Slashdot Mirror
Happy Public Domain Day: Works That Copyright Extension Stole From Us In 2015
Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, points out what could have entered public domain in 2015 but won't and why we need to use the upcoming Public Domain Day to focus on the importance of copyright reform. She writes: "What could have been entering the public domain in the US on January 1, 2015? Under the law that existed until 1978 -- Works from 1958. The films Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and Gigi, the books Our Man in Havana, The Once and Future King, and Things Fall Apart, the songs All I Have to Do Is Dream and Yakety Yak, and more -- What is entering the public domain this January 1? Not a single published work."
"Attack of the 50-foot woman" might be interesting. The problem is that the copyright holder is not showing this movie anywhere - going public domain would fix that.
It doesn't sound very happy. Nor very public domain, for that matter.
i refuse to buy books, movies and music anymore
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Minimum size for copyright gets set at 1KB. Doubles every year. Anything that can be fully described in 1KB (and subsequent sizes as it doubles) can no longer be copyrighted. Anything that can be compressed below the threshold can no longer be copyrighted. Encourages development of more complex ideas. Longer Movies. Less trolling caused by patents on simple ideas etc.
If doubling results in large sizes too soon then simply change the multiplier. Something like 1.2 etc.
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman? Try the Lion King and Pulp Fiction. Works from 1994 should be in public domain. Twenty years sounds fair to me. Intellectual property is supposed to protect works, giving an ability and incentive to produce new works, not act as a perpetual revenue stream for whatever entity owns the rights to older books, music, games, and film. This life of the universe plus a month nonsense is completely counter to what IP should be.
Media, specifically movies, television shows, music, music videos, and the like, having a 28 year copyright length max. Not books, comic books, e-books, etc. Specifically the media I mentioned. And by this, I mean the actual product. The copyright/trademarks/whatever of the characters, stories, etc. would still be copyrighted. Disney would still have their Mickey Mouse. But I just want the old footage to be released.
Keep everything the same, but as soon as non-text media ends up being 28 (or fine, 30) years old, just release it!
Which given the excuses for this stuff is really telling.(Since the whole "You're stealing from the creators" is one of the arguments you hear about this shit.) So these days you have shit like Hollywood accounting and things like the author of Forrest Gump literally not getting paid royalties for the movie.(Because it supposedly didn't make a profit.) Of course there's the whole thing screwing of musicians by record labels. Basically if you record an album don't expect to get any profits at all. If you make any money it will be off touring. Here's one, just to show how much of a bunch of scum bags they really are. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Works That Copyright Extension Stole From Us
So, thieves claim that stealing intellectual property is not theft, but protecting it... is!!!
As much as piracy is difficult to justify. It is rulings like this that make it hard to ultimately argue against.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
To explain the idea of softening copyright laws, I always think of food laws.
You can make your meals however you like, but once you start distributing them to the public you have a bunch of obligations (no poison, list ingredients and nutrients on package, note the best before date...).
I see culture similarly. If you write a great song and you don't want people to share it, then the simple solution is to keep it to yourself. Then it's your song. But if you distribute it to the public, it becomes part of society and the people who enjoy the song also have rights to it.
Taking the analogy any further would lead to silliness but I think it's useful just to dispel the misconception that our society is based on property laws giving absolute rights to the holder.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
If you haven't done anything with it in 10 years, you lose it.
If said thing failed commercially, it never counted.
Hell yes you better believe I would like some figurines 9 years after a movie.
But if it failed, it would be their loss. Keep something alive, don't let it rot.
More and more, the U.S. government does what rich companies and people want, secretly. Killing people in other countries is especially profitable.
Copyright extension bills were passed with very little public knowledge or discussion.
The feature films who would want to watch them anyway? books I can understand that but feature films ZzZzZzZ. can they still earn money from these old films? who watches these! Fantasy cartoons where it is all silliness and happiness that I could understand it relieves stress. I don't understand feature films it's grown-up men playing children's games why is it entertaining why? It's nonsense it's what every child grows out of goody's baddies, doctors and nurses, Cowboys and Indians, and so on. Films a waste of two hours sitting on your arse watching nonsense. I really find this difficult to understand I think it is mainly a Indian and U.S. thing? Or maybe not I just literally don't understand it it is silliness.
