A group with a forum people actually discuss things in » Discussões

SOPA/PIPA

 
    • Waldheri disse...
    • Usuário
    • Jan 17 2012, 18h54

    SOPA/PIPA

    SOPA and PIPA are proposed bills in the United States whose selling points are countering online piracy, but which have potentially disastrous consequences. It is supported by many large media corporations such as the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Many internet technology firms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, and others oppose the bills.

    Wikipedia says:The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

    Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

    Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment, is Internet censorship, will cripple the Internet, and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions. Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.


    On Wednesday January 18th, various large websites will black out to voice their protests against the proposed legislation, among which most prominently is the English Wikipedia.

    Your thoughts?

    Meshuggah: "A combination of the powerful and the avant-garde, the band is as visceral and imposing an act as you’ll ever see and hear, guitarists Fredrik Thordendal, Mårten Hagström, and bassist Dick Lövgren hammering out lurching, monolithic riffs as they headbang in robotic unison, vocalist Jens Kidman barking out surreal verses like a twisted drill sergeant while gesticulating like a puppet on strings. - Adrien Begrand (PopMatters)
    Permalink  Citar
  • It sucks. We need to rethink copyright but instead large corporations like these are clinging to the old definition as if they lives depend upon it and in a sense, that's true.

    First we need to rethink whether it's possible to actually own intellectual property and that answer is no, we can't. Therefore actions like these are fruitless to begin with. It reinforces the copyright holders' claims and has the completely opposite effect of making it harder to produce new media using old media, which is how media in general is produced. Shakespeare pretty much copy pasted a lot of his works off Greek tragedies, for example, but luckily for him, there was no one who could claim copyright for Romeo and Juliet.

    Spreading of media is an important aspect of producing culture, but they are essentially trying to inihibit it and even making claims of what is good and right culture.

    Permalink  Citar
  • You know it would be easy to diminish pirating and streaming by just getting ISP's to send warnings (Which they do sometimes) to customers threatening legal action against them since very few pirated works' consumers are willing to risk their livelihood or general happiness for the sake of free movies. Whether that legal action is justified though, eh, I don't think so mostly as laid out in the IP thread. This is just a state's natural course; to amplify its own power and diminish the power of dissenters as well as protecting their special interests.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
    Permalink  Citar
  • While I have not read much about SOPA/PIPA, it just seems to me, that it's just another attempt to prevent pirating movies / games / music and so on. Which might be a good thing, I am afraid it won't help. Pirates will pirate. But as long as the paying customers outnumber pirates everything is somewhat fine. But once everybody pirates, there will soon be nothing to pirate.

    Nevertheless, I don't get all this absolutely ridiculous hysteria surrounding SOPA.

    Permalink  Citar
  • DolceEssenza said:
    Nevertheless, I don't get all this absolutely ridiculous hysteria surrounding SOPA.

    The reason it's such a big thing is largely due to two reasons:

    1) It's in the USA. Shallow, but hey... True.

    2) What happens in the US often has a domino effect on the rest of the Western world. Personally, I fear that assuming the bill passes, Australia would soon follow suite... And yeah, that will have even more of a direct effect on me than if it started and ended in the US.

    I would go into how exactly SOPA effects all users of the Internet (directly or indirectly), though I have other... 'Pressing issues to attend to!'

    Indeed.

    Ending the War on Sharing: http://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html

    Oh, and Aristotle seems like a massive faggot.
    Permalink  Citar
  • DolceEssenza said:
    While I have not read much about SOPA/PIPA, it just seems to me, that it's just another attempt to prevent pirating movies / games / music and so on. Which might be a good thing, I am afraid it won't help. Pirates will pirate. But as long as the paying customers outnumber pirates everything is somewhat fine. But once everybody pirates, there will soon be nothing to pirate.

