June 21, 2005  ·  Lessig

So the world is bursting with extremely cheap, very good high quality digital cameras. No doubt the vast majority of images snapped (is that the verb these days?) with those cameras are by people who have no interest in enforcing a copyright. Yet as Grant pointed out to me, the AP reports, an increasing number of photo labs are refusing to print “high quality” digital images, out of fear that they “might” be professional photographs, and therefore, “printing the pictures might be a copyright violation.”

This begins to make plain a point Rusty Russell suggested to me in an email recently: No doubt copyright is a property right. But why isn’t anyone out there defending the property rights of digital camera owners? This is a conflict in property rights, produced by an insanely inefficient property system — copyright. The solution is not, as some seem to believe, to abolish copyright. It is instead to abolish the insanely inefficient part. Yet it is the character of our time: to argue against inefficiency is to mark yourself as a “communist.”

  • rich

    because quite simply, professional photographers have a lobbying interest in this matter, and thus far consumers have not been as organized. but being consumers, unless and until someone’s graduation photos get rejected multiple times, it’s unlikely to happen.

  • http://virtuallyshocking.com Brock Tice

    “to argue against inefficiency is to mark yourself as a ‘communist’”

    Funny, since it seems like inefficiency is a hallmark of communism.

  • http://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blog/ Branko Collin

    Does a snapshot even generate a copyright? Is there enough originality involved in a spur-of-the-moment picture where a photographer does not have the time to aim, set the lighting, change the scene, frame the picture et cetera?

  • pb

    “…but artistic ‘talent’ is in suge enormous supply there is no image, no stylistic quality that cannot be reproduced by another ‘artist’…”

    (sic)

    Art is more than imitation. People value originality, even if you don’t.

  • Jonathan Butler

    As A.J. Leibling of the New Yorker said, “Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one,” or, in more modern parlance, freedom to print your photos when and how you like belongs to those who buy a $500 photo printer.

    Jonathan

  • poptones

    While it’s easy to lambaste such things, I still do not see how this is all so evil.On another forum there (or, likely, a hundred) there are similar comments regarding the latest Apple suit over its itunes interface, the latest DMCA like laws in Canada, and the EU adopting patent laws similar to those so very unfashionable here in the US.

    Let me preface the rest of this by pointing out I am perhaps one of the more serious “anti corproatistds” you will ever meet. I do not drive new cars, I generally do not go to the movies, I rarely watch TV, I do not buy DVDs, I do not subscribe to print mags, and most of the new music added to my collection in the last several years comes from artists in places like Russia, China, France, Sweden, Norway and/or from Magnatune and other places that embrace similar licensing. I also contribute to open source software projects as I am able.

    In other words, I walk the walk.

    And I don’t want to see a loss of copyright protections. I don’t want to see my documentation contributions or my coe contributions locked up by some corporation who, because of eroded copyright protections, was given the “right” to some portion of my work. And I don’t want to see a loss of patent protections on inventions because I myself have worked on at last one valuable patent and I have a notebook filled with “prior art” I create as it comes to me. Ideas have value, and you never know how or when they might attain their greatest value. I change pens on a regular basis so the ink might be more easily dated if I am ever required to prove the accuracy of my notebook. And there is nothing preventing any of you from doing this, either.

    People screamed about Faunhoffer choosing to enforce patents on its MP3 technology, but what really came of it?

    It drove the open source community that much harder to produce technology that skirted these legacy patents and, in the process, gave us a better audio compression technology. And the same is happening now with video compression technology. And it can all be wrapped up in a media transport stream that is equally free.

    Thanks to Faunhoffer and the countless geeks who contributed to OGG and FLAC development, I now have a new (and growing) collection of “ripped tracks” on my hard drive that makes most of my five year old MP3s sound like stretched 8-track tapes by comparison.

