Never. It's never stealing. It may be infringing, douchey, objectively wrong, illegal, despicable, plagiarism but, unless it deprives you of your copy, it's not stealing.
While I understand the rhetorical usefulness of calling copyright infringement stealing, it's simply not accurate and nitpickers will be right. Again, they may also be annoying, myopic, or outright stupid, but they will be correct.
However, the article is much better than the title would imply so if you were just irked by the headline, don't skip it.
Sure, intellectual property "theft" is not actually theft of content.
However, it deprives its victim of the ability to monetize and get credit for his/her creation. It's "theft" of revenue.
You can say that competition does the same thing. We tend to be okay with this because if you can figure out how to write better software or manufacture a better widget and offer it at a lower price, you deserve to win.
Writing, producing, and distributing a better movie is completely fair. Beating the studio at distributing the movie it paid to create deprives it of the position in the market which it earned and you didn't. That sounds an awful lot like theft to me.
In an economy where attention is the currency, someone takes your work and uses it to gather attention to themselves -- attention that would otherwise have been yours.
Stealing exists at a culturally-defined threshold. One must be brought up (or assimilated) with an understanding of what is 'property' and what is not. Then, one has to also understand what is 'ownership'. Most of us learn this stuff implicitly, from the people around us, but in a globally connected world, this is much more difficult.
I know this first-hand because I grew up in poor Appalachia, in the US. There, property and ownership and rights were much differently understood than in metropolitan Virginia where I live now. Even though we were under the jurisdiction of local, state, and national laws regarding such things, we followed the norms of the people around us. But, as I became assimilated into the urban 'middle-class', I had to re-learn these things.
I think this is why file sharing in the US became so popular in the 90s/2000s. Kids (and adults) who were otherwise raised with an understanding of US 'property rights' were nonetheless stealing media. The media that was being shared just didn't have a cultural foundation as property, to them.
Anyway, there are a lot of people on the internet that don't necessarily have the same understanding of property and rights and ownership than us. Some people just don't know that what they're doing is bad and/or illegal.
>I know this first-hand because I grew up in poor Appalachia, in the US. There, property and ownership and rights were much differently understood than in metropolitan Virginia where I live now
This sounds fascinating, could you elaborate on some of these differences? Both from a real property (land) and object property (trinkets, devices, food, etc) perspective?
Lets talk about government actions like if they were property.
Copyright is an deal for which my property (tax money) is used in a deal between authors. My property (tax money) in order to create and defend a monopoly, and in exchange I get to use the work after a limited time.
However, the deal was changed over and over again, and now I will never, ever, see the other side of the deal. The written word evolve faster than copyright expires. Physical medium of movies and music deteriorate to dust, and the technology in programs will be obsolete and dead beyond recreation.
Taking my money for this deal is stealing. The only way government can make me support copyright is by force, which is the current way it is supported. I consider this much more unethical than a person who ignores the copyright deal.
I like that artistic people can live on their work. However, ask me to choose between that and respecting the copyright deal, and I will pick the lesser evil.
The problem with defining copyright infringement as stealing is one of reality. At its essence, the market works by supply and demand. Copyright is basically the government imposing a monopoly on a piece of work to limit the supply.
That goes against the principles of a free market on so many levels and the only reasonable argument for it would be ... for the flourishing of the public domain. Can you make that argument right now? Of course you can't.
Otherwise, if something is so cheap to copy, to build upon, why should it be illegal to do so? Technological advances happen leading to the destruction of business models like all the time. Copyright is basically legislature that protects the incumbents.
Let me put it another way - if a machine was invented that basically materialized food out of thin air and poor people from Africa would copy the design, built it and produced food with it to feed themselves, would that be considered stealing from the inventor? What if they stole the food in question? What if the food they stole was produced by a machine out of thin air?
Maybe the real problem is that our current economic and business models don't really work anymore ;-)
When you use the word "stealing" to describe anything other than shoplifting or burglary it instantly starts endless conflicts with each party with it's own definition of what is stealing based on their own definition of what is property and so on.
I would like to describe the situation as cheating in the game without trying to going down into the rabbit hole that the digital goods opened(or expanded, since before the digital era we already had goods that are valuable other than it's material and building value. Books, Paintings, Designs, Blueprints and more).
