60 replies to this topic

[Lin731]

Quote

Lackluster Movie Offerings 'Piracy' hurts the DVD industry
I was amused to see a flurry of articles like this one this week, based on a new MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] press release.

They claim that "video piracy" is hitting movie profits hard, and offers this as evidence: last year, the top selling DVD sold $183M in DVDs, while this year the top seller only sold $96M.

Thank you! I made mention of this in another thread and about got my head ripped off becaue how dare I imply that movies these days more often than not kinda suck. If the film industry wants to blame anyone for lackluster profits they need to blame themselves for cranking out alot of crapolla and uping the prices to go see said crapolla.

I don't know if the dvd is going out or not though. There are places in the US where decent internet isn't really available so downloading movies isn't viable. You also have to consider the cost of downloading (as most have limits per billing cycle on how much you can download before they either throttle your speed down to a crawl or you incur extra (costly) charges for exceeding your 5 Gig max.

Let's say for the sake of argument that pirating by the average Joe was cutting into their profits. The person pirating would more than likely be renting the dvd to make a copy in the first place, so the film industry would make money off the rentals. Then you have some of them (studios) also selling blank media as well. So they make money there. Then you have companies like Sony that also sell burners, there's more money. They put this DRM on their videos to stop whole sale piracy from bigtime bootleggers (supposedly) but that's just a big, fat lie. To those who bootleg on a massive scale, DRM is a joke. The only people it hurts are the average people that have kids, grandkids etc...because they can't even make backup copies of movies they bought and paid for without buying expensive software to deal with the copywrite protections.

[D.Rabbit]

I'm just going by my son's attitude towards DVDs.
He will have nothing to do with them, dust collectors. If they are not digital and easy to sort through, forget it.
I can see his point, he has always been organizationally challenged.
Give him a search window and he's gold.

Perhaps the industry should look at the overall economy before they start blaming their loses on pirates.
People don't have all that extra coin to throw away on entertainment like they did before the Chinese invaded and took away so many jobs and industries.
Maybe they should start producing more movies in Chinese?

BTW Orph, one of the links to the copy-write books needs fixing.
Thanks for the reviews.

[Orpheus]

Lin731: While I don't necessarily disagree (I don't see enough films to have an opinion), my point was very different. You're speaking of longer term trends, while I'm speaking of differences from year-to-year, and how the MPAA implicitly assumes that they are not only entitled to the same revenue regardless of the offerings that year, but actually taking high water marks as the new standard. Imagine if winemakers accused the market of criminality of every subsequent year didn't have/retain the same market value/appreciation as each vintage year -- and insisted that each following vintage year's prices should be a jump from the "new normal price" set by the previous vintage year. Instead of wines appreciating with age, rarity and proven aging, new wines would be presumptively worth more than old -- sure, the drinking won't bear that out, but drinking quality isn't a criterion, just industry "health"!

D.: Interestingly, there's a lot of machination trying to keep overseas-produced content from widespread US distribution (and presumably Canada). We see a little bit of this from complaints about much-delayed, cancelled or altered "authorized" DVD releases in other regions, and regional blocks on free streaming, but there's much more to it than that. For example, distributors argue that it is illegal for overseas fans to see US DVD extras at all. They feel that any content they remove or alter is a potential future product. If you must buy five versions, that's their right.

You might be surprised how big the overseas market is for "remixed" Hollywood blockbusters -- jusy a step from fan- or "unauthorized resellers" dubbing in another language (Have you ever heard the voice of Tyr on the authorized German DVDs? KHC, it ain't, and I'm sure that you'll agree with me that if Germans aren't getting 100% KHC, they're missing the Full Tyr experience) then you have the ability to play with the script lines (often done on authorized versions for cultural or idiomatic reasons) and plotlines ... and actors! I haven't seen them, but I hear that remixed movies made from Hollywood productions are available in China and India that locally famous actors and differing plotlines. They are considered distinct movies -- much as remixed/sampled music has been thoroughly validated as "original" by US courts (not that the studios like to admit it) Many on the web have discovered, for fan purposes, that modifying/mixing images can be a genuine creative art.