The entire background of my existence is copyrighted. A biopic about me without copyright payouts would need to be a silent movie, shot against a blank screen.
Seriously! You don't like it, MOVE! Or just steal the shit already! Cat on a hot tin roof. Rusted!
so we can make new works using them. You know, Disney didn't write the story in the Lion King, right? It's an age old story. They don't write _any_ of their own stories (even Lilo and Stitch was just something they bought because they thought they could get 626 toys out of it).
The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point. We've turned it into a rent seeking scheme. If it started out this way we'd all be paying royalties to some Nords and a few Egyptians who claimed ownership of stone tablets from 200 B.C..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am fine with copyright extension if there is a company which actively maintains the IP. Such as Disney protecting Mickey Mouse (they still even create new content with features Mickey). However if no one is actively taking care of the copyright and not providing a way to distribute it, then there could be a timeout of decade or two.
This discussion is usually centered around movies, music and books, but what do you think about software and video games?
For example, should Quake 1 (1996) be public domain? The source code is libre already, but the art assets are still sold in Steam.
What about Windows XP which was released 2001, but was still actively maintained till 2013?
If you can't beat them - by saying copyright infringement is not stealing - then... join them by saying copyright itself is stealing?
Yakety Yak wasn't 'stolen' from us, and there's plenty of versions of it that must be flagrantly flaunting copyright and not being targeted, unless anybody honestly believes they're all properly licensed;
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Just as downloading a copy of a song that you technically don't have the rights to download isn't 'stealing', them saying that you technically don't have the rights to download it isn't stealing.
The works of the famous painter Mondriaan will fall into the public domain as per February 1, this year.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable, but it is still problematic for works of fiction, because it is a short enough period of time that a film studio wanting to make a movie would be sorely tempted to wait out the copyright rather than paying the author for the use of his or her work.
That's not been shown to be problematic for pharmaceuticals, where companies routinely wait out the patent before producing a generic drug.
For example, you might set a twenty year limit for works for hire, but make the duration be 75 years for copyright owned by individuals.
Then companies would just structure their deals to, say, assign copyright in a film to the film's director but then exclusively license the copyright back to the studio.
Or you might require the copyright to be renewed every fifteen years at 1% of the property's total gross revenue
If copyrights are "intellectual property", then tax them like property. Have each copyright owner self-assess the value of his works, and levy a tax on that value. To prevent publishers from avoiding tax by lowballing the value, let people crowdfund the donation of each work to the public domain by paying this value to the copyright owner.
Media, specifically movies, television shows, music, music videos, and the like, having a 28 year copyright length max. Not books, comic books, e-books, etc. Specifically the media I mentioned.
So what happens when a movie's copyright expires but copyright in the underlying script (a book) and in the printed sheet music (also a book) has not?
The copyright/trademarks/whatever of the characters, stories, etc. would still be copyrighted. Disney would still have their Mickey Mouse. But I just want the old footage to be released.
It'd still be illegal to make and distribute copies of "the old footage" because distribution would infringe the copyright in the book on which "the old footage" was based. This is how copyright in the film It's a Wonderful Life was restored, through discovery of copyrights in the underlying short story ("The Greatest Gift" by Philip Van Doren Stern) and the musical score. In the case of the Mickey Trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie), the book would be the storyboard, which would be classified as a "comic book". If you try to give different copyright terms to different media yet keep the concept of derivative works, you'll end up having lawyers come up with an "anchor book" for each work that isn't a book.
What are you supposed to do with a book to keep it "alive"?
At a minimum, continue to offer newly manufactured copies to the public. Don't be like Disney with Song of the South.
How does this work when there are hundreds of people working on a project, like a film?
Some media have particular contributors that legislation designates as "authors", such as the film's director. (Source) And in practice, films tend to be derivative works, which bring in copyrights licensed from its screenwriter and the composer of its score.
Also, what constitutes "death"? What happens if a member of the crew is cryogenically preserved and later brought back to life? Does copyright get reinstated?
This is a moot point until resuscitation from cryogenic sleep becomes confirmed. Walt Disney was cremated, not frozen.
And what happens if people stop dying?
Then you get a situation like that of the short story "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson, where influential authors go public with the fact that they fear accidentally infringing.
So other poor artists can use them for their own creative works, for example.
The artists can easily make original content, which would create more interesting art anyway, than some reheated old stuff.