So, you are producing something with intention to gain money or maybe just reputation but often you already use other peoples work to do that - nothing is made out out of thin air.
Then somebody is building some other product with some intention like making money, gaining reputation or something else and his product is using your product and maybe many other people's products. Let's say a website with AI that awesomely curates the content of other people.
In this situation everybody produced a valuable product but the other guys product's success is on your expense.
Ideally you would have an arrangement where everybody wins.
I will give an example from the movies and music industries:
a)When you have the arraignment it's iTunes store.
b)When you don't have one, it's the Prate Bay.
or Defense industries:
a) When you have a contract it's joint venture and you exchange some information to build some product.
b) When you don't have one and you spy on each other to create similar product its espionage.
or personal relationships:
a) When a couple are also seeing other people with the consent of the other one, it's open relationship
b) If there is no consent, it's called cheating.
It's not about stealing, it's about managing the resources in coordination with other parties so that everybody wins. Otherwise often one party wins in expense of the other, many time everybody loses in the long run.
Honestly? Like you wrote, everything's going to be copied anyway, better don't let it cause frustration. It's just information, something we've never controlled successfully before the digital age and haven't given up trying to control on the web yet.
If we didn't try to (pointlessly really) fight over attention from search engines and revenue from annoying ads where we ought to put our content, it wouldn't be such a big issue and the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue.
the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue
1: How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers)
2: How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? (like Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow)
My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place.
Not everything makes sense to put out as Creative Commons. Sometimes you want to actually sell something like software or an ebook, but you don't think it makes sense to go after people torrenting your stuff and giving it away for free.
My philosophy is there can still be an exchange of value. So, with the Pirate License, you make a version of your product explicitly licensed under the Pirate License which calls those who steal your product pirates, and asks them to pass it along to other pirates or potential customers.
I think it makes the expectations for piracy much more clear and should lead to better outcomes.
For multiple reasons including those stated by mrtksn, "stealing" is an unsuitable term - it invites an ideological digression on copyright, property rights, law and justice.
However, the situation hanselman describes is certainly copyright infringement, and in my opinion he ought to look at the possibility of legal action. It might not be worthwhile, but might be satisfying and set a precedent for control of ripoff sites (modulo jurisdiction and other practical issues).
On the principles involved, IMHO copyright infringement can be justified and even admirable and virtuous in some contexts - but commercial exploitation of others' works, without the creators' permisssion, is not among them. In a just world Hanselman would get the all the profit the infringer realized plus the full cost of suing.
What's most egregious here is the relationship of economic power and enforcement of rights. Big, evil copyright-hoarding companies, that do not create anything but exploit the creations of others, are able to enforce their legal rights to an extreme and excessive degree, including interference with civil communications, taxes on blank media, false takedown orders and other abuses - while individuals subjected to exactly analogous, or even worse violations have no recourse. It's a two-tier system that deserves little respect.
The whole problem comes down to definition of property. What is it, really?
People don't consider content to be proprietary. We treat a blog post in the same way we treat speech. Users ain't gonna pay for that. Period. Some of them may, but no the majority.
Exactly. When i hear a discussion in public, i won't ask for permission if i want to use or reproduce part of it elsewhere. I would give them attribution (i don't like to pretend that i came up with some idea when it isn't true) but that's all.
The attitude of content creators is quite schizophrenic. On one hand, they want to spread their work as far as possible, on the other hand, they want to limit access to it. The source of this stance is of course their business model often based on copyright law which links the financial reward of the author with the artificialy created copying limitations. Replace this with some other model where content creators reward is not depended on the number of copies sold or on number of page hits, but rather on some more rational measure like the amount of time and effort put into the creation itself, on the popularity/reputation of the creator and quality of his previous works. Then, this 'copying is stealing and stealing is bad' attitude disappears because i believe that no sane author would realy object against spreading of his works.
Call me non typically British but it's pretty obvious why they didn't ask. Even if 100% of people they asked were fine with it (Scott seems to imply he is) probably less than 10% would bother to respond, that then knackers their startup instantly. "Better to do something now and apologise later than ask for permission and not get it" as I think a saying goes.
