eldavojohn writes "With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal, it's Microsoft's turn. They're claiming it's frankly an illegal 'joint venture' and not a settlement. According to ZDNet, Microsoft's four complaints against the deal are: 1) Future infringements are covered by the settlement, affecting the exclusive rights of absent class members for the life of their copyrights. 2) The deal gives away to Google vast rights that were not contested in the underlying litigation. The lawsuits dealt with Google's displaying brief excerpts. Instead of compromising on that infringement, the parties instead agreed to give away the rights to display entire books. 3) The publishers who negotiated this deal each have undisclosed side deals with Google, which will likely give them better terms than the class will get. 4) The publishers plan to exclude their own works from the deal. You might recall over a year ago Microsoft's own scanning effort died."
Microsoft sees Google as a major competitor. As such, it is only logical that they would attack something like this that will give Google a substantial competitive advantage. I hope the court will see it in that light...
Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.
"But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."
Yep. You can dislike someone who tells you that 2+2 = 4, but you shouldn't let that make you argue that the answer's 5. How the Hell Google got this past the courts, I have no idea.
Uh, no, there are huge problems with this deal that have nothing to do with competition. If approved, the deal would modify US and intl. copyright law, subject rightsholders (many of whom have no knowledge of the deal and thus no opportunity to object) to compulsory licensing in perpetuity with no judicial recourse ("arbitration," anyone), and exempt Google from not just past copyright violations (the ostensible subject of the lawsuit) but all future ones as well.
Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes. You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.
The GFDL and GPL aren't about money, though, so being able to get money off Google in return for them stripping the document's recipient of the rights that you want them to have is not an answer.
vI still don't understand how those publishers were able to make such a deal without explicit permission from each author they represent.
The publishers presumably didn't, the class representatives for the authors did. In class action lawsuits, you basically find a few named plaintiffs to represent all the unnamed plaintiff class members, and they get to make decisions regarding settlement. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
At some point you have to draw a line between private and public interests. The Google deal itself may not be "the public interest", but under the right usurper assumption even brick and mortar libraries would be killed. And you surely don't want that.
But we as a society get to draw the public interest line, not Google. I wouldn't give relief from copyright laws to Microsoft, or Google or any other corporate entity.
I think the basic idea is a good one, but it just needs to be non-Google-specific.
Absolutely. There's no way that the publishers can justify not cutting other business looking to do a Google Books like system the very same terms. No one has really tried to do that yet, though, so Microsoft is having a hey day accusing Google of somehow preventing publishers from doing so in the future.
Interestingly, Microsoft could have simply spun up their old book-scanning project and demanded the same terms as Google is getting from publishers. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't want to be in that
It's good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.
A library is good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.
These things are equivalent. Google sought to make this point, and the publishers apparently were concerned enough that they would win that a settlement was sought. The terms of the settlement are very valuable to publishers, opening up a new source of revenue for them.
Will publishers then turn around and screw authors out of any of the benefit? Almost certainly, but to blame Google for pu
I don't see that those arguments are particularly convincing.
For example, Masnick and Sullivan think that Google's huge
scanned library is the
result of free market competition, and that the lawsuit by the
Author's guild came out of nowhere. But it's not free competition if
you compete with others by blatantly ignoring copyright, when the others
actually abide by it. The lawsuit against Google was completely predictable,
and predicted by many.
There's a simple reason why other companies offer only small
Exactly. I'm not sure how Google managed to launch their book search without putting 'we are committing wholesale copyright infringement and are liable for statutory fines of several billion dollars' in their SEC filings. If the Authors' Guild had pressed for the full statutory fines for wilful infringement, which go up to $150k/work, then Google would be bankrupt. No shareholder-owned company can legally take this kind of risk. And, given that Google are now the largest distributor, there is little rea
Yes, because there are absolutely no legitimate reasons to be against Google or national health care. (Or at least I assume that's what you mean by health care machine.)
