially.
The copyright question is the question of whether Disney can keep control over specific works like Steamboat Willie, or whether they will start to enter the public domain.
> the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire
Nonsense. The definition of copyright is a legal monopoly on the production of copies of a work. It has long been understood by economists that monopolies legal or not, incentives rent-seeking and disrupt a markets natural trend towards natural prices.
All kinds of physical property rights do expire -- leasehold interests, life estates, etc., are, after all, property rights -- though most common subjects of physical property have some person somewhere holding a "root" set of property rights which are held in fee simple and thus do not expire in the most simplistic sense (though many items of physical property have ad valorem taxes assessed on their value, which is essentially a means of property rights gradually expiring; this is particularly common with real property.)
The reason fee simple ownership as the general norm is the case is largely that the capitalist class, as it was developing and feudalism was declining, amassed sufficient resources and influence to direct government to further enhance the capitalist class's ability to continue to amass resources and influence by reforming property to favor that situation.
This is what happens when you confuse objects in the physical world with those in the information world.
Physical rights don't expire because it entails deprivation of use. But copyright expiration doesn't eliminate your right to create, distribute, or sell -- it simply extends these capabilities to others.
that argument maybe applies when you have a company such as Disney making a tangible economic benefit (to both the corporation and the economy at large) - although it's arguable whether breaking the monopoly gives more overall economic gain than what Disney loses.
but even assuming that it does, it only works when there's a huge empire providing thousands of jobs themed around a work, right? so how do you codify the difference between Mickey and $random_forgotten_book_from_1920, from which releasing copyright could only be a good thing for the economy?
Physical property rights do expire. The builder gets paid for each new creation only once. He doesn't make one building and get paid every time someone wants to visit it, for example.
Physical property rights can and do expire. If you throw something away, you don't own it anymore. If someone squats in your property for many years they get more rights. Physical goods often have a natural degradation with time, unlike copyright. I wish copyright was as weak as physical property rights.
Isn't the estate tax essentially a way for a portion of that to go back to the people? People die, and have to pass their belongings on, and pay a tax when they do. Corporations don't die, so they have an unfair advantage over people.
There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire.
This is wholly wrong. There are entire classes of good where marginal consumption does not dilute the value of average consumption. The purpose of copyrights is to subsidize (temporarily) the production of such goods. This under the theory that they would not otherwise be (or only inefficiently) be produced. Certainly mickey mouse needs no further encouragement...extending DIS an ongoing franchise is pure and simple pork-barrel-politics to the governing class that relies on the media (eg, ABC a DIS subsidiary) to get elected (and/or the electoral votes of Florida).
The reason copyright is not supposed to be forever, is because everyone builds on previous works. Nothing is 100 percent original. Maybe not even 20 percent original, if you really start deconstructing something and rip the most fundamental ideas out of the "new" creation.
Plus, if you then again allow others to build on the more recently "invented" stuff, then you get even more ideas and creations, as a society, which is why there's this "agreement" that copyright works should go into public domain. But corporations, who don't invent anything themselves, want to be able to exploit those works forever.
This is why I support Sweden's Pirate Party's idea [1] to limit copyright to 5 years, and then allow creators to extend it every 5 years up to 20 years, for a fee each time, because then you wouldn't end up with problems like these, where the vast majority of works become abandonware that nobody can use for almost a century to at least remix them:
There's no economic axiom that says existing copyright holders inherently generate maximum economic value from a copyright, either.
Why give someone else a crack at it? There are a lot of excellent reasons, here's two: 1) Because competition is always a good thing in the private sector. It has been demonstrated constantly throughout free market economic history that competition generates greater innovation, as opposed to the lack of competition. 2) It's a massive net benefit to a nation's culture to have copyrights expire such that the public can own its history (and individuals can then do with it as they please), of which characters such as Mickey Mouse are a part.
I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following:
First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.
But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
I support the current "automatic copyright without needing to be registered" system. I think it helps the little guy, and if we switched to a "copyright on registration" system only big professional companies would ensure they dot their i's and cross their t's, the little guy who takes a photo at would probably not register it, and would have no copyright protection.
