MPAA Forced To Take Down University Toolkit

bobbocanfly writes "Ubuntu developer Matthew Garrett has succeeded in getting the MPAA to remove their 'University Toolkit' after claims it violated the GNU GPL. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact the MPAA directly, Garrett eventually emailed the group's ISP and the violating software was taken down."

Comments

A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[garcia]

Linking to a LiveJournal post that reads:

MPAA don't fuck with my shit.

(And yes, I did attempt to contact them by email and phone before resorting to the more obnoxious behaviour of contacting the ISP. No reply to my email, and the series of friendly receptionists I got bounced between had no idea who would be responsible but promised me someone would call back. No joy there, either.)

Awesome.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[gringer]

Or a new high...

One might almost say that the summary of the article is more informative than the article itself.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[QuantumG]

if it is any consolation, we are now hosing LJ to death.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

from kdawson, of all people

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[_xeno_]

You missed the two screen shots. Essentially the post shows a "before and after" screenshot of the MPA University Toolkit page. The before picture contains a link that the after picture doesn't: "Click Here to Download The Beta Version of the Toolkit"

There's also another link that links to a blog entry about the MPAA toolkit which, if you dive into the comments, explains the GPL violation. (Just search for GPL, it's easier than trying to find it.)

So not entirely worthless, and therefore not a new low, just meeting the same low standards.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[enoz]

1. send takedown notice to MPAA
2. LiveJournal servers slashdotted to hell
3. ???
4. geekocalypse!

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[commodoresloat]

One might almost say that the summary of the article is more informative than the article itself. Well, I wouldn't know, and you shouldn't either. We're not supposed to RTFA around here - turn in your slashdot ID at the door.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Vthornheart]

Can we play the Final Fantasy "fanfare" music?
You got 20 gil.
You found an MP3!

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[pfleming]

Aha, but this result is only possible because of copyright law. Thus, if one is celebrating this case, they are indirectly saying copyright is good. They are directly stating that the GPL enforcement is good. They are not saying that this software should be protected for 120 years (hell, a bug fix next week makes 120 years laughable).
Copyright laws do need to be changed to take reality into account, but the issue here is that the software is being distributed in violation of the license. Copyright law is just the "enforcement stick" of this license.

Duh

[explosivejared]

This is news?! What is up with that! Every body knows that the RIAA is a completely honest and upright organization. They practice what they preach. They obey everyone else's takedown notice, be it gpl or dmca, whatever, just like they expect you to obey their takedown notices. I can't wait to see the day that all these trolls on slashdot finally go the way of the dinosaur and the true intellectuals out there call the RIAA what it is! It is an honest, upright, artist first organization! IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THAT GET OFF SLASHDOT!!

;)

Re:Duh

[jamonterrell]

Who said anything about the RIAA?

Obvious retaliation

[Oriumpor]

Next they'll contract a russian ISP and put the torrent up on one of their trackers...

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very common in pseudo-democracies for common citizens to contract ISPs. I lived in Moscow for several years in the eighties, and several of my acquaintances (I had no true friends, being a Serb), contracted ISPs. Sexual intercourse was rarely involved, but when it was, it was a bit more satisfying than your run-of-the-mill bar encounter.

Since I was not a citizen (I was there illegally), I was unable to contract an ISP. I feel I missed out somehow, but I got over it after Glasnost.

Anyway, my point is, you were more accurate than you thought.

Explanation.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Explanation.

As TFS & TFA have little info, here's some background:

The MPA(A) released a Xubuntu derived livecd with a bunch of F/OSS tools to assist universities in monitoring their networks. *rolls*eyes*. More info about the software in this Washington Post article.

Unfortuntately the CD as shipped contained no source & no written offer for the source, so was in violation of the GPL (and hence, the MPAA are in violation of various software author's copyright).

After several attempts to reach contact the MPAA, the ubuntu developer sent a takedown notice to the hosting ISP.

I hope he now presses for copyright violation - as he so elequoently says: MPAA don't fuck with my shit.

Re:Explanation.

[zonky]

Should also be made clear that the tools only identified torrent users, and didn't make any attempt to distinguish between 'naughty' and legal torrents.

Re:Explanation.

[faedle]

The MPAA was distributing "modified binaries" of GPLed software without distributing, or offering to distribute under the terms of the GPL, the modifications.