    Likewise these newfangled photographic devices. As people become more sophisticated in their use of high quality digital cameras they will realize the excessive limitations put upon them by manufacturers who will not support open standards for data exchange, and will be that much wiser on their next purchase. Manufactuers who force their customers to choose between using a substandard proprietary software interface or accepting a data exchange format that causes a loss of quality will lose business to those who do not.

    And, likewise, consumers will simply avoid those service suppliers who will not provide them the high quality prints they desire.

    Better still, this may give some upstart the motivation to create a new invention of something like a digital photographic printer that, instead of “consuming” disposable ink cartidges, instead accepts sheets or cartridges of photographic paper and development chemicals, and outputs those high quality prints right at the consumer’s home desktop.

    It’s easy to flail your hands around in the air and scream about how crazy things are… but it sure wastes a lot of energy. Let them have Hilary and The Sith and their broadcast flags and their DMCA lockups. If everyone who claims to care about this stuff would simply stop economically supporting those corproations who do not respect their customers, all those new laws and bits and licenses will only cause them to lose customers and, by extension, profits – the only incentive to change that corporations and shareholders understand.

  • Matthew Cline

    In reply to Jonathan Butler: yes, the photo labs own the high quality color priniters, but, according to the article: “Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a photographer’s permission”. So since these photo labs are likely rejecting customers because of a regulation than because of profit concerns, this is a matter that concerns civil rights.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To Branko Collin,

    The answer is yes. The threshold for originality for
    U.S. copyright is very, very, very low. A snapshot
    can have copyright.

    On the other hand, if a photographer spends one hour
    positioning camera, set lighting, and other things
    all to take an accurate picture of a public domain
    artwork, the picture does not have copyright because
    it lacks originiality (because the photographer
    does not add anything to the picture).

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
    comment in the public domain.

  • http://www.shiznit.com shiznit

    “Art is more than imitation. People value originality, even if you don’t.”

    they may value it, but they are not going to pay for it unless they have to. I think this ‘honor system’ ethos is really extremely idealistic. the very fact is that in situation where there is no attribution, there will be no works. Why would I want to be an artist in a copy right free zone if I am not getting paid? ill just go across the river where my work is respected and collect my sum from those who would pay. lets not forget the basics of human behavoir. Why do you think that the entire world watches our movies? because film producers make big big bucks for creating moves with exploding cars and lesbian sex scenes.

    The fact is there are far too many ‘artists’ out there. As noted above, the ‘art’ profession appears to many among the middle white( and occasionally black ) america as ‘outlet’ or alternative road to success in an otherwise boring world. it is becoming painfully evident that art is something that only very rich people get to make, at least here in the ol’ US of A. Paris hilton exposes her genitalia and before you know it, she is in the consumer electronics business. I know a guy who tried exposing his genitals and all he got was a night in jail. The ‘rock star’ is another interesting breed, his job is to administer all the images of middle and lower-class ‘freedom’ which are usually stylistic references to pre-occupational youth period lasting 2-3 years in America. When the rock star establishes himself as such an administrator, this is when the music industry picks him up. Cha-Ching! The ‘artist’ is very much opposed to copyright reform in all cases- there are no in-betweens or comprimises. I say, good riddens to your crappy art. What would occur if copyright were abolished would be an immediate return to the classical principles of form and proportion. In the copyright universe, the players all seek the Derridian ‘differance’, to stand out is to create value, and as such the products become more and more ridiculous and detached from utility and even aesthetic proportion( ASMOF modern art often attempts to irritate our aesthetic sensibilities ). In addition to ‘idiot art’ DADA in a world with no copyright,, pornography would disappear, along with all shock-value ‘art’. Copyright reform would reverse art history!

  • pb

    “… Finally, how in the world do you expect your precious ‘originality’ to be protected in a copyright-free environment????…”

    Easy, get a helpful attorney. After some time, you’ll be able to expound on the merits of a copyright-free system in the jail showers. I’m sure you’ll meet some new friends.

    “… This accounts for the psychology of the modern art student, who is a disgusting retartd who revels in sexual debauchery and pharmacuetical intoxication …”

    Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like you’re not getting enough of either.