Better attribution would have been good, and possibly reaching out to original creators asking them to opt out if they'd rather not be involved. Offering something in return (the embedded player for relevant articles) could have helped grease the wheels. Ultimately, if they get bug they may not need massive support from content creators like Scott but they do need not to be on the wrong side of them.
That's why creative commons licenses are useful. If the content they want to use is under CC, they don't need to ask because the terms are perfectly clear.
There's also fair use, but IANAL and I think that they should definitely ask (because of the "all right reserved" part).
I clicked through hoping this would be about physical objects... I've always wondered, if I leave a bike unchained and someone takes it, it's considered stealing, right? But what about littering a box of cigarettes on the floor, and someone taking the last one in it, did that person just steal your cigarette?
Totally off-topic, so I apologize, but I've always wanted to read into this topic a bit more...
I'm conservative about words. I object to using "literally" to mean "not literally." When I do, I'm invariably taken to task: "words change!" "language evolves!" "it means what people use it to mean!" "dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive!" "get with it, you curmudgeon!". But the use of "theft" or "stealing" here seems perfectly natural to me, even after reading the legalistic objections to it. And, certainly, people use these words to describe copyright violation, all the time. So why, in this case, does everyone suddenly join the usage police? In not once place on this long page of comments do I see the usual descriptivist lament. Where are my old friends who should be popping up to explain that "stealing" means copyright violation because people use it that way?
This came up quite recently with the twitter account that posted historical pictures without attribution. Arguably they're showing people wonderful photographs that they would otherwise not see, however they were basically lifting archive photos and publishing them without giving any nod to the photographers or the institutes that provided them.
The attitude in most of these cases is innocent unless you can prove you own it and complain enough.
Extreme example - is Google stealing from you because it aggregates your content, stores it, makes it easily searchable and then serves adverts to make money from it?
How does Umano make its money? Do they charge for the app or play ads? Sell data?
I've always felt it questionable ethical territory to take somebody else's work, slap ads on it, and pocket the money. "Aggregators" have been doing that forever, though.
You can assert that, but plenty of people have an over-entitlement and will claim stealing for anything. Not saying that the author is being over-entitled, but just asking if it's stealing shouldn't somehow elevate things.
For one, this completely destroys fair use, even for parody. Just claim something was stolen. It'd kill any innovation driven by competitor enhancements: stealing.
Heck, some people felt that Kindle's text-to-speech was stealing.
Full disclosure. I'm one of the Umano cofounders, I figured it's time to jump in here.
There are many things mentioned in comments that I'm not going to try to cover, but I will cover the basics. I'd be happy to answer any direct questions.
The vision behind Umano is simple. We want to provide our users with a new way of consuming content. Many times it's the content they wouldn't otherwise read. How many times have you come across an interesting article that bubbled up in your twitter stream, you added it to your Pocket, and you forgot about it forever and ever. Reading is a heavy task. Reading takes time and your full attention. You can't read while you are cooking breakfast, getting dressed, standing in a crammed Muni bus, or riding on your bike to work. Listening is passive. Listening is easy. Listening allows you consume longer pieces of content with less effort, while doing something else. Umano is here to offer great content in a different medium.
We started Umano with no licensing deals from any publishers (big or small). Sure, having licensing deals would be amazing, but "Even if 100% of people they asked were fine with it (Scott seems to imply he is) probably less than 10% would bother to respond, that then knackers their startup instantly." as @robinwarren said above. Now that we are bigger and more mature, we have deals with many large publishers. However, at this point it wouldn't be scalable for us to ask for permission from all bloggers that write amazing content that our community would like to be voiced. If the content producer doesn't want their content on the platform, we will happily take it down. As we grow and start to make money, our mission is to do revenue shares with content owners. Until then, the benefit that we bring to many bloggers is distribution. Popular articles often generate a significant number of listeners. Finally, one interesting point about Scott's article that was narrated - it was actually requested by one of our users through a new "Submit Any Link" feature that we recently launched as an experiment on Android.
Now to attribution. We never claim that the content we voice is original Umano content, and we always provide attribution. We link to the original article, and always include the name of the publisher and the author in the narration. Scott mentioned that we do it poorly on mobile web and will fix that shortly.