Thanks for pointing out the link problem. While fixing it, I remembered another reason I suggest "How to Fix Copyright" over Patry's earlier book. It's cheaper: $14.77 ($9.99 Kindle) vs $22.31 ($16.17 Kindle). I'm guessing this is intentional. The first was more an academic mind-opener for policymakers and influential thinkers; the second is punchier, more for the public.

Besides, he did most of the work for the second book while writing the first.

Personally, I think someone could very effectively reduce the book to a 15-20 minute powerpoint

Edited by Orpheus, 03 January 2012 - 02:49 AM.

[Orpheus]

Again, my apologies for not getting back to the meat of Ip (patents, etc), but The Atlantic asked an interesting question: "Why do all movie tickets cost the same? (at a given theater and time)

That's certainly not the standard practice in other media: Broadways shows, concerts, or other live performances at the same venue and time don't all cost the same; nor any duplicated art: books, albums, videos, paintings, magazines, single songs, streaming/on-demand content etc. Why does the film industry seem to (usually) see all its first-run offerings as interchangeable blocks with no distinction made for quality or demand?

There are certainly many plausible explanations today, but it's interesting that uniform pricing emerged in 1973 when many of these explanations didn't apply as much -- and US ticket sales per capita never achieved the 1972 level again.

It's also interesting that the flagging tickets sales per capita got a shot in the arm when (ostensibly competing) video rentals emerged, just as (despite industry cries) CD sales climbed healthily during the decade when file sharing emerged.

This question has been bouncing around for years

[D.Rabbit]

Quote

(Have you ever heard the voice of Tyr on the authorized German DVDs? KHC, it ain't, and I'm sure that you'll agree with me that if Germans aren't getting 100% KHC, they're missing the Full Tyr experience)

Yes I have and they should have at least found a baritone to voice over. I suspect that they figured the Germans would not know the difference. Or someone got the short straw?

Quote

Many on the web have discovered, for fan purposes, that modifying/mixing images can be a genuine creative art.

I agree, snippets become brush stokes. However:
Deviant Art states directly that their digital artist do not, can not use photos in their collages that they do not own.
One of the reasons I've switched to donuts, that I photographed and edited or my stuffed donkey, they totally belong to me.

It does rather limit me on some of my projects, I only have one picture of William Gibson and myself. A newspaper clipping from 1967. Zooming in and out with the occasional melt down etc over a 3 minute song is just boring. I can't afford a trip to Vancouver for a book signing just to add video.  

BTW I am working on Kids and Babies but the production of all the individual bits and pieces is going to take years. Besides, it needs a third verse and I'm stumped.


I have nothing to say about movie prices. You can't get me in one of those germy joints even with a shot gun at my head.

If I was to guess, it's a matter of pride to see who grosses the most at the box office. If all the prices are the same then it's a level playing field regardless of how much was poured into production.

[Orpheus]

"New Media" will inevitably mean new ways of doing business.

For example, I remember when televising fairly recent major films was a controversial issue, carefully negotiated among major corporations, and advertised heavily as special events. Then that became routine, and begat home video recording as a hotly fought legal issue (cable/broadcast has only now developed the technical ability to prevent recording of "special events"). That begat physical video stores, which begat home delivery, which begat streaming on-demand.

And now, Netflix is producing and distributing its own original TV series. Meanwhile, music publishers *still* use and fight for the system used by Ben Franklin when sheet music was the only publishing medium (writers/composers get royalties; performers don't, absent a special deal)

[Orpheus]

You've elsewhere heard me rant on traditional scientific publishing.

• Journals don't fund research (I know less than 5 exceptional cases in American medicine since 1950)
  
• They don't pay authors for writing the articles that the journals accept and publish
  
• They don't pay the referees to review the submissions for worthiness or suggest refinements.
  
• They usually *charge* the authors ($1000s, for a top journal) in "reprint fees"
  
• They usually *charge* the authors ($100s/1000s) per figure or table they include [i.e. "data" not "prose"]
  
• They confiscate all publication rights; the author can't even post the findings on their own webpage.
  
• They charge huge per-article fees (typically $30-300/per copy) for access to any single article
  
• They charge huge subscription fees [$1000/yr is common, with maybe a 30% discount for 'members', if any)
  
• libraries are coerced into buying bundles that cost hundreds of thousands or millions per location per year
  
• Millions of unfunded researchers or cash strapped institutions have learned: "if you can't pay, you can't play"
  
• This completely rends the fundamental policies of free dissemination/discussion that made modern science work

There's more, but you get the idea: like traditional book publishers, they consider it an honor to be published at all.