  • a

    “Nothing wrong with that. It sounds like you’re not getting enough of either.”

    as long as leeches like you continue to thrive off the university system, Bush will continue the educational bloodletting. I say more power to him. People like you are worthless idiots whose entire goal in life is to fool the municipal trust into funding your perverted sexual adventures, oh im sorry I mean, education. You should be ashamed of yourself, the younger crowd is certainly wiseing up to morons like you with the current rise in young republican vote. There is a reason why the third world hates us, it is people like you who woefully misuse the wealth and power of our country.

  • Rolo Timassie

    “The solution is not, as some seem to believe, to abolish copyright. It is instead to abolish the insanely inefficient part.”

    Prof. Lessig, other than registration, renewal, and shortened terms, I’m curious whether you have any other specific proposals on how to rewrite Title 17 to make it less “insanely inefficient.” Registration formalities and shortened terms don’t really seem to address the issue you raise here. How would you rewrite Sections 106, 501, etc. to ensure that photographers could print their own photos? Bring back the notice requirement? That might be more “efficient,” but seems unlikely to be any less “insane,” and would likely trip up exactly the people you’re most concerned about — unsophisticated digital camera owners.

  • poptones

    On the other hand, if a photographer spends one hour
    positioning camera, set lighting, and other things
    all to take an accurate picture of a public domain
    artwork, the picture does not have copyright because
    it lacks originiality (because the photographer
    does not add anything to the picture).

    Joseph, why don’t you tell that to Gary Gross? He’s the chap who took those photos of Brooke Shields all those years ago that led to her appearing in Pretty Baby, the film that essentially made her “America’s girl” for a decade..

    Garry’s also the guy who, only after much wrangling, pocketed all of $2000.00 when a photograph of one of his now infamous photographs sold at Christie’s for more than $150,000.00. The real money went to Richard Prince – the guy who took a picture of his picture of Brooke and wrapped it all up with a fuzzy pink bow of neoartistic bullshit.

    http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/features/1695/

    I think this ‘honor system’ ethos is really extremely idealistic. the very fact is that in situation where there is no attribution, there will be no works.

    First, attribution is not the same as getting paid.

    Second – I, and a lot of other creative people, are living proof you are wrong. I have had people donate equipment to me because they value my work, I have had people offer to send me money, I have had people send me gifts – I’ve even gotten laid (IRL, not cyber) because someone was so into the words I put onto a computer screen.

    it is becoming painfully evident that art is something that only very rich people get to make, at least here in the ol’ US of A.

    And as proof of this you hold up Paris Hilton?

    Sorry, that ain’t art. It would appear you have art confused with celebrity and hype. While art can lead to fame, fame is not the universal commerce of art – many of us run away every time fame rears its ugly head.

    You can find my writings all over the internet and you can find my artwork on usenet. I create because I have to, not to make bank. Blaming corporations for your personal inabiliity to create something original does not hold water with those of us who know better.

    What would occur if copyright were abolished would be an immediate return to the classical principles of form and proportion.

    China has been essentially a “copyright free zone” for most of history.. Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan – even Brazil and Mexico.

    Where did linux originate? In a western european country with reasonably strong copyright laws. And it has grown most substantially in those other countries where IP laws are the strongest. Others picked up on it, but it has taken a decade for many of those nations to realize the cultural toxicity of relying on “piracy” of other nations. Did the culture ministries of China and Vietnam and Korea encouage their people to “innovate?” No, they simply turned their backs while the peasants copied Microsoft and Sony.

    Russia and Ukraine have been “copyright free zones” at least since the collapse of communism. And there have been and are a lot of great russian rock bands, I know this because I make an effort to seek out these artists and so I have heard many of them. So what do you find if you got to mtv.ru? Pretty much the same crap you find on mtv.com. Because the pop industry isn’t about creating art, it’s about selling hype, and nobody does hype like corporations.