With this line of thinking you'd never get things like YouTube or Uber. Switching to opt-in would basically imply shutting down so that's not really an option. I suppose they could default to computer-generated reads and wait for content owners to request a human-read version. We're likely in a gray area here but it's hard to get too objectionable (except for the part where Umano claims some future ownership).
I think the problem is time, not the law. I read this article a while ago, and it really opened my eyes as to how much, despite massive effort by the copyright lobby, society is changing away from the idea that copying is theft:
[+] [-] spindritf|12 years ago|reply
While I understand the rhetorical usefulness of calling copyright infringement stealing, it's simply not accurate and nitpickers will be right. Again, they may also be annoying, myopic, or outright stupid, but they will be correct.
However, the article is much better than the title would imply so if you were just irked by the headline, don't skip it.
[+] [-] jordigh|12 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ
Copying is not theft!
[+] [-] superuser2|12 years ago|reply
However, it deprives its victim of the ability to monetize and get credit for his/her creation. It's "theft" of revenue.
You can say that competition does the same thing. We tend to be okay with this because if you can figure out how to write better software or manufacture a better widget and offer it at a lower price, you deserve to win.
Writing, producing, and distributing a better movie is completely fair. Beating the studio at distributing the movie it paid to create deprives it of the position in the market which it earned and you didn't. That sounds an awful lot like theft to me.
[+] [-] smacktoward|12 years ago|reply
How is that not stealing?
[+] [-] ap22213|12 years ago|reply
I know this first-hand because I grew up in poor Appalachia, in the US. There, property and ownership and rights were much differently understood than in metropolitan Virginia where I live now. Even though we were under the jurisdiction of local, state, and national laws regarding such things, we followed the norms of the people around us. But, as I became assimilated into the urban 'middle-class', I had to re-learn these things.
I think this is why file sharing in the US became so popular in the 90s/2000s. Kids (and adults) who were otherwise raised with an understanding of US 'property rights' were nonetheless stealing media. The media that was being shared just didn't have a cultural foundation as property, to them.
Anyway, there are a lot of people on the internet that don't necessarily have the same understanding of property and rights and ownership than us. Some people just don't know that what they're doing is bad and/or illegal.
[+] [-] rjbwork|12 years ago|reply
This sounds fascinating, could you elaborate on some of these differences? Both from a real property (land) and object property (trinkets, devices, food, etc) perspective?
[+] [-] belorn|12 years ago|reply
Copyright is an deal for which my property (tax money) is used in a deal between authors. My property (tax money) in order to create and defend a monopoly, and in exchange I get to use the work after a limited time.
However, the deal was changed over and over again, and now I will never, ever, see the other side of the deal. The written word evolve faster than copyright expires. Physical medium of movies and music deteriorate to dust, and the technology in programs will be obsolete and dead beyond recreation.
Taking my money for this deal is stealing. The only way government can make me support copyright is by force, which is the current way it is supported. I consider this much more unethical than a person who ignores the copyright deal.
I like that artistic people can live on their work. However, ask me to choose between that and respecting the copyright deal, and I will pick the lesser evil.
[+] [-] bad_user|12 years ago|reply
That goes against the principles of a free market on so many levels and the only reasonable argument for it would be ... for the flourishing of the public domain. Can you make that argument right now? Of course you can't.
Otherwise, if something is so cheap to copy, to build upon, why should it be illegal to do so? Technological advances happen leading to the destruction of business models like all the time. Copyright is basically legislature that protects the incumbents.
Let me put it another way - if a machine was invented that basically materialized food out of thin air and poor people from Africa would copy the design, built it and produced food with it to feed themselves, would that be considered stealing from the inventor? What if they stole the food in question? What if the food they stole was produced by a machine out of thin air?
Maybe the real problem is that our current economic and business models don't really work anymore ;-)
[+] [-] mrtksn|12 years ago|reply
I would like to describe the situation as cheating in the game without trying to going down into the rabbit hole that the digital goods opened(or expanded, since before the digital era we already had goods that are valuable other than it's material and building value. Books, Paintings, Designs, Blueprints and more).