Well, in 2008/2009, the NIH got Congress to pass a policy that publicly funded scientific research should be made freely available to the public that paid for the work a year after publication (if you've ever used PubMed, you've noticed that currently few US/Eur articles *ever* offer more than a summary/abstract to entice you to buy). This outraged the scientific publishing community, which wasn't satisfied with only having the profits from initial publication of the latest research, but wanted to control all access to that research until it was gray and moldy. They immediately had a Rep Conyers introduce the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" *which sank, and now the "Research Works Act", which revokes ANY currently legal access not authorized by the publisher, and prohibits Congress from ever passing any such policy in the future.

I don't need to tell you how this hamstrings science and private innovation in the US compared to any nation without such a law (or which doesn't value academic sharing with the public OR copyright anyway)

And (as I will soon post in a separate thread) the law is already even worse in medicine/biomedical research.

"Congress Considers Paywalling Science You Already Paid For"
"Elsevier-funded NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Wants to Deny Americans Access to Taxpayer Funded Research

[Orpheus]

I've talked about the fancy accounting used by the recording, film, and publishing industries to assure that the creators of works get little or nothing, and I do plan to dig through my bookmarks for more authoritative examples, but this one just popped onto my radar. You may have heard Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix made $967 million in global revenues (as of the end of 2011, I believe) but how much did our friends at the Writers Guild of America collect from the 5% of the profits they were supposed to get?

Um, nothing.

You see, according to leaked documents, after the studio accountants got through with it, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had allegedly lost $167 million. So if the WGA were fair, they'd pay the studio $8.35M

Now this suggests that the film cost way over a Billion dollars ($1.134B, to be more precise) to make and distribute. Did Warner Brothers even *have* that kind of cash to spend on a single product in the first place? Um. No. And I have no doubt that if HP&OoP had managed to clear $1.2B, none of that would have been profit, either. More ticket sales would mean more theater and distribution expenses, don'cha know.

In most industries, we'd say that the Free market was telling Hollywood to get out of the business, since no one wants what they make, at a price they can make it. Heck, they've been paying hundreds of millions of dollars for us to see each Harry Potter film. Billions of dollars per year in total across all films. How can they afford that, decade after decade? Are they the secret love-child of Howard Hughes and Scrooge McDuck?

Film after film after film, they paid for you to see. Such philanthropists! (Can I take my share as straight cash and spare myself watching their films?) I guess the studios are just diehard fans, doin' it for the love.

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

[Orpheus]

Another digression, based on current news:

Though it isn't necessarily an abuse, and is (now) a precedent in UK case law, not US, a recent court case involving a photograph may have distressing implications in widely disparate fields. Though the second photo, now ruled infringing, was taken independently at a public place, is not identical, and has a different POV, the similarities, including post-processing is unmistakeable (see both of them in this DP_Review article the judge ruled that the second photographer was clearly inspired by the original, but the leap is in saying that the "idea" was an infringeable property, where previously copyright only covered products, not thoughts. Though I can see where the judge is coming from, this is nonetheless unnerving. I truly shudder to think of the immense impact this would have had on the advancement of our culture -- and the chilling effect it would have in the future of our culture, if upheld and extended.

Amateur Photographer (UK): "Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling"

This issue has broad-reaching effects in technology and commerce, as well. To me, this was best illustrated by the famous Lotus 1-2-3 "look and feel" case. In the 1970s, Apple's Break-through "killer app", the program that made the Apple II really take off, was Visicalc by Personal Software (later renamed VisiCorp after the unexpected runaway success of the product), the first desktop spreadsheet program. It's really impossible to overstate the effect this program had on business worldwide in the late 20th century. Mitch Kapoor, a friend and employee of VisiCalc's authors went on to start Lotus Software with Lotus 1-2-3, an IBM-PC version of VisiCalc, as its flagship product -- and suddenly IBM's killer app (a situation somewhat reminiscent of Zuckerberg's Facebook vs. the Winkelvoss twins and Divya Narenda, which may help highlight how the culture of teh software world has changed).