Even if all you do is change a strcat(); line, you have to (at minimum) distribute that change's source.

Re:Explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source.

Common misconception at least with regard to GPLv2 because when it's done that way, FOSS authors often let it slide but strictly speaking it's a license violation. Quoting from GPLv2 section 3:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Those are the _only_ options for distributing the source code. The GPLv3 is a bit more lax on this but v2 is very strict.

Re:Explanation.

[faedle]

Additionally, it is my understanding they actually made some changes to ntop, and did not provide any instructions on how to obtain the changes.

So, it's not even a technical violation in the letter of the license, it's a legitimate violation of the spirit of the license. They are distributing a change to the code without source.

Re:Explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source. As all (x|edu|k)ubuntu distros have that built into the package manager, they -had- told people how to get the source.

I don't see the standard package manager anywhere in the MPAA UT Admin Guide (PDF). It appears to go straight from the splash screen to the "Peerwatch" configuration.

Besides, the GPL section 3 is pretty clear on this: if you're not distributing source code yourself (option a), or a written offer to sell it (option b), then you must "Accompany [the program] with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code". Unless you count disassembling the install CD, they haven't met this at all.

Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face of what already exists.

You're going to have to be more specific. I tried a random sampling of a few Ubuntu-derived distro, and I couldn't find one that didn't meet at least one of the GPL's 3 options:
- Xubuntu's download page has a "source" folder along with all the torrents
- MEPIS's store page has a "Need GPL source code but don't have an Internet connection?" link
- gNewSense seems to have *only* source code (SVN, etc.) on their software page
- Ichthux's download page says "1. Download Kubuntu" -- they're *just* a meta-package you install later

Re:Explanation.

[andy753421]

I would be really interested in seeing some data to back up this claim. When the toolkit was first released I downloaded a copy and checked the md5sums on both the ntop binaries and the snort binaries. Both corresponded to the binaries I downloaded form the Ubuntu server.

There was also a page on the 'monitor' site that stated the software was released under the GPL, but I don't recall if it included a copy of the license itself. The MPAA code seemed to be kept separate and the license on that was unclear, however there were Java Server Pages distributed as binary only as well as some shell scripts and maybe some python (again, i don't remember).

Does anyone know of a mirror of the original ISO? I would like to look at it further but I deleted the one I originally downloaded.

Re:Explanation.

[ravenlock]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Explanation.

[Antibozo]

However, I am torn because the *PAAs have used their influence to ruin lives and savage our laws and customs - this is a great way to strike back a politically meaningful blow if it's played correctly.

A great way to strike back would be for the vociferous masses who hate the MPAA so much to get off their butts and form a political action committee to lobby for reform of the legislation they blame on the MPAA. In this case, rather, they're using the GPL itself to make it demonstrably more difficult for researchers to analyse software security, where there's no evidence of actual harm (i.e. distribution of modified software), and certainly no actual need for yet another mirror of xubuntu sources.

If poor legal interpretation has resulted in harm to innocents, that's the fault of inept judges, and should be remedied by appeal and subsequent sanction against the judges responsible. Remediating the DMCA properly requires action in Congress. This sort of shallow response against one potential abuser doesn't help us against the next abuser (it doesn't even help us against the MPAA in any practical way). I wish that all the energy being directed at striking a tiny, meaningless, blow against perceived injustice were instead harnessed into political initiative that could have a hope of effecting real change.

Encouraging result

[GroeFaZ]

but at the same time rather worrysome what a simple email to the ISP can do, even if it's for a good cause. Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style? A pile of court-issued takedowns might be a more impressive repellant against future violations of the GPL (or any other such license) than a pile of social-engineering-issued takedowns. Don't associate "social engineering" with the negative connotation of spam/phising/etc. as I used it; instead, read it in its original meaning: someone requested a blocking of content from an ISP, essentially (TFA is void of details) only with convincing arguments but no hard proof that the GPL was indeed violated.

Re:Encouraging result

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand, the MPAA should have had all it's ducks lined up in a row. They're big boys, they can afford to do things right. The fact that they didn't bother is another indication of their above-the-law attitude. They really just don't care. I'll bet they're caring now, and I'll bet there are some heads rolling in the legal department right now.

The delicious irony here is that the MPAA drafted the DMCA and were primarily responsible for pushing it through Congress.