There's actually a chance that congress is in a state where they could reject another retroactive extension. The two forces that could crush it are 1) public interest backlash, as we saw with SOPA, getting a chunk of democrats who aren't on the industry payroll and 2) the 'corporate welfare' argument that gets the tea party republicans. Congress is in a state of near-anarchy right now, since the traditional 'stick' of earmarks doesn't exist to keep the ideological members in line, and for once it could work out in the public's interests.
Let's say the copyright period is not extended. Perhaps the government should then auction off the rights to Snow White, rather than putting it into the public domain. That is, Disney could buy a 25-year copyright extension, but they would have to pay through the nose for it.
I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.
This article misses an important point. The reason that Sonny Bono was interested in extending copyright is that he was a scientologist, and the Church of Scientology is deathly afraid of their works reaching the public domain. If I remember correctly, they were among the main lobbyists for the last extension.
I'd rather Congress vote on specific exceptions rather than blanket it for everything. I'm one to believe our culture actually is for the poorer due to the lack of historical works entering the public domain. The problem is that it's a counterfactual, so we wouldn't really know if it were true.
Why aren't characters trademarked instead of copyrighted? I feel like it would make so much more sense. Disney can have Mickey Mouse for as long as it wants, but the company has little to no financial need to keep 100-year-old cartoons out of the public domain.
The biggest problem is that Disney is paying the lawmakers (in contributions) for these permanent rights, but not paying the people (the citizens) who grant them. This needs to be taxed. It's property they say? Property taxes.
This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.
Is there any kind of distinguishment between characters and singular works? While I can see both sides for characters remaining copyrighted, I don't see much of a good reason why a singular work like steamboat willie should still be under lock and key.
At this point, I would be actually happy for Disney IP to be in copyright forever, as long as they leave the copyright law alone and works start entering public domain again.
[+] [-] MarkMc|12 years ago|reply
When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as reducing it.
If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.
You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.
[+] [-] sitkack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zoomla|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomDavey|12 years ago|reply
The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committ...
The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" -- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work.
Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years.
Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.
[+] [-] andrewla|12 years ago|reply
That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.
[+] [-] jstalin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that?
You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.
[+] [-] cheald|12 years ago|reply
Justifying intellectual property through the analogy of physical property is flawed, as they are inherently different beasts.
That said, your core argument is entirely spot-on - our economic framework that is accepted in policy circles doesn't see the economic value of letting copyright expire. I'd also suggest that policymakers are rarely (if ever) dispassionate and unbiased; at the end of the day, their view of the world is closely aligned with the view of those who keep them in office through campaign contributions and whatnot. It doesn't even have to be as explicit as bribery - simply the fact that Congressmen (out of necessity) run in circles with wealthy people who have an interest in preventing the expiration of copyright is enough to color their opinions and views in favor of that particular position, even if they never knowingly accept a bribe.
[+] [-] YokoZar|12 years ago|reply
The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.
If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.
So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.
[+] [-] everettForth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply
Also, I'm confused why this is an "economic value" issue. I was under the impression copyright existed solely for the benefit of the public, "to promote the sciences and useful arts" as I read.
You've got more insight than I do, so further elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
[+] [-] scarecrowbob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mprovost|12 years ago|reply
The point of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works (called content these days). If Disney can just keep making money off Mickey Mouse forever and use that money to crowd newer ideas out of the market, I would argue that we're significantly poorer as a society than if new and original creations were being made.
[+] [-] absherwin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymoushn|12 years ago|reply
It's nice that children and hobbyists can read and perform Twelfth Night without paying gratuitous royalties to a company that is now completely unrelated to the long-dead William Shakespeare. It would be nice if, in 3013, children and hobbyists could read and perform The Lady's Not For Burning without paying royalties to a company that is by then completely unrelated to Christopher Fry.
[+] [-] kvb|12 years ago|reply
Also, real/personal and intellectual property differ enough that I don't think the analogy from your second paragraph is particularly instructive. For example, with physical property I can't think of any obvious analogs to remixes and derived works.
[+] [-] ianferrel|12 years ago|reply
Adverse possession, right of conquest, property taxes, and estate taxes are a few of the ways in which physical property rights expire.
[+] [-] losvedir|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juletide|12 years ago|reply
Expressing the value of allowing intellectual property rights to expire does not require arguing that physical property rights ought to expire.
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
Isn't the scope and intrusion worth considering?