    Nevertheless, I don't get all this absolutely ridiculous hysteria surrounding SOPA.    A lot of the hysteria comes from people who make their living on the internet. Websites such as That Guy With the Glasses which often use copyrighted material for critique purposes will be extremely easy to shut down. Despite the fact they are not streaming movies or hotsing torrents, they are using the copyrighted material and from what I understand, there mere charge that they are infringing copyright can be enough to take down the entire site. As far as I know only once or twice have TGWTG been seriously threatened with legal action for supposed copyright infringement, but now any Tommy Wiseau who's butthurt his movie got made fun of could potentially take them down over night.

    There's also the charge that the bill's language is extremely vague so as to make this easier and some fear that sites that completely innocent will be taken down without any ability to appeal.

    And as Mountain said, it will likely set a precedent and signal to other governments that they can get away with amplifying their power over the internet.

    I'm sure Australia's just chomping at the bit to get some legislation like this in place, but they'll see how much the U.S.A. gets away with first I figure.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
    Permalink  Citar
  • bj_burger said:
    You know it would be easy to diminish pirating and streaming by just getting ISP's to send warnings (Which they do sometimes) to customers threatening legal action against them since very few pirated works' consumers are willing to risk their livelihood or general happiness for the sake of free movies. Whether that legal action is justified though, eh, I don't think so mostly as laid out in the IP thread. This is just a state's natural course; to amplify its own power and diminish the power of dissenters as well as protecting their special interests.

    The thing is, the way they counter piracy is the wrong way. If I download a crappy game illegally to try it out for a day and then decide it was indeed crappy, the company never made any revenue to begin with. But if I download a game, try it out and think it's good I might actually go and buy it. There are plenty of games where I have done this, by the way. Anno 1404, Heroes of Might and Magic V being two examples.

    This is the problem the companies fail to see. The spreading of media increases their revenue because it allows people to share and take part of the media and decide whether it's worth their money or not. We cannot judge these things based off demos or a single. We need to experience the full deal but distributional companies are so afraid to maintain their status quo regarding copyright that they won't allow their customers this.

    I won't buy something until I know the quality of it. It's just simple as that to me in my mind. But distributional companies think I should buy it anyway based on no other incentive than for the sake of buying it.

    They need to integrate new media better and take advantage of how say the internet helps to spread new media. This means that they might get MORE buyers since they might reach certain demographics they would normally not reach, for example. I think the way Blizzard are dealing with it giving you free 10 days play of the full game is a perfect example of how to deal with copyright. The only real problem is that it relies on internet access to freeze your account. You can also play much of Starcraft 2 for free without a battle.net account, meaning you can install the client without paying for the game. Nevertheless, it's a much better approach than what I've seen say, Ubisoft attempt to do. Another positive aspect of this is that it ensures that every player's game is up to date by forcing them to update their clients. I think it will be hard to produce pure single player games for PC in the future. They will all contain some kind of multiplayer aspect.

    Another example includes online streaming services of how distributional companies take advantage of this. Or should, anyway. Unfortunately the streaming service is rarely owned by the distributional company meaning they must seek out distributional rights which again just goes to show how distributional companies ARE IN THE WAY of spreading and distributing media rather than helping.

    Also, I'm pretty sure over half of Youtube's content would be forcibly taken down if SOPA is accepted. A majority of my videos included. Uploading gameplay videos? Forget it. You won't see anything like HuskyStarcraft or Day[9] cast anymore. Wanted to watch IdrA live stream while laddering? Forget about it. Watching boss tactics for WoW? Forget it. Making spoof videos such as Hitler ones? Forget it.

    And I can go on ad finitum about this, unfortunately. A majority of the Wikia sites would also be shut down.

    As I said, we need to rethink copyright, not hold onto it with our lives. Copyright does not work in the post-industrial age. Further, I don't want to pay some shitty distributional company the majority of my money anyway. I want it to go to the artist. I think copyright fails right there when an artist has to sell his or her copyright (as if that's even possible, you cannot own intellectual property, it's a social construct we just agree on just like we agree on using money like as currency) to a distributional company. There must be some other way media can be spread that does not rely on big third party mediators between producer and consumer.