This is a good thing because you get to read the books you want. Who cares about the rights of others when your own privileges (not rights mind you) are expanded. You don't have an right to read and enjoy another persons hard work without compensation, but you'll gladly walk over their right to demand compensation if it give you the privi
Any "evil" in this deal is the reflection of a broken copyright system and is not a reflection of Google megalomania. This is simply what happens when Media Moguls get greedy. The same thing happened with iTunes. The RIAA had a fit of artistic megalomania and handed Apple a future monopoly on a silver platter.
Microsoft's motives should be completely irrelevant to the court.
All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
Don't Microsoft (EULA), Apple (MacOS hardware restrictions), the RIAA (private copying) and the MPAA (Bluray/DVD Encoding) already have their own private version of copyright law?
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though.
Might have something to do with how this book scanning venture is good for the people. It makes content more accessible, and that is always good. Well, for some it's not so good, but their goal is usually only monetary gain, which is a totally different point of view.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
I can't say about other people. But for me, the point is Google is the first one to take the effort to actually do this (scanning the books and make it available). Now that Google has done it, everyone comes and criticize them for this and that, but would any of them do this thing if Google has not done it?
With this in mind, the motive of all those naysayers are very suspect. Do they simply want to kill Google's initiative at the start and leave us without digital access to old books? And thus keep thei
If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.
Can you actually make an argument for why? I mean, if Google can enter into "promise you won't sue us" agreements with publishers, and retire the legal risks of making orphaned works available, that's good for all of us isn't it? Or are you trying to suggest that the law should change instead? How long should Google wait for that exactly?
NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.
Well, maybe someone will be allowed to have a deal where they can rip us off more than before, and everyone will be happy - except us. All this is more about money than (C), always will be.
Fine. But I don't have the money to file a lawsuit in the US, especially against Microsoft. Who has those sort of resources that isn't commercial, and if you are commercial, what's your justification to your shareholders to pursue an action against someone that isn't a competitor to you? The only parties other than commercial rivals that can do this are either (a) class action by members of the public (a slow and lengthy process to build this sort of momentum, though you can consider the FSF speaking out a
If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.
And you would be surprised by Microsoft being hypocritical?
It's hard to get excited about this deal one way or the other without feeling like it's getting annoyed at the bloodsucking tick you found on the sofa -- without noticing that the tick is on the back of a snarling rottweiler. The underlying problem is our broken intellectual property system -- or even the very idea of intellectual property -- and not the specifics of how one company or another takes advantage of it.
Is anyone else a bit worried about the precident that using a class action lawsuit in this way might set for the future? I mean, Google is essentially getting a court to tacitly agree that its settlement with a second party over rights held by unrelated third parties is valid (lets face it, its looking like the court will agree), unless the unrelated third party deliberately withdraws at this stage.
I'm not entirely sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like an abuse of the class action system for commercial gain.
I'm a bit worried about that lack of scepticism displayed by some people. If it was MS or a company we hadn't heard of, people would be a lot less trusting.
Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.
I think you need to stop listening to the propaganda being spewed by the opposition and actually make up your own mind.
Google is getting some "promise not to sue" agreements from publishers.. that's it. They can't enter into agreements with these publishers to get promises that cover works the publishers don't hold the copyright on.
Is it too much to ask that people understand the subject before expressing their outrage? Oh wait, what am I asking.. duh.
Not from the publishers, from the copyright owners. As someone who has a copyrighted book registered in the USA, I am counted as a member of this class. Unless I explicitly choose to opt out, then I am counted as agreeing to the EULA, uh, I mean settlement.
I'd be surprised if that bit of potential case law survived a challenge in a higher court. Of course, IANAL, but I don't see how a contract can be binding on any entity that is not an actual party to the contract.
That said, the reality is that going up against a company as large as Google requires incredibly deep pockets, and a proper challenge might well be out of the reach of all but a few large corporations, the CEOs of which could all fit comfortably in my living room. Having Microsoft involved might ac
These competitive and transparent efforts affirm the benefits of an open market, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process ensures that the diverse interests of the many stakeholders are considered and balanced, accommodating copyright owners, online services, libraries and the public. The proposed settlement, on the other hand, pursues an illegitimate approach. Following closed-door negotiations that excluded millions of copyright owners and the very public that copyright law serves, Google and the plaintiffs seek to arrogate public policymaking to themselves, bypass Congress and the free market, and force a sweeping "joint venture" - built on copyrights owned by a largely absent class - via this Court's order.