Microsoft already had a spreadsheet on the market (Multiplan), but Lotus 1-2-3, based closely on VisiCalc, became much more popular. Needless to say, countless others entered this thriving market, too, but unlike VisiCorp, Lotus fought hard against the competition, finally suing Borland (then a major software publisher) for selling a program with an independently written interface and features that were similar to the feature set of 1-2-3.  The courts held that "look and feel" were not de facto infringements, though specific trademarked or design-patent elements may be.

Apple Corp (which IMHO was a totally different company after the introduction of the Mac) became known for strenuously fighting any product similar to its own (and still does today: e.g. it sued over some Samsung phones, though the iPhone/iPad are *powered* by Samsung chips, and some earlier Samsung products --and the 1968 film "2001: a Space Odyssey"-- had used some of those "infringing" design elements before Apple did) The landmark showdown to decide this issue was expected to be Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft over the Windows Operating System, but Apple, perhaps worried by the outcome of Lotus' "look and feel" lawsuit, settled, so the issue was never completely decided.

"Look and feel", "original idea" and a bevy of related issues have been a staple of consumer technology litigation ever since -- with an already well-known chilling effect on innovation and the spread of innovation. Few companies even marshal the resources for such a battle anymore. Though courts have generally held that one can patent inventions and specific implementations ("creations") not ideas -- especially in the arts (imagine if plot themes, character traits, twists or philosophical views could be owned for decades/centuries by one author/corp)-- one never really knows how a specific judge will rule, or how much time/expense such a case will require.

It's certainly a topic worthy of debate.

Perhaps, in the era of high speed media/internet, where a decade is an eternity for corporate, technology and even national competitiveness, we should consider *shortening* patents and the like rather than lengthening them?

[Orpheus]

I've elsewhere written about how the scientific and technical journals are strangling the free exchange of scientific research to line their own pockets, even though they produce/pay for none of the research or papers themselves, Princeton's decision to refuse to turn over copyright to such journals (they are in a better position to refuse, institutionally, than their individual researchers would be), and more recently, on the SOPA/PIPA-like "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act" which seeks to restore the strictly limited access that the National Institute of Health tried to remove by saying that NIH-funded papers should be free to the public after a year

I contemplated posting this new twist in the biomed IP thread, but since this particular article is written by a mathematician, I'm posting it here. Tim Gower has won the Field's Medal, mathematics' equivalent of a Nobel Prize.

Alas, he's somewhat mistaken about the role of PubMed in biomedical science: it lists papers and authors, usually with an abstract, but the actual papers are still locked away behind private paywalls. There are, however, now reputable free access, "open source" journals like the seven PLoS journals, which includes four devoted to medical areas, and one general science journal that often publishes biomedical science articles.

"Elsevier - my part in its downfall"

Also see:
"Ban Elsevier"
"Open Access and the Cost of Knowledge"
and most chillingly:
The Cost of Knowledge - Gowers' anti-journal organizing site, which is now unreachable in a manner that suggests it was recently yanked by someone upstream, not closed by its owner

[D.Rabbit]

Orpheus, on 27 January 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Another digression, based on current news:

Though it isn't necessarily an abuse, and is (now) a precedent in UK case law, not US, a recent court case involving a photograph may have distressing implications in widely disparate fields. Though the second photo, now ruled infringing, was taken independently at a public place, is not identical, and has a different POV, the similarities, including post-processing is unmistakable (see both of them in this DP_Review article the judge ruled that the second photographer was clearly inspired by the original, but the leap is in saying that the "idea" was an infringeable property, where previously copyright only covered products, not thoughts. Though I can see where the judge is coming from, this is nonetheless unnerving. I truly shudder to think of the immense impact this would have had on the advancement of our culture -- and the chilling effect it would have in the future of our culture, if upheld and extended.

Amateur Photographer (UK): "Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling"

I'm surprised photoshop didn't step in and claim their rights too. Both must have used cutting tools to lift the center piece and adjust the RGB.

Personally I try to use as little photo editing special effects as I can possibly get away with. Anyone can add special effects, it takes a certain type of genius to avoid the easy outs/computer generated effects and produce something conceptually interesting.

Maybe the artistic directors of Schindler's List have a claim to the red icon in the B&W footage? They most certainly do IMHO.