    Permalink  Citar
  • I have an account on a site for gamers called xfire, since I too play PC games, rarely but I do. There was of course a discussion about SOPA too and well, there were pro-SOPA people. And xfire officials have claimed, that SOPA is not a threat to them. They also stream gaming videos and such. So I assumed, like some other people, that all this fuss around SOPA is just another "they want to take our liberties away conspiracy theory" hysteria.

    But in the end, SOPA does not affect me, therefore I think I won't take any stance on this issue.

    And by the way, as far as I am concerned, there are similar laws in some (a few?) countries of the EU.

    But like TheSadMountain said, it's in the US, so it's a "big deal".

    Lea, when you said you were afraid of having your videos taken down, it reminded me, that Youtube is actually taking down videos or restricts access to it for people from certain countries. And not that long time ago my brothers motorbike video was taken down, because it portrayed "dangerous activity" and this reason is far more terrifying than copyright problems in my opinion. This "safety above all" nonsense. Now you can't even upload videos showing you driving on a highway 200kph... And I gave my brother a new GoPro camera for his birthday last year... =[

    Also Lea, how many people do you think "pirate" something and then buys it, because he/she likes it? And how many people pirate, instead of buying stuff? I can't back up my guess by numbers, but I am afraid, that pirate-like-not-buy people are overwhelming majority. (I know it's a vague term, but let's say, that by overwhelming I mean 70%-90%)

    And personally I don't know anybody, who would pirate something, liked it and then bought it... Despite my anti-pirate stance, I have to admit I also sometimes pirate stuff. Especially music and I've also downloaded a few films. And I haven't paid anything for it.

    Permalink  Citar
  • My problem with SOPA is that it is yet another government intervention into the market place. The MPAA and other supporters of SOPA are like the little Dutch boy trying to hold back the water with his finger.

    The floodgates of internet piracy have been opened. Smart firms will react to it, ones that refuse to innovate (Blockbuster, for example) will sink. As they should.

    TV networks and Record Labels should get on board with piracy, at least to some extent. Upload AVI files of your primetime shows onto your website, a la Icefilms. Sell ad space on the download pages. Sell ad space, say 5-10 minutes of it, WITHIN the download itself. Will people skip through the ads? Yes, but they can with most TVs now, anyway. Allow for more streaming on your sites, in ALL countries.

    Same with movies studios and production companies. Give us your movies to download, right away. Put as many previews as you want within the file. Make us watch previews before being able to access the download.

    Record labels, stick every download of your albums with music from new artists you've signed, and a text-file with tour dates of the band.

    The times have changed. The MPAA are like candlemakers getting pissy about the lightbulb. Move on. People will not go back to buying candles as they were. Find a new market or adapt to the changing one, but stop trying to hold back progress.

    And can I just say, finally, that SOPA is not a "Republican" bill?

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
    Permalink  Citar
  • Lea, when you said you were afraid of having your videos taken down, it reminded me, that Youtube is actually taking down videos or restricts access to it for people from certain countries. And not that long time ago my brothers motorbike video was taken down, because it portrayed "dangerous activity" and this reason is far more terrifying than copyright problems in my opinion. This "safety above all" nonsense. Now you can't even upload videos showing you driving on a highway 200kph... And I gave my brother a new GoPro camera for his birthday last year... =[


    I know they are doing that, but at least I can defend my rights by referring to one of the US laws that allows recreation of media. If SOPA passes this is far less likely. A majority of what you see on Youtube will be taken down and they can and will do it without notice. The censoring of Youtube is bad enough as it is already. We don't need ANOTHER law about copyright infringement.