(I ignored the part on economic theory because first of all 1) you're likely wrong on your assumptions 2) none of it is applicable to lawmakers as they exist today, they are not science-, but ideology-driven)
[+] [-] adamlett|12 years ago|reply
You seem to be confusing trademarks and copyright. Disney characters are in fact protected in perpetuity as long as Disney continues to use them commercially.
The copyright question is the question of whether Disney can keep control over specific works like Steamboat Willie, or whether they will start to enter the public domain.
> the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire
Nonsense. The definition of copyright is a legal monopoly on the production of copies of a work. It has long been understood by economists that monopolies legal or not, incentives rent-seeking and disrupt a markets natural trend towards natural prices.
[+] [-] nimble|12 years ago|reply
No, but real (dirt) property rights are usually taxed. How about an escalating tax on older copyrights?
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
All kinds of physical property rights do expire -- leasehold interests, life estates, etc., are, after all, property rights -- though most common subjects of physical property have some person somewhere holding a "root" set of property rights which are held in fee simple and thus do not expire in the most simplistic sense (though many items of physical property have ad valorem taxes assessed on their value, which is essentially a means of property rights gradually expiring; this is particularly common with real property.)
The reason fee simple ownership as the general norm is the case is largely that the capitalist class, as it was developing and feudalism was declining, amassed sufficient resources and influence to direct government to further enhance the capitalist class's ability to continue to amass resources and influence by reforming property to favor that situation.
[+] [-] xophe|12 years ago|reply
This is what happens when you confuse objects in the physical world with those in the information world.
Physical rights don't expire because it entails deprivation of use. But copyright expiration doesn't eliminate your right to create, distribute, or sell -- it simply extends these capabilities to others.
[+] [-] brey|12 years ago|reply
but even assuming that it does, it only works when there's a huge empire providing thousands of jobs themed around a work, right? so how do you codify the difference between Mickey and $random_forgotten_book_from_1920, from which releasing copyright could only be a good thing for the economy?
[+] [-] Zoomla|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|12 years ago|reply
This is wholly wrong. There are entire classes of good where marginal consumption does not dilute the value of average consumption. The purpose of copyrights is to subsidize (temporarily) the production of such goods. This under the theory that they would not otherwise be (or only inefficiently) be produced. Certainly mickey mouse needs no further encouragement...extending DIS an ongoing franchise is pure and simple pork-barrel-politics to the governing class that relies on the media (eg, ABC a DIS subsidiary) to get elected (and/or the electoral votes of Florida).
[+] [-] devx|12 years ago|reply
Plus, if you then again allow others to build on the more recently "invented" stuff, then you get even more ideas and creations, as a society, which is why there's this "agreement" that copyright works should go into public domain. But corporations, who don't invent anything themselves, want to be able to exploit those works forever.
This is why I support Sweden's Pirate Party's idea [1] to limit copyright to 5 years, and then allow creators to extend it every 5 years up to 20 years, for a fee each time, because then you wouldn't end up with problems like these, where the vast majority of works become abandonware that nobody can use for almost a century to at least remix them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-ho...
Watch these videos, and then hopefully it will make it more clear:
http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
[1] - http://copyrightreform.eu/
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
Why give someone else a crack at it? There are a lot of excellent reasons, here's two: 1) Because competition is always a good thing in the private sector. It has been demonstrated constantly throughout free market economic history that competition generates greater innovation, as opposed to the lack of competition. 2) It's a massive net benefit to a nation's culture to have copyrights expire such that the public can own its history (and individuals can then do with it as they please), of which characters such as Mickey Mouse are a part.
[+] [-] derekp7|12 years ago|reply
First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.
But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re-registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|12 years ago|reply
All that said, I'm not holding my breath.
[+] [-] ChikkaChiChi|12 years ago|reply
Honestly though, I can't imagine a future in which Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ever enter the public domain.
[+] [-] bpodgursky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|12 years ago|reply
I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.
[+] [-] hardtke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WalterBright|12 years ago|reply
At a minimum, this will allow abandoned copyrights to slide into the public domain.
[+] [-] tunesmith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devrelm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|12 years ago|reply
This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.
[+] [-] etler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apostlion|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|12 years ago|reply
This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.
[+] [-] ffrryuu|12 years ago|reply