  • a

    “and nobody does hype like corporations.”

    well you didn’t really show me any valid evidence for your claim, but you did prove to me that you dont know shit about modern society. Just because you ‘got laid’ and someone sent you some free gear is not a valid economics argument, its a stupid juvenile anecdote. Hey wait, the Beastie Boys are a ‘corporation’! they pool their resources and act as one individual financial unit. Lets kill them! Then we’ll get laid. Your idiotic us-them ‘evil corporations’ language has proven that you are a moron. Hey wait, your’e a brit arent you? why not go live on the other side of the moat with other Euro-peons. There will come a time when Lessig will have to make a choice: distance himself from morons like you and actually accomplish something, or forget the whole thing altogether.

  • a

    on Originality:

    Mr. Schwartz of A.B.S. has some advice for newcomers: Stop whining. “When you are talking about fashion, lose the word original,” he said. “Ask the small designers where they got their inspiration. They pull their inspiration from others. It’s in the air. You don’t sit by the window and wait for it to materialize.”

  • Ben

    Please could someone explain what the “insanely inefficient” part of copyright is, and how to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To poptones,

    Brooke Shields is not a public domain work. So,
    any picture of her can have copyright. When the
    copyright in a picture of her expires 70 years after
    the death of photographer, any identical reproduction
    of the picture does not gain copyright due to the
    lack of originality.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
    comment in the public domain.

  • a

    Please could someone explain what the “insanely inefficient” part of copyright is
    its the part where you don’t get laid.

  • poptones

    Brooke Shields is not a public domain work.

    Of course not. Brooke Shields is a person. What are you talking about?

    So, any picture of her can have copyright.

    I put that link there for a reason, why don’t you bother with reading it before replying?

    A picture of a picture CAN indeed have its own copyright.

  • http://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blog/ Branko Collin

    Re: the insanely inefficient part. Copyright in the USA exists to foster creativity. However, a lot of creativity (the way copyright defines it) does not stem from the promise of participating in the copyright lottery, but from other desires, such as the desire to have a memento of momentous occasions. In other words, there are far more copyrights out there than need be.

    In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works, that is, less creativity. If something does the opposite of what it is intended to do, that thing is beyond being inefficient.

  • poptones

    In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works, that is, less creativity.

    How so? I have heard this said again and again but no one offers the least bit of evidence to back it up.

    In no way is there “less creativity.” The photos were still made, the only barrier (and only temporary at that) is to getting high quality prints of pictures that have already been taken.

    Printer foo refuses to print pictures that are “too good.” Printer bar says “If foo won’t print them I won’t either.” So photographer takes pictures to her buddy who bought the photo printer last year but never uses it… or she gets fed up and buys one of her own. Now foo and bar have lost all her business, and she has all the prints she needs.

    I can’t get the local TV station to broadcast my videos, either. Does that mean they should be required by law to broadcast anything their audience demands of them? How about if I go to kinkos, should they be required to reproduce any works demanded by a customer?

  • http://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blog/ Branko Collin

    It’s not me that equates the production of copies with creativity, it’s copyright law. Don’t blame the messenger.

    As for your comparisson with TV stations: TV stations won’t broadcast your videos, because they refuse to broadcast crap, not because they are afraid of the wrath of the law.

  • pb

    Branko: “In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works
    poptones: “How so? I have heard this said again and again but no one offers the least bit of evidence to back it up.
    Branko: “It’s not me that equates the production of copies with creativity, it’s copyright law. Don’t blame the messenger.

    Evidence please, Branko.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To poptones,

    Either I miss your point entirely or you do not have
    the correct understanding of the U.S. copyright law.

    The point in my original response to Branko Collin
    is that it is not the amount of time that you spend
    on fixing something in a tangible thing that can
    give you copyright. The only thing that matters
    in the U.S. copyright law is originality. I
    gave an example of photographer that spends one
    hour trying to reproduce a public domain work
    very accurately. The time that he spends does not
    count anything for the purpose of copyright.