    And SOPA will affect you because a majority of all sites are hosted in the US. Whether you can stream games on Xfire completely depends on the game. If it's a Ubisoft one, you can already go fuck yourself. Same with EA. You will need to ask for rights but that's the problem, they are less likely to give out rights if SOPA passes.

    Also Lea, how many people do you think "pirate" something and then buys it, because he/she likes it? And how many people pirate, instead of buying stuff? I can't back up my guess by numbers, but I am afraid, that pirate-like-not-buy people are overwhelming majority. (I know it's a vague term, but let's say, that by overwhelming I mean 70%-90%)

    Caco is much more capable of answering that question for you. Apparently quite a few number of people do, though, and certainly more than what I believe most people expect as with everything. The anti-piracy discourse has really misled the public when it comes to this stuff.

    And personally I don't know anybody, who would pirate something, liked it and then bought it... Despite my anti-pirate stance, I have to admit I also sometimes pirate stuff. Especially music and I've also downloaded a few films. And I haven't paid anything for it.


    I do, and I know Caco does. So that makes at least two people. I try to buy everything I like if I can afford it after I pirated. Unfortunately I'm just a student with low income so I can't buy everything, but yes, I do try to support the creators if possible.

    Permalink  Citar
  • LeaTelamon said:
    Caco is much more capable of answering that question for you. Apparently quite a few number of people do, though, and certainly more than what I believe most people expect as with everything. The anti-piracy discourse has really misled the public when it comes to this stuff.
    Well then maybe he'll answer. Though I'd like to see numbers of Eastern Europe and Middle East too, since it's quite obvious that pirating is let's say more than common here and there.

    When I was in Lebanon and Syria last year, I saw shops selling pirated stuff. Nobody really cares there :D. Why pay more, if you can pay less or nothing at all?

    Permalink  Citar
  • People pay because they want what they believe is a genuine product? Which is quite ironic because the products we buy are simply officially sold copies. But if I have to choose between a poorly pirated CD by Insomnium and the real deal released by their label, I know which one I would choose and I would do it in the blink of an eye.

    You also have to consider the reason for piracy being more common in poorer countries - it strongly correlates to the economic standard overall. When peoples' income increase, the quality of the products they buy increases as well.

    Let's make a quick comparison: I'm a poor student and I want to buy a sofa. Where do I buy that sofa? Most likely from IKEA. Kind of poor quality but passable. But if I would be rich with a decent income, I would definitely buy a sofa from a more specialized furniture company like Mio that is renowned for its high quality products.

    Permalink  Citar
  • SOPA/PIPA failed, but there is now ACTA. Anonymous are covering the basics nicely, albeit with a bit of hyperbole to get their point across. Doesn't necessarily make it less true, though:


    Permalink  Citar
  • But just because you're poor, you have no right to pirate it and not pay for it. Just because I don't have money I have a right to download and use something and not pay for it?

    Someone invested their time and work in it. And if they want money for their work, it's acceptable and I shall pay. If you don't have money? Too bad for you. There's probably some cheaper similar product anyways. You've actually given "IKEA and Mio" example. Just like there's Windows Ultimate and Windows Home Edition (or what it is called...). And I bet, there's some totally free operating system as well.

    I don't think any law will change anything. It's about mentality and people will always rather not pay than pay, which is understandable. But they should keep in mind, that they're not giving someone money for something this very someone made investing his time and work. If somebody refused to pay me for something I made and used it nevertheless, I'd certainly get angry with such person, because it means less profit (or even no profit?), less money in my wallet.

    It's easy to download something and not pay a single Euro / Dollar whatever for it... And that's why it is so extremely common. And no matter, what law passes, it will remain so.

    Permalink  Citar
  • The thing is Dolce, if you're so poor, you won't be able to afford to support the original creator either way because the product is sold at too high a cost so in reality it's a non-issue, from a financial POV. It can't be a money loss if there was no interest in consuming the original product to begin with, for whatever reasons there might be doing so.