So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.
Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?
There is one, and only one, reason Microsoft is protesting this: they tried to do the same thing, and failed while Google can make it work. Period. End of story.
Microsoft has no moral qualms about anything that hurts non-Microsoft publishers, regardless of the societal damage it may or may not cause, if it would increase Microsoft's market power. The only reason Microsoft would even care about societal damage would be to calculate the spin needed to make their market rape look like feeding the poor.
Those who'd like to all the objections, as well as a much smaller number of filings in support, can find them at The Public Index, which is run by the New York Law School: http://thepublicindex.org/documents/responses [thepublicindex.org]
Filings in opposition tend to be substantial and weighty, citing both U.S. and international copyright law. Filings in favor tend to be of the "Gee, I like free books" sort. The most substantial of them is probably that from Sony, which is 20 pages long and filed by a NYC law firm, but, with one exception, it doesn't deal with the issues of copyright. Here's the closest Sony comes to admitting that authors have rights.
"The non-exclusivity provision of the Settlement--which makes plain that that the right given to Google do not permit copyright holders or the Registry itself from licensing e-book right to others--ensure that healthy, price-driven competition will remain after the Settlement is approved."
Yes, you read it right. The Google settlement gives Google and Google alone the right to display online for profit the contents of any book first published anywhere in the world since 1922 without the author's knowledge or consent unless they formally opted out by last Friday, September 4, 2009. Just heard about that? Tough luck. You've been screwed by Google with Sony's warm approval.
And to add insult to considerable injury, Google and Sony purr that Google's right is non-exclusive. What does that mean? Having brushed aside an author's copyright, they say, "Oh, well. We don't care if you sell someone else the right to publish your book. That is, if that someone else can compete with free." Under copyright law, of course, Google has no right to publish a book at all without the author's permission. They have no rights at all, much less exclusive rights. That's a good indication of ethically and legally clueless Google and Sony are.
Until I read this document, I felt sorry for Sony. They used to be so popular, now that aren't. But it helps to remember that much of their failure came from an obsession with protecting the copyrighted music they own. Now, in their zeal to sell their ebook readers, they're helping Google stomp on the copyright of several million authors. Color them hypocrites, very big hypocrites.
I no longer feel sorry for Sony. If they languish in obscurity, they're only getting what they deserve. Sony can't zealous defend their own copyrights by every nasty means available and run roughshod over the copyrights of others without deservedly getting sneered at.
The basic premise of the Google settlement is that any book not "commercially available" is effectively out of copyright. How would Sony feel if music fans regarded any music not available commercially at the moment as effectively out of copyright? That's what we are talking about here.
Haul down the competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.
Parent
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:5, Informative)
You summarize my thoughts exactly. And I would also add that this deal is flamed by another party: the FSF. (fsf.org seems to be down atm, but here comes the link: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-09-google-book-settlement-objection [fsf.org] )
"But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You can dislike someone who tells you that 2+2 = 4, but you shouldn't let that make you argue that the answer's 5. How the Hell Google got this past the courts, I have no idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no, there are huge problems with this deal that have nothing to do with competition. If approved, the deal would modify US and intl. copyright law, subject rightsholders (many of whom have no knowledge of the deal and thus no opportunity to object) to compulsory licensing in perpetuity with no judicial recourse ("arbitration," anyone), and exempt Google from not just past copyright violations (the ostensible subject of the lawsuit) but all future ones as well.
It's theft, pure and simple, and Google's o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FSF should know better than to take what is written in the media as accurate.
Here's the settlement: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Final-Notice-of-Class-Action-Settlement.pdf [googlebooksettlement.com]
Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes. You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.
Anything else you have heard is bullshit.