So, you are producing something with intention to gain money or maybe just reputation but often you already use other peoples work to do that - nothing is made out out of thin air.
Then somebody is building some other product with some intention like making money, gaining reputation or something else and his product is using your product and maybe many other people's products. Let's say a website with AI that awesomely curates the content of other people.
In this situation everybody produced a valuable product but the other guys product's success is on your expense.
Ideally you would have an arrangement where everybody wins. I will give an example from the movies and music industries:
a)When you have the arraignment it's iTunes store. b)When you don't have one, it's the Prate Bay.
or Defense industries:
a) When you have a contract it's joint venture and you exchange some information to build some product. b) When you don't have one and you spy on each other to create similar product its espionage.
or personal relationships:
a) When a couple are also seeing other people with the consent of the other one, it's open relationship b) If there is no consent, it's called cheating.
It's not about stealing, it's about managing the resources in coordination with other parties so that everybody wins. Otherwise often one party wins in expense of the other, many time everybody loses in the long run.
[+] [-] lazyjones|12 years ago|reply
Honestly? Like you wrote, everything's going to be copied anyway, better don't let it cause frustration. It's just information, something we've never controlled successfully before the digital age and haven't given up trying to control on the web yet.
If we didn't try to (pointlessly really) fight over attention from search engines and revenue from annoying ads where we ought to put our content, it wouldn't be such a big issue and the world would probably a better place if people published stuff because they thought it would matter to do so, not for ad revenue.
[+] [-] jeremysmyth|12 years ago|reply
1: How much of the content you read every day is created by people who are paid to do it? (many links on HN go to articles by paid reporters on news sites, or are commentary on such articles by amateur bloggers)
2: How much of the content you rely on every day that isn't paid-for content costs an absolute fortune to maintain and would disappear if there wasn't a corporate backer and/or financial incentive? (like Facebook, Twitter, Stack Overflow)
My internet would quickly become a very small and geocities-like place.
[+] [-] crusso|12 years ago|reply
Replace "published stuff" with whatever you do in your job every day to make a living and replace "ad revenue" with "compensation".
Doesn't sound quite so nice, does it? [edit, added the question]
[+] [-] programminggeek|12 years ago|reply
Not everything makes sense to put out as Creative Commons. Sometimes you want to actually sell something like software or an ebook, but you don't think it makes sense to go after people torrenting your stuff and giving it away for free.
My philosophy is there can still be an exchange of value. So, with the Pirate License, you make a version of your product explicitly licensed under the Pirate License which calls those who steal your product pirates, and asks them to pass it along to other pirates or potential customers.
I think it makes the expectations for piracy much more clear and should lead to better outcomes.
[+] [-] ds9|12 years ago|reply
However, the situation hanselman describes is certainly copyright infringement, and in my opinion he ought to look at the possibility of legal action. It might not be worthwhile, but might be satisfying and set a precedent for control of ripoff sites (modulo jurisdiction and other practical issues).
On the principles involved, IMHO copyright infringement can be justified and even admirable and virtuous in some contexts - but commercial exploitation of others' works, without the creators' permisssion, is not among them. In a just world Hanselman would get the all the profit the infringer realized plus the full cost of suing.
What's most egregious here is the relationship of economic power and enforcement of rights. Big, evil copyright-hoarding companies, that do not create anything but exploit the creations of others, are able to enforce their legal rights to an extreme and excessive degree, including interference with civil communications, taxes on blank media, false takedown orders and other abuses - while individuals subjected to exactly analogous, or even worse violations have no recourse. It's a two-tier system that deserves little respect.
'Scuze me for ranting.
[+] [-] qwerta|12 years ago|reply
Steeling would be taking away copyright ownership from author.
[+] [-] lukasm|12 years ago|reply
People don't consider content to be proprietary. We treat a blog post in the same way we treat speech. Users ain't gonna pay for that. Period. Some of them may, but no the majority.