    We have to remember that there is a big difference comparing IKEA and Mio to intellectual property. IKEA and Mio are brands producing physical objects compared to much intellectual property being distributed over the world such as video and music. (Don't confuse the container aka CD/DVD to the product itself). We can't even talk about quality in the same sense anymore. It would be like comparing say, Sony Music to Inside/Out Music (music labels if you didn't figure that out). Further, they have a tendency to sell their products at the same price. So again, we can't compare. It's like comparing apples and pears. How can you compare the quality of a band like Evergrey to Rhianna? It all boils down to taste but it doesn't mean that either artist is better or worse, quality-wise.

    The issue really lies in distribution. Sure, you can think that it's easy to download and not pay for it, but I don't know why you don't believe me that there are people willing to buy the products when they can afford it and then otherwise download?

    Let's take another example. I am a big fan of the Bleach manga. I have read every single chapter released to date that are distributed over free manga distribution sites such as Mangareader and MangaShare. However, just because the manga is available online 24/7 it doesn't mean that I haven't bought the manga once released in store. I own volume 1-25 (out of soon to be 53). Yeah, I am unfortunately quite poor and the volumes are expensive, but I am intending to catch up at some point. I am very PROUD over the volumes I own. Out of every (comic) book I treasure, I treasure my Bleach volumes the most.

    Why do I buy? Because I 1) want to support Kubo Tite, the author, so he can continue his work, 2) because I want to OWN the manga myself and not be dependent on an online reading service, 3) because reading the actual volumes is DIFFERENT to reading them online and so on and so forth.

    But last but not least: THE ONLY REASON WHY I AM READING BLEACH TODAY IS THANKS TO THESE ONLINE SERVICES! I am not kidding. I initially downloaded the anime and watched it, but then there was a filler season that sucked crappy pants so I decided I wanted to read the manga. So I did. And I got hooked. That was in like late 2005/early 2006. Don't underestimate the power of free distributional services. Piracy being a huge aspect of it. In sum, the Bleach franchise actually got ANOTHER consumer thanks to these free distributional services meaning they are making MORE money off me, than would I not been able to read Bleach online back then and thus not be a fan today.

    Permalink  Citar
  • I believe you, when you say, that there are people who "pirate it" and then actually buy it. But I also think it's a fantasy to think, that more than (a) few people actually do that. Even in richer countries.

    Permalink  Citar
  • I don't think so. I think more do that than you think you think do it. Anyway, I am quite sure Caco can flash some numbers once he gets his ass back over here because I don't have any. I am pretty sure I read one of the articles he mentioned regarding this though where it kind of clearly stated that the anti-piracy discourse is pretty clear on attempting to minimize actual numbers and twist numbers in a way to support anti-piracy even when it's actually clearly beneficial.

    Permalink  Citar
  • If it was beneficial, why would they fight it? If it's beneficial, why has been sales dropping?

    Though, music industry admitted last year wasn't all that bad. Revenues still dropped though. (http://interaksyon.com/article/22719/music-sales-fall-again-in-2011-but-optimism-grows)

    Well, well... I am not that optimistic about numbers of "pirates", who actually buy stuff =] But just like you, I don't have any numbers and I base my estimations on what I see, hear, how people generally act.

    Endless debate =]

    Permalink  Citar
  • Sales are dropping because they don't like to change their business models and adapt to new technology and using new technology instead of being against it. Like I wrote, they should embrace how piracy is capable of spreading media to reach out to new and different demographics normal marketing can't which can potentially increase their sales instead of trying to limit the market. Of course they will sell less, then.

    Permalink  Citar
  • They're not using new technology? It seems they do. I can buy now pretty much anything online, be it through iTunes or one of those international or national (in my case Czech) digital (online) shops. I can listen to official song previews online. Some artists let you listen to their whole album for free online. And if you don't want it official way, you can always listen to it on youtube and probably some other websites too or actually download it for free somewhere. And also you don't even have to buy whole album, you can pick only a few songs and buy just them! And it's not like you're buying an unknown thing.