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:5, Insightful)
The GFDL and GPL aren't about money, though, so being able to get money off Google in return for them stripping the document's recipient of the rights that you want them to have is not an answer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The publishers presumably didn't, the class representatives for the authors did. In class action lawsuits, you basically find a few named plaintiffs to represent all the unnamed plaintiff class members, and they get to make decisions regarding settlement. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the basic idea is a good one, but it just needs to be non-Google-specific.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the basic idea is a good one, but it just needs to be non-Google-specific.
Absolutely. There's no way that the publishers can justify not cutting other business looking to do a Google Books like system the very same terms. No one has really tried to do that yet, though, so Microsoft is having a hey day accusing Google of somehow preventing publishers from doing so in the future.
Interestingly, Microsoft could have simply spun up their old book-scanning project and demanded the same terms as Google is getting from publishers. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't want to be in that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.
A library is good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.
These things are equivalent. Google sought to make this point, and the publishers apparently were concerned enough that they would win that a settlement was sought. The terms of the settlement are very valuable to publishers, opening up a new source of revenue for them.
Will publishers then turn around and screw authors out of any of the benefit? Almost certainly, but to blame Google for pu
Re: (Score:2)
For example, Masnick and Sullivan think that Google's huge scanned library is the result of free market competition, and that the lawsuit by the Author's guild came out of nowhere. But it's not free competition if you compete with others by blatantly ignoring copyright, when the others actually abide by it. The lawsuit against Google was completely predictable, and predicted by many.
There's a simple reason why other companies offer only small
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because there are absolutely no legitimate reasons to be against Google or national health care. (Or at least I assume that's what you mean by health care machine.)
This is a good thing because you get to read the books you want. Who cares about the rights of others when your own privileges (not rights mind you) are expanded. You don't have an right to read and enjoy another persons hard work without compensation, but you'll gladly walk over their right to demand compensation if it give you the privi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Any "evil" in this deal is the reflection of a broken copyright
system and is not a reflection of Google megalomania. This is
simply what happens when Media Moguls get greedy. The same thing
happened with iTunes. The RIAA had a fit of artistic megalomania
and handed Apple a future monopoly on a silver platter.
Neither Google or Apple are the "problem" here.
The real problem are the IP cartels.
Parent
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:4, Insightful)
All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like the new "in" thing, everyone wants one.
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is being given a private version of copyright law that applies to what they don't own.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Might have something to do with how this book scanning venture is good for the people. It makes content more accessible, and that is always good. Well, for some it's not so good, but their goal is usually only monetary gain, which is a totally different point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
I can't say about other people. But for me, the point is Google is the first one to take the effort to actually do this (scanning the books and make it available). Now that Google has done it, everyone comes and criticize them for this and that, but would any of them do this thing if Google has not done it?
With this in mind, the motive of all those naysayers are very suspect. Do they simply want to kill Google's initiative at the start and leave us without digital access to old books? And thus keep thei
Privacy Advocates (Score:5, Informative)
With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal[...]
Add to that list privacy advocates [epic.org].
Sour grapes ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sour grapes ? (Score:4, Insightful)
NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.
Parent
And the alternative is... (Score:2)
...to just see all these books vanish forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you actually make an argument for why? I mean, if Google can enter into "promise you won't sue us" agreements with publishers, and retire the legal risks of making orphaned works available, that's good for all of us isn't it? Or are you trying to suggest that the law should change instead? How long should Google wait for that exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe someone will be allowed to have a deal where they can rip us off more than before, and everyone will be happy - except us. All this is more about money than (C), always will be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine. But I don't have the money to file a lawsuit in the US, especially against Microsoft. Who has those sort of resources that isn't commercial, and if you are commercial, what's your justification to your shareholders to pursue an action against someone that isn't a competitor to you? The only parties other than commercial rivals that can do this are either (a) class action by members of the public (a slow and lengthy process to build this sort of momentum, though you can consider the FSF speaking out a
Re: (Score:2)
If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.
And you would be surprised by Microsoft being hypocritical?
Re: (Score:2)
What?? Both Microsoft and FSF on the same side? (Score:4, Funny)
Google must be Really Evil (TM) to incur the wrath of Microsoft and the FSF at the same time!