Re:Encouraging result

[Michael Woodhams]

No, the MPAA can't necessarily just reissue the toolkit with source code and suffer no further consequences.

Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL.

From GPL v2:

"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

There is no clause about reinstating rights under the license.

In other words - if any of the copyright holders in Xubuntu code insist, the MPAA can't ever distribute their software, even with source. IANAL, so I don't know if the courts would support this hard-line.

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

but at the same time rather worrysome what a simple email to the ISP can do, even if it's for a good cause... A pile of court-issued takedowns might be a more impressive repellant against future violations of the GPL (or any other such license) than a pile of social-engineering-issued takedowns.

We're not talking about a "social-engineering" takedown, but about a takedown notice defined and authorized by federal law, and enforceable in any court in the land.

IMO, the takedown notice defined in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the few good things in that law. It says that if someone is publishing your copyrighted materials on the Internet, all you have to do is send a notice to the ISP, stating that the material is yours. The ISP is then *required* to take it down, or else be considered guilty of infringement. On the other hand, if the ISP does take it down, they are granted a "Safe Harbor" status, meaning that they're absolutely free of any liability for the infringement.

If something you've published on-line is taken down as a result of a DMCA takedown and it is not infringing, all you have to do is send the ISP a notice stating that the material is not infringing. The ISP can then put the material back on-line, without losing the "Safe Harbor" status. The system is set up so that the ISP doesn't end up trying to determine what is infringing and what is not.

Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury. So there's a strong disincentive for someone to issue a DMCA takedown frivolously, as it will cost the publisher almost nothing to get the takedown reversed, and may land the issuer in hot water. Likewise, there's a strong disincentive for a publisher of infringing materials to issue a counter-notice.

And, above all, the ISP who is caught in the middle is shielded from any potential liability, and doesn't have to make any attempt to adjudicate the ownership of the materials (which, obviously, no rational ISP would do anyway -- if in doubt they'd just take it down and leave it that way).

Re:Encouraging result

[dbIII]

They won't care. There's currently the idea that some people are above, below or completely outside the law. Since they were involved in drafting some copyright laws they are of the opinion that those laws are not for them and are only for the peasants.

Re:Encouraging result

[pjt48108]

I believe the DMCA provides the legal framework for takedown requests.

It probably stings terribly to be spanked with a paddle of your own design and construction.

Re:Encouraging result

[Hyperspite]

Go to chillingeffects.org
They watch this stuff. Here is a fun link for you though: DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights

Re:Encouraging result

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's spelled "copyright", referring to your rights to make a copy, not how you write a copy.

Congratulatons, you've learned something for tomorrow, too! (I don't normally bother about spelling errors on Slashdot, but this was actually a good point to remember.)

He should also sue...

[gillbates]

for copyright infringement as well.

Now that would be poetic justice.

Re:He should also sue...

[sc0ob5]

Everyone that has GPL code in xubuntu and the tools that come on the CD should file copyright violation for $9250 per line of code shared.

"Simple email"

[ucblockhead]

DMCA takedown notice is exactly the legal action you are supposed to take in these situations. It is not "social engineering". He has every legal right to do it.

Re:"Simple email"

[ucblockhead]

Yes, and if instead he sued the MPAA and won damages in court, he'd be validating the MPAA tactic of suing individual users for posting copyrighted movies for damages.

Actually

[p3d0]

Even if you don't change a line of code, you still have to distribute (or offer to distribute) source if you're distributing the binaries.

Re:Actually

[faedle]

They actually are "distributing the source", granted via the Ubuntu package system. You could argue in court (and probably get traction with the argument) that you were obeying the "spirit" of the license agreement.

Where that breaks is when you change the code (like they did with ncat), and then not distribute the changes in the form of a diff. That's not a minor "technicality:" that's the whole purpose of the GPL, is to require that if you make those kinds of changes you distribute your code changes.

Re:Actually

[poopdeville]

I saw no indication that the MPAA was hosting their own apt repositories with source. If you mean that sources.list was pointing at Ubuntu's servers, that's not good enough. That's Ubuntu doing the distribution.

Re:Actually

[faedle]

That theory has never been argued in a court of law, AFAIK.

You could argue that, provided you do nothing to hinder the user from accessing it, that providing a URL to somebody who hosts the code IS distribution.

That might not be the FSF's reasoning, mind you.