    Can buying be any easier?

    Yet sales are dropping?

    Do people nowadays listen to less music than 20 years ago?

    No, it's simple, people generally don't want to pay.

    But I agree that no law ought to be implented and enforced. Firstly it would constrain even more the already very very constrained (un)free market. Secondly, no law can just change "I am not paying anything!" mentality.

    Permalink  Citar
  • The businesses decreasing sales is not due to theft, it's due to people not buying their product. Now it may be that you consider sharing as theft and music businesses should have the right to pursue them legally. Do they also have the right, if they could find a way, to sue someone who brings a CD over to his friend's house and lets him rip a copy onto his computer? Is that theft? As I see it online sharing is exactly the same.

    One way that could make everyone kinda happy is the idea from the IP thread by Murray Rothbard, the contractual copyright where there is a clause in the front of the book or back of the CD that say "by purchasing this CD you agree not to copy, distribute, etc. for personal or commercial purposes the contents, artwork or any material herein." It would be a damn hard thing to enforce though, since there's no guarantee the person who uploaded the music was the one who bought the CD.

    iTunes songs are DRM'd out the ying yang and they are sucky and dumb.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
    Permalink  Citar
  • I know it's basically not a theft. And I said, it's about "not paying", which is of course not the same as stealing. Though I think both are bad.

    I don't know, what DRM is. And also I can't tell a difference between a song downloaded from some website like rapidshare and the very same song downloaded from iTunes. I guess I am too "deaf" for that. =]

    But still, if you mind iTunes songs, you can just buy them and then download them from somewhere else, no? =] That way, you pay for songs and satisfy your need for better quality. Or find different digital (online) store.

    Permalink  Citar
  • DRM: Digital Rights Management. It's just a little pet peeve I and plenty of others who have been slightly screwed by iTunes have. Their songs have to be activated on a limited number of PCs (And if your PC crashes and have to reinstall Windows, that counts as a second PC) and the song is unplayable in other media players (I had to re-download about four albums which I had bought via iTunes because MediaMonkey won't play them)

    Now DRM is a pretty good way to stop piracy, but I wonder if it will be rejected by consumers in time. Quality is not really an issue since I too am not well attuned to anything but the most obvious quality differences (Laptop speaker vs. big ass headphones, say)

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
    Permalink  Citar
  • bj_burger said:
    The businesses decreasing sales is not due to theft, it's due to people not buying their product. Now it may be that you consider sharing as theft and music businesses should have the right to pursue them legally. Do they also have the right, if they could find a way, to sue someone who brings a CD over to his friend's house and lets him rip a copy onto his computer? Is that theft? As I see it online sharing is exactly the same.

    One way that could make everyone kinda happy is the idea from the IP thread by Murray Rothbard, the contractual copyright where there is a clause in the front of the book or back of the CD that say "by purchasing this CD you agree not to copy, distribute, etc. for personal or commercial purposes the contents, artwork or any material herein." It would be a damn hard thing to enforce though, since there's no guarantee the person who uploaded the music was the one who bought the CD.

    iTunes songs are DRM'd out the ying yang and they are sucky and dumb.

    It is in the same and in Sweden we have protective laws that says we are allowed to copy and share for personal use but not to distribute for financial gain. So your suggestion would not work in Sweden since it would be ad odds with our civil liberty laws of what we can and cannot do when it comes to copyrighted material.

    Permalink  Citar
  • If you mean the contractual copyright would be at odds with civil liberties, I would have to disagree. Just like when you purchase software and there are terms of use that you agree to, it might be possible to include a contract in the CD, made plain on the outside of the case, that states your purchase enters you into the contract which it would be legal to sue over if you break just as in the case of any other contract.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
    Permalink  Citar
Usuários anônimos não podem postar mensagens. É preciso fazer login ou criar uma conta para postar nos fóruns.