    Your example of Brooke Shields is somewhat off the
    point. The pictures that Garry Gross took of Brooke
    Shields obviously have copyright if he properly
    put copyright notice on the pictures, which is
    required back in 1970′s. Richard Prince obviously
    infringed Garry’s copyright in the pictures by
    taking pictures of Garry’s pictures. Your statement
    saying that a picture of a picture can have copyright
    is true only up to the new materials that are added
    to the first picture that are not in the second picture.
    Otherwise, the status of copyright in the first
    picture depends on the status of copyright in the
    second picture. If the second picture is in the
    public domain, the first picture is also in the
    public domain except for the new materials that
    are added to it.

    The legal mess that Garry Gross is in is an
    entirely different matter that has nothing to
    do with originality.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
    comment in the public domain.

  • poptones

    It doesn’t matter if the work is public domain or still under someone else’s copyright, the facts remain: a picture of a picture has been considered a “unique work” (and the article makes the point the photograph of the photograph is essentially an exact copy, and if you look around the web you can easily see this for yourself).

    Garry could certainly use the money, and in infringement cases it generally seems easier for the plaintiff to rule the day – so I wonder why he did not press the matter? Is there some precedent for provenance in copyright? In this case that’s pretty much the only “original” or “unique” part of the “work” of Prince, for the photograph of the photograph would not be any more or less “original” than if Prince had simply. run off a color copy at the local kinkos.

    The legal mess that Garry Gross is in is an
    entirely different matter that has nothing to
    do with originality.

    Indeed. Such is the reason I never mentioned any of that. So why do you mention it?

  • http://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blog/ Branko Collin

    PB, the USA constitution says that “Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

    It doesn’t say how this right should be implemented. USA Congress chose the form of copyright. A copyright is the right to create copies of works in a tangible form. In other words, the “progress of arts” (creativity) is interpreted by Congress as the production of works.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To poptones,

    My point is that copyright law does not care what
    you and others think of a picture that is a copy
    of another picture. If there is no originality
    in the first picture, the copyright law says that
    it has no new copyright. Never mind what people
    including yourself think of it as a unique work.

    Why didn’t Garry Gross use copyright law to sue
    Richard Prince? I can only guess several reasons:
    1) Garry Gross might not have copyright in his
    pictures due to lack of copyright notice and/or
    copyright registration. (I checked
    http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html and
    although there are two records for Garry, it is
    hard to determine the timeline of events surrounding
    Richard’s copy of Garry’s pictures and Garry’s
    claim of copyright in his pictures.) 2) He might
    not have thought about that or had no standing to
    sue Richard. 3) He might have tried it but failed.
    The article that you quoted did not give the full
    legal history.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
    comment in the public domain.

  • http://www.tekstadventure.nl/branko/blog/ Branko Collin

    newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/features/1695/ contains an article that claims Gross was way too poor for a legal fight, so he settled.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    “Garry’s also the guy who, only after much wrangling, pocketed all of $2000.00 when a photograph of one of his now infamous photographs sold at Christie’s for more than $150,000.00.”

    You say this like something bad happened.

    Why should he have gotten anything, let alone “all of $2000.00″?

  • poptones

    If there is no originality in the first picture, the copyright law says that it has no new copyright.

    This point has zero application to this context. Those pictures of Brooke were taken by Gross, they were original and he does have copyright on them and still sells them to this day. He hired Brooke from Ford, paid her five hundred bucks, and when Brooke got famous and her mom decided she didn’t want them published any more he sued Terri over his right to do exactly that.

    They are, in every way, original works. An essentially exact copy of this original work, however, is not. Yet if Gross had even an inkling of a chance at victory in court it would have been pretty easy to get an attorney to defend his claim and he could have come away with a lot mroe than a mere two thousand dollars even after giving the lawyer half the judgement. Yet he didn’t — why do you think this is so?

    And WJM, are you just “a” with a new nic? Or are you one of those copyright abolishionists? I think it is obvious why Gross deserves to be paid for work he created, you are the one not providing reason or sound argument.

    Branko, you missed again.