[+] [-] pantaril|12 years ago|reply
The attitude of content creators is quite schizophrenic. On one hand, they want to spread their work as far as possible, on the other hand, they want to limit access to it. The source of this stance is of course their business model often based on copyright law which links the financial reward of the author with the artificialy created copying limitations. Replace this with some other model where content creators reward is not depended on the number of copies sold or on number of page hits, but rather on some more rational measure like the amount of time and effort put into the creation itself, on the popularity/reputation of the creator and quality of his previous works. Then, this 'copying is stealing and stealing is bad' attitude disappears because i believe that no sane author would realy object against spreading of his works.
[+] [-] Thiz|12 years ago|reply
Never.
A good read about IP:
http://mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property
[+] [-] psionski|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robinwarren|12 years ago|reply
Better attribution would have been good, and possibly reaching out to original creators asking them to opt out if they'd rather not be involved. Offering something in return (the embedded player for relevant articles) could have helped grease the wheels. Ultimately, if they get bug they may not need massive support from content creators like Scott but they do need not to be on the wrong side of them.
[+] [-] reidrac|12 years ago|reply
There's also fair use, but IANAL and I think that they should definitely ask (because of the "all right reserved" part).
[+] [-] btreesOfSpring|12 years ago|reply
Grace Hopper, as quoted in the U.S. Navy's Chips Ahoy magazine (July 1986).
[•] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
[+] [-] vrikis|12 years ago|reply
Totally off-topic, so I apologize, but I've always wanted to read into this topic a bit more...
[+] [-] leephillips|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshvm|12 years ago|reply
http://petapixel.com/2014/01/24/make-money-twitter-ignore-co...
The attitude in most of these cases is innocent unless you can prove you own it and complain enough.
Extreme example - is Google stealing from you because it aggregates your content, stores it, makes it easily searchable and then serves adverts to make money from it?
[+] [-] krstck|12 years ago|reply
I've always felt it questionable ethical territory to take somebody else's work, slap ads on it, and pocket the money. "Aggregators" have been doing that forever, though.
[+] [-] edw519|12 years ago|reply
As soon as you have to ask, "When is it stealing?", it's stealing, simple as that.
As much as people would like to believe otherwise, all the rest is hand waving, semantics, and window dressing.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply
For one, this completely destroys fair use, even for parody. Just claim something was stolen. It'd kill any innovation driven by competitor enhancements: stealing.
Heck, some people felt that Kindle's text-to-speech was stealing.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] antonl|12 years ago|reply
There are many things mentioned in comments that I'm not going to try to cover, but I will cover the basics. I'd be happy to answer any direct questions.
The vision behind Umano is simple. We want to provide our users with a new way of consuming content. Many times it's the content they wouldn't otherwise read. How many times have you come across an interesting article that bubbled up in your twitter stream, you added it to your Pocket, and you forgot about it forever and ever. Reading is a heavy task. Reading takes time and your full attention. You can't read while you are cooking breakfast, getting dressed, standing in a crammed Muni bus, or riding on your bike to work. Listening is passive. Listening is easy. Listening allows you consume longer pieces of content with less effort, while doing something else. Umano is here to offer great content in a different medium.
We started Umano with no licensing deals from any publishers (big or small). Sure, having licensing deals would be amazing, but "Even if 100% of people they asked were fine with it (Scott seems to imply he is) probably less than 10% would bother to respond, that then knackers their startup instantly." as @robinwarren said above. Now that we are bigger and more mature, we have deals with many large publishers. However, at this point it wouldn't be scalable for us to ask for permission from all bloggers that write amazing content that our community would like to be voiced. If the content producer doesn't want their content on the platform, we will happily take it down. As we grow and start to make money, our mission is to do revenue shares with content owners. Until then, the benefit that we bring to many bloggers is distribution. Popular articles often generate a significant number of listeners. Finally, one interesting point about Scott's article that was narrated - it was actually requested by one of our users through a new "Submit Any Link" feature that we recently launched as an experiment on Android.
Now to attribution. We never claim that the content we voice is original Umano content, and we always provide attribution. We link to the original article, and always include the name of the publisher and the author in the narration. Scott mentioned that we do it poorly on mobile web and will fix that shortly.
[+] [-] shanselman|12 years ago|reply
"However, at this point it wouldn't be scalable for us to ask for permission"
[+] [-] pbreit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] summerdown2|12 years ago|reply
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/the-generational-d...