But, I'm quite sure that the court would at least hear the argument: "While we personally didn't distribute the source code, we made arrangements for the source code to be obtained free of charge on the Internet through a third-party."

In brief, you're making a "Item 1" claim of violation. I'm stating that the "Item 2" violation would hold more weight with the court, and is considerably more insidious.

Re:Actually

[jonbryce]

The GPL is quite clear on this

You must do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

[with the further clarification that: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."]

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

c) doesn't apply here because it is a commercial distribution. Also they don't have a three year contract with Canonical to host the source code, and in any case, they modified some of it.

So, in summary, you must either host the source code on the same server as the binaries, have a contract in place to host the source code for the next three years, or make an offer to supply the source for no more than the cost of burning a CD and mailing it to you.

There have been previous court cases on the GPL, and in every case, the courts have ruled that the terms are perfectly valid and enforceable.

MPAA Pwned by DMCA Takedown Notice

[Esion Modnar]

Now THAT is the (accurate) headline I want to read!

Possible deterrent?

[sessamoid]

IANAL, but why don't OSS developers offer a GPL-free version of their software for some really high price. That way, when big-media tries to steal (their words, not mine) their creative works, the developers can sue them for legitimate damages, citing a stratospheric market price per copy, then multiply the number of CDs they've distributed by their stratospheric market price to get damages from them?

"The MPAA/RIAA has distributed 1500 copies of my work. I offer that software at $50,000 per copy. They owe me 75 million dollars in damages!"

That's basically what they big media is trying to do to the consumers, isn't it?

Re:Possible deterrent?

[forkazoo]

You don't really need "actual damages" because you can go for statutory damages. If you can prove willfull infringement, you can get 150,000 per offense. If you skip proving willfullness, I think this is the section that applies:

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

$30,000 a pop ain't bad money if you can swing it. I'm not sure exactly what the result would be if you claimed "actual damages" on a zillion dollar price tag despite never having had an "actual sale." Judge might throw out the claim, I suppose. AFAICT, worst case would just be to get laughed at with the huge price tag and then just fall back to statutory damages instead.

Re:aww...

[budgenator]

they still distributed in violation of the license and therefor copyright law! You can't make stuff up this funny, the MPAA in violation of copyright, LOL. The FSF can still go after them if they want to.

Nomenclature, please

[Trailer Trash]

Instead of saying they "violated the GPL", let's keep this simple. They violated copyright law. By their own definition, they're "pirates". They stole. Etc.

Stop talking shit

[Chuck Chunder]

You do not have to distribute "changes in the form of a diff", or "distribute your code changes" in particular.

You must distribute (or offer to) the complete source code corresponding to the binaries you distribute. The whole purpose of the GPL is that someone getting a binary can get the full source for the binary.

Re:Except in one scenario

[Kadin2048]

For the changed packages it would be interesting to know what the changes were, to the extent that can be determined without the source. It would be interesting, I suppose, from an academic point of view, but it doesn't really matter. As long as they changed them, even the slightest bit, they're required to distribute (or offer / provide a method for users to obtain) the complete sources to the modified components -- specifically not diffs -- or they're in violation of the GPL.

Even if all they did was change a few strings or customize an interface, they have to distribute the changed components in source form along with the binaries.

Don't think that's true.

[Kadin2048]

If you are, in fact, a lawyer, I'll happily defer, but in my layman's opinion I don't think that's the correct conclusion.

If you violate one of the GPL terms, your license to use the software is terminated. Fine. However, as long as the software is still being offered to anyone under the GPL, you can just go, conform to every part of the GPL, and use it again. You can think of it as one license being terminated, but then going and getting a new one; the GPL is an "infinite stack" of licenses: all you need to do to get a new one is to play by the rules.

There's nothing in the GPL that says 'if you violate this once, you're out for good,' although I'm not sure that would be an entirely terrible idea. But that license-termination clause doesn't necessarily imply that.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. The GPL isn't an infinite stack of licenses where you can just help yourself to a new one every time you want; in fact, it seems that you are confused as to what the term "license" really means here.

It does not refer to the right to modify or distribute a piece of software, it refers to the developer's decision to grant you that right. It's not an automatic right in copyright law, so it needs to be granted; without a license (that is, the developer's granting of this right), you don't have it. So if the developer decides to not allow you to do this anymore, you can't do anything: you can't "take a new license", because the developer simply isn't granting you this right anymore.