    A copyright is the right to create copies of works in a tangible form. In other words, the “progress of arts” (creativity) is interpreted by Congress as the production of works.

    The pictures were taken, the “creative” part is fulfilled. Your post argues nothing at all in your favor in fact you are posting nearly completely out of context.

    If an artist has already created a work but cannot find a publisher to reproduce that work en mass (and that is, at its heart, what we are talking about here in a photo processor refusing to make copies of her work) how are her rights in any way infringed? A publisher cannot be legally compelled to publish material they do not want to publish and a business cannot be compelled to provide services they do not wish to provide.

    There are countless photo labs and even if every last one of them were to refuse to offer this service she can just go buy a good printer and do it herself. In fact, if she were to do this, she would then have a whole new opportunity to earn income by offering thiis service to other artists who find themselves in the same predicament.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    And WJM, are you just “a” with a new nic? Or are you one of those copyright abolishionists? I think it is obvious why Gross deserves to be paid for work he created, you are the one not providing reason or sound argument.

    I am not “a”.

    Was he paid when he first took the photos, for paying them?

    What right does he have, or should he have, for a cut when a tangible object is re-sold between two strangers?

    Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

    I’m all in favour of copyright. I’m also all in favour of legal, logistical, temporal, and spatial limits to copyright. Like, say, life+50. And like, say, no droit de suite, and the abolition of droit de suite where it exists.

    Give me some more facts of this case, and I’ll decide how close your argument comes to being droit de suite.

  • poptones

    What right does he have, or should he have, for a cut when a tangible object is re-sold between two strangers?

    Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

    Wow, did you blow that one. So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

    There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

  • http://www.robmyers.org/ Rob Myers

    So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

    It certainly was your tangible object. Unless you are using ectoplasm rather than vinyl, or pressing the records in ‘Second Life’.

    The people who put the music on the record were the engineers and labourers who got the spiral scratch onto the disk. They have no further claim on it, unless you want tupperware to come with shrinkwrap licenses.

    To answer the point you are trying to make: pleading for stronger copyright “for creators” on the basis of edge-cases (however tragic) is like pleading to make eviction easier so that more homeless people can be relocated into mantions.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    Wow, did you blow that one. So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

    That’s the Gary Gross case.

    There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

    I can make use of them, having now seen them. My point about droit de suite and ever other form of copyright over-compensation. Not every use or dealing with a work should demand payment to the copyright owner; in fact, very few of them, ultimately, should.

  • fair use

    Artists should only be paid for PERFORMANCE or CREATION of works, NOT for reproduction or sale of recorded works. Why is it so hard for you people to understand? Every other person in the world earns a living based on WORK; you want people to earn a living based on OWNERSHIP or REPRODUCTION by others. You favor a decadent Leisure Class. We favor a society where every person pulls their own weight. There should be NO copyrights at all. People should be free to copy and sell copies. If they try to claim something is an original work, they can be arrested for fraud, but that shouldn’t entitle anybody to make money off of them. Artists should only be paid for performance or creation.

  • fair use

    “When a doctor is done setting your broken arm, you pay him for the work he has done. When a mechanic has fixed your car, you pay him for the work he has done. It’s the same for 99.99999% of us. When we stop working, we stop making money. But when Tom Cruise stops working on whatever movie he’s in next, he’ll keep getting paid until he’s dead or the movie goes out of print. Why should he? The people who operate the equipment that records the movie don’t get paid like that. The people who edit the movie don’t either. The people who make the actual DVDs don’t either. A tiny few, whose actual work is a microscopic fraction of all the work that makes their scheme possible, benefit indefinitely for they once did. Why should they? Where’s the benefit to society in work once, get paid forever? What is it, besides greedy and lazy?”

    file://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151840&cid=12745413

  • http://howtowinatlottotips.com/tag/freelottery-tips-book/ pick 3 lotto

    Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my website thus i got here to go back the favor?.I’m attempting to in finding things to enhance my website!I assume its ok to use some of your concepts!!