What about the architects of the buildings and bridges in the back ground and the people who designed the bus? Where is their cut? Without them ya got nothing.

Then it just gets crazy as to whom owns what, and I really think that there is too much focus on copy write, once the image has met up with a photo editing program, game over. Yes you may have thought up the idea first, but you used a common program to do the deed.

I have no idea what's going to happen once I launch my Revelry video. I did write Gibson's webmaster about my taking screen captures off a YouTube video of William and have him appear to chant his own name. No reply yet, so I'm going to run with it until I receive the cease and desist order.

I also got into a snarl with the Toronto Star over the one picture I do have. They want money and exclusive writes for a fresh copy. I told them I won't disclose who's in the picture if I don't get freedom of usage and a free copy! Doubt that it's going to happen, so I'm working with what I have.

[Orpheus]

It's interesting how common such stalemates are, when they could be so easily resolved.

The one big flaw with treating "intellectual property" as "real property" is that IP rights can be shared/licensed without diminishing the original owner's rights one bit. Alas, corporate fear that any free legal usage might, in some small case, cost them a FEE they could otherwise charge -- and corporations have no soul, only profit motive. That's all they exist for. Asking them to give up a dollar is literally like asking for a pound of their (conceptual) flesh -- no matter how many million pounds of flesh they may have.

[D.Rabbit]

Giving up their flesh/profit takes a little finagling but it can be done as my latest phone bill will prove.
I gave them proper what for for making me jump through their hoops for half an hour only to be told that the office is closed. Mentioned that time is money and even at minimum wage they owed me $5. at least, and I got it! It was not noted in the bill, but I hardly think they reduced my rate by $5 since they just upped it by $3.

I can't say for any certainty that it was my doing, but my, "Canada Post is Scrooge," page was posted the year before they finally gave the postal employees a seasonal bonus for working their acts off in Dec. That cost them quite a goodly amount of flesh.

I do wish Mr. PI was a bit more aggressive when it comes to his IP. It's spread out all over the web and he gets no credit for it. Maybe when he gets the Canadian Government to back off he can go after the offending parties? Then there are those devils that use one of his corporate names, Mr. Carburetor, every time he goes after them they change owners! Me thinks he's going to have to turn it into a franchise to see any returns.

[Mikoto]

Orpheus, on 03 January 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

D.: Interestingly, there's a lot of machination trying to keep overseas-produced content from widespread US distribution (and presumably Canada). We see a little bit of this from complaints about much-delayed, cancelled or altered "authorized" DVD releases in other regions, and regional blocks on free streaming, but there's much more to it than that. For example, distributors argue that it is illegal for overseas fans to see US DVD extras at all. They feel that any content they remove or alter is a potential future product. If you must buy five versions, that's their right.

Italics mine.

Say what? Really? I get DVDs legally (at least I hope it's legal, amazon!) imported from the US all the time that plays on my equally legal multi-region DVD player. It plays a large part in how I regularly and somewhat get around getting certain shows hopelessly later than my US counterparts. Up to six months later in some cases.

And naturally they have all the extras and whatnot on them.

[Orpheus]

Yes, but they argue that you are using your multi-region DVD player in an unlawful and unauthorized fashion.

They take regions very seriously, and in the US, a good case could be made that it is an "encryption circumvention device" under the DMCA. (Heck, they even set up a special "in orbit" region so Soyuz/Skylab/ISS could legally watch) The DMCA doesn't apply overseas, but you'd be surprised how many (sometimes stricter) foreign equivalents there are.

I, personally, could make a VERY good argument that DVD regioning was specifically prohibited under GATT (the international General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs prohibits discriminatory pricing/products for different regions) and its successor, and was therefore unlawful and unenforceable on its face from the beginning. But it seemed that no one with the $100Ms necessary to fight the DVD consortium (a de facto monopoly) had a compelling interest in doing so

[Mikoto]

Well that's interesting Orph.

I certainly didn't know that. My multi-region DVD player was bought from a legitimate, large and reliable electronics chain so I doubt it's illegal here. And honestly, for what other reason would one go to the trouble of getting a multi-region DVD player other than y'know, to play DVD from different regions?

And there is the possibility of getting US tv shows on a.... different and most likely illegal format. (Not that I'm saying I do mind you.) Would there be any business for such things if there weren't huge delays between regions?