Forest, meet trees (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to get excited about this deal one way or the other without feeling like it's getting annoyed at the bloodsucking tick you found on the sofa -- without noticing that the tick is on the back of a snarling rottweiler. The underlying problem is our broken intellectual property system -- or even the very idea of intellectual property -- and not the specifics of how one company or another takes advantage of it.
I'm a bit worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not entirely sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like an abuse of the class action system for commercial gain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.
Re:I'm a bit worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you need to stop listening to the propaganda being spewed by the opposition and actually make up your own mind.
Google is getting some "promise not to sue" agreements from publishers.. that's it. They can't enter into agreements with these publishers to get promises that cover works the publishers don't hold the copyright on.
Is it too much to ask that people understand the subject before expressing their outrage? Oh wait, what am I asking.. duh.
Parent
Re:I'm a bit worried... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be surprised if that bit of potential case law survived a challenge in a higher court. Of course, IANAL, but I don't see how a contract can be binding on any entity that is not an actual party to the contract.
That said, the reality is that going up against a company as large as Google requires incredibly deep pockets, and a proper challenge might well be out of the reach of all but a few large corporations, the CEOs of which could all fit comfortably in my living room. Having Microsoft involved might ac
Of course they say its illegal (Score:2)
They didn't get a piece of the pie.
Whiners.
I'm dyin' here (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.
*boggle*
I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypocritical Microsoft (Score:2)
There is one, and only one, reason Microsoft is protesting this: they tried to do the same thing, and failed while Google can make it work. Period. End of story.
Microsoft has no moral qualms about anything that hurts non-Microsoft publishers, regardless of the societal damage it may or may not cause, if it would increase Microsoft's market power. The only reason Microsoft would even care about societal damage would be to calculate the spin needed to make their market rape look like feeding the poor.
As a
No more feeling sorry for Sony (Score:3, Informative)
http://thepublicindex.org/documents/responses [thepublicindex.org]
Filings in opposition tend to be substantial and weighty, citing both U.S. and international copyright law. Filings in favor tend to be of the "Gee, I like free books" sort. The most substantial of them is probably that from Sony, which is 20 pages long and filed by a NYC law firm, but, with one exception, it doesn't deal with the issues of copyright. Here's the closest Sony comes to admitting that authors have rights.
"The non-exclusivity provision of the Settlement--which makes plain that that the right given to Google do not permit copyright holders or the Registry itself from licensing e-book right to others--ensure that healthy, price-driven competition will remain after the Settlement is approved."
Yes, you read it right. The Google settlement gives Google and Google alone the right to display online for profit the contents of any book first published anywhere in the world since 1922 without the author's knowledge or consent unless they formally opted out by last Friday, September 4, 2009. Just heard about that? Tough luck. You've been screwed by Google with Sony's warm approval.
And to add insult to considerable injury, Google and Sony purr that Google's right is non-exclusive. What does that mean? Having brushed aside an author's copyright, they say, "Oh, well. We don't care if you sell someone else the right to publish your book. That is, if that someone else can compete with free." Under copyright law, of course, Google has no right to publish a book at all without the author's permission. They have no rights at all, much less exclusive rights. That's a good indication of ethically and legally clueless Google and Sony are.
Until I read this document, I felt sorry for Sony. They used to be so popular, now that aren't. But it helps to remember that much of their failure came from an obsession with protecting the copyrighted music they own. Now, in their zeal to sell their ebook readers, they're helping Google stomp on the copyright of several million authors. Color them hypocrites, very big hypocrites.
I no longer feel sorry for Sony. If they languish in obscurity, they're only getting what they deserve. Sony can't zealous defend their own copyrights by every nasty means available and run roughshod over the copyrights of others without deservedly getting sneered at.
The basic premise of the Google settlement is that any book not "commercially available" is effectively out of copyright. How would Sony feel if music fans regarded any music not available commercially at the moment as effectively out of copyright? That's what we are talking about here.
Ebsco? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)