Now, of course, you might say that once you've been granted a right, the developer can't arbitrarily take it away again whenever it suits them. That's true. However, the restrictions to your granted right to distribute and modify is subject to are explicitely spelled out in the GPL, so you know about them right away; you know right away what you can't do and what will happen if you do it anyway.

So, yes, the GPL *does* say "if you violate this once, you're out for good" - unless/until the developer decides to grant you these rights again after all, something that is neither automatic nor guaranteed (even though most developers - notably, the FSF - will probably do so if you start complying with the license and show an understanding of why this is important).

Finally, allow me to say that you seem pretty confused about the GPL in general, anyway: you talk about a "license to use the software", yet no such thing exists. In fact, the GPL specifically does not apply to mere *use* of the software, and you do not have the accept it in order to do so. You don't even have to accept it to modify the software (at least in the GPLv2); you only have to accept it if you want to *distribute* the software, modified or unmodified.

Re:Except in one scenario

[dwater]

Well, it depends on what they changed. If they added code to phone home a lot with lots of personal information....that would be interesting from more than a purely academic point of view (IMO).

Re:aww...

[wish bot]

You wouldn't steal a purse! You wouldn't steal a car! GPL software distribution without following the license - IT'S STEALING!!!

Re:No GPL Violation

[dido]

None of what this AC says is true. It doesn't matter if the MPAA never changed any code, the fact remains that they were distributing the code, changed or not. Now, if you want to distribute GPLed code, either you comply with the license and provide source code, or you find yourself just as guilty of copyright infringement as these people torrenting movies that they are so quick to prosecute. What happened was the latter. As for suing them for copyright violation, the fact that no one lost any money is also immaterial. There is such a thing as statutory damages, which would be at minimum US$750 for each copyrighted work thus violated, and could be as high as US$30,000. They would thus theoretically be on the hook for statutory damages for every GPLed package in the Xubuntu distribution, just like Ms. Jammie Thomas. There are hundreds of GPLed packages in Xubuntu... You do the math.

i like the post article

[Tsiangkun]

quote ">Seriously?
No, this is all just a joke. Really.

>I don't nor does the Slashdotters posting here except the rabid, fanatical F/OSS fanboys.
How can you assert that? Did you do a survey?

>This is not a victory.
Then tell us what it is.

>Silly kids, go trim your neck beards and worship Stallman some more.
How do you know "kids" are responsible for this? What backs up your suggestion that if they are kids that they are silly? How old do you think Matthew Garrett is? Go google it.

Maybe you should take a chill pill and leave this topic alone if you aren't interested in it. You are making baseless assertions just to try and stir shit.

You come across as a dumb ass.

Re:i like the post article

[Adambomb]

Careful, your chill pill will be countered by his get off my lawn. Maybe if you play a take it easy gramps, he wont have to bust out the cane shaking of ultimate exasperation.

If I may be a geek...

[VeryVito]

I read this post and immediately pictured Ewoks dancing in the forest as the Death Star burned above them. Sure, you know it's not over, but what a nice blow against the Dark Side.

Re:Uuuuubunnnntttuuuuuuuu Correction...

[Technician]

Read the article.. it's XuuuuuBuuuuuTTTuuuuuuuuu !!

"The University Toolkit is essentially an operating system (xubuntu) that you can boot up from a CD-ROM. The package bundles some powerful, open-source network monitoring tools, including "Snort," which captures detailed information about all traffic flowing across a network; as well as "ntop," a tool used to take data feeds from tools like Snort and display the data in more user-friendly graphics and charts. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html

Re:aww...

[RobNich]

You wouldn't steal a handbag!

You wouldn't steal a car!

You wouldn't steal a baby!

You wouldn't shoot a policeman

and then steal his helmet.

You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet!

And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.

And then steal it again!

Chinese Translation

[SnowZero]

Uuuuubuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnntuuuuuuuuuuuuuu !! Chinese Translation: "GNU Not Want!"

Re:aww...

[Builder]

You know, I am SOOO sick of those adverts. I mean, how do they KNOW that I wouldn't steal a purse ? Maybe I'm only in this dark movie theatre to steal some purses, then go outside and steal any cars that they keys in the purses open.

This is slander! Or libel! Or something!

Re:aww...

[l-ascorbic]

[citation needed] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTbX1aMajow