[Orpheus]

The official reason for multi-region DVD players is in case you move, or (for computer DVD drives) in case an OEM ships systems internationally. They allow a limited number of region changes (typically 5 or so). Older RPC-1 [Region Protection Control] was done via software drivers in the computer; RPC-2 drives use firmware hardware protection, but are often sold with RPC-1 firmware instead, placing the region protections under software control (or ignored). A newer disc-based system called RCE or REA failed after being employed on just a few discs.

In today's market, many standalone players are built around computer drives for economy of scale, and have firmware that 'doesn't check the region reliably' (or at all). Many drives have well-known "test modes" that can be entered to disable region-codes during "debugging". There's a lot of nudge-nudge/wink-wink in the business.

When the DVD-C calls it "unlawful", that's not the same as "illegal" (criminal). They might be able to sue you individually in a civil case with some chance of success or failure, but even winning could a losing proposition for them. Unlike the "distribution of copied material" (where the MPAA/RIAA can freely imagine/represent that each case cost them millions of sales), the provable damages from unlocking a purchased DVD might be a fraction of the cost of each DVD the individual 'violator' viewed, or might have purchased instead.

The DVD consortium doesn't recognize the lawfulness of viewing of other-region DVDs; they just can't enforce it.

Indeed, it not in the DVD-C's best interest to sue in court at all. They might lose. (IMHO) Region protections fall clearly afoul of the free trade and competition provisions of GATT, and its successor WTO, so rather than risking the creation of invalidating precedents, the DVD consortium prefers other punitive "law enforcement". e.g. even if no prosecution is ever pressed, FBI raids and seizures of "evidence" can cripple and destroy a targeted business.

After decades of covert consumer "rebellion", some government agencies eventually acted preemptively: Australia ruled that any attempt by the DVD-C to enforce region protections would violate AUS consumer protection law, sidestepping the question of the legality of the system itself; similarly, New Zealand has ruled that such protections carry no legal weight to enforce. The EC is investigating if the system itself violates European free-trade/competition laws.

GATT/WTO are Treaties-turned-NGO (independent NonGovernmental Organizations) with the scale/reach of groups like UNESCO, WHO and UNICEF. WTO is blatant in its selective enforcement and politicization.

Edited by Orpheus, 19 February 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Mikoto]

Once more I'm in awe of your knowledge.

The boxes do say "Lisenced for sale only in the US." Not sure what to make of that honestly.

[Orpheus]

The MPAA/RIAA plays coy with words like "licensed". What license? Was there a meeting of the minds? Consent? (Besides it says "sale" not "purchase". It's just scare words)

They've argued that you shouldn't be allowed to resell old CDs/DVDs, because you only purchased a license to the content and don't have "Right of First Purchase" over the physical disk, while simultaneously arguing that, should your disk be damaged, you ONLY purchased the disk, not a license to its contents, so they won't replace the disk (as with software) so you can exercise your paid license rights, nor should you copy it to other media for backup to protect either set of rights -- i.e you had no right to own the physical medium NOR a license to access the content on it. And their stance on converting a CD/DVD to MP3/MP4  claimed you had no right to convert it to any other electronic form ... even though the form stored on the disk isn't a listenable or viewable electronic signal!

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you PAY can and will be used against you by paying our lawyers. If you are unable to afford a lawyer, an argument will be provided for you. Do you understand these rights?

[Mikoto]

To whom would I sell a bunch of imported US DVDs to anyway? I'm the only person I personally know what *has* a multi-region DVD player and even then switching the formats of stuff is something I only have a partial handle on.

And I've long since ignored the "Lisenced only to sell in the US" labels since by the time I actually get to read them it's faaaar too late. They're already across the sea and sitting in my hands. But mind you I've always thought it's outrageous that with some tv shows we don't get them here in the UK until like six months later than when it's aired in the US.

Take CSI Miami for example. I actually aquired the US import DVDs for season 9 before it actually aired on TV here. Twisted I tell you!

Do I understand those rights? Not at the moment but it's 4am here and I'm currently enjoying a mild codiene induced altered state of mind so I'll come back and read them tomorrow.

Edited by Mikoto, 19 February 2012 - 11:20 PM.