Until other, more established artists take the poor artists to court, claiming that the purported original content is not in fact original but instead substantially similar to the more established artists' work. Accidental copying is still infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
We had a deal - those creating works get a period of time to capitalize on those works, after which they go into the public domain, and in exchange for those works being given over to the public, the public agrees to not violate that copyright without facing penalties.
Most works are no longer being given over to the public domain, therefore it's absurd to punish people for pirating them - a contract has to offer something to both sides.
WRT to software piracy (specifically games) - DRM put the nail in that coffin for me. When it became easier to install torrented, cracked games on release day than it did to install legally purchased software, I gave up giving a shit.
That said, contribute to open source (either funds or assistance), and definitely support projects where there isn't an obvious profit motive just the creation of neat tricks.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
You don't like it, MOVE!
Move where? All WTO members have signed the Berne Convention.
Good point. Corporations would be free to start incorporating more open-source code into their products since GPL code would start going into public domain. I mean, why should software developers be allowed to rent-seek with their creations? It belongs to the public!
Good point, but avoiding that would require completely removing the copyright system.
until mickey mouse becomes public domain.
Download all you want!
If that property is so damn valuable that it needs legal protection... then we can tax it to pay for that protection.
Dont want to pay IP taxes on that crappy B-movie from the 50's?
Fine, its public domain now.
An individual who writes a book cannot realistically make a movie version of that book, because A. they don't have that kind of money, and B. they are not likely to have the required skill set.
I couldn't help but read that in the synthesized tone of "MongoDB is web scale" made with XtraNormal. Anyone who has a computer and can write a screenplay can produce an animated short film. And tools to mark up a screenplay for conversion to an animated film will only get better. Then you can send excessive copyright terms to /dev/null.
However, the law would need to specify a maximum contract duration beyond which those limits kick in so that companies wouldn't license it for [lifetime of copyright minus one day].
Or the director could just avoid doubt by exclusively licensing the motion picture to the studio for 20 years. This would be long enough for the theatrical release, the current home video format, and the next home video format, after which point the copyright reverts to the director.
"Attack of the 50-foot woman" might be interesting. The problem is that the copyright holder is not showing this movie anywhere - going public domain would fix that.
Here is the movie on Google Play, and here it is on Amazon streaming. By "not showing this movie anywhere", maybe you meant "not showing this movie anywhere for free"?
Sure sounds like the wise US gov is saving the world from a shedload of garbage.
Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
Patent infringement and copyright infringement likewise "have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each." Yet we use the term "infringement" for both. Using the word "stealing" for prohibited acts other than larceny draws an analogy between those acts and larceny.
You're starting off on a false premise
Then explain how the premise is false enough to not even be a good analogy.
i refuse to buy books, movies and music anymore
Then books, movies, and music will continue to be produced and shaped for those who do buy them.
Disney has been taking chances with projects with serious geek cred like Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6 and been rewarded handsomely in return. You will excuse me if I share some doubts about the geek's commitment to the boycott.
Without patents, the information wouldn't be lost, it would be tied up as trade secrets, forcing every competitor to reinvent the proverbial wheel
Patents are routinely issued on inventions that are obvious to one skilled in the art of reverse engineering. For example, contributors to FFmpeg have disassembled and documented plenty of video codecs.
rather than simply paying a small royalty to the first inventor and going on to invent the next improvement
And in a lot of cases, the royalty isn't "small" at all because the inventor wants to exclude a category of products from the market entirely. Think of when the late Steve Jobs promised that Apple was prepared to go "thermonuclear" on Android.
Without copyright, art would only be created under patronage systems where the wealthy commission works that they want
We have working patronage systems now.
In addition to restricting the number of works, this would also restrict the number of viewpoints, as only those wealthy patrons' desired works would be created.
It doesn't take "wealthy patrons" to produce a work expressing a viewpoint. Anyone who owns a personal computer and a year of Internet access can self-produce and self-publish a work in plenty of forms, such as the written word, a podcast, an animated video, or even a video game. Net neutrality is in theory orthogonal to copyright, though this is complicated by the co-ownership of XFINITY and NBCUniversal by Comcast.
Please all note that this mechanism will also allow for copyright term reductions to be applied retro-actively and without compensation to rightsholders!
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
So what's the best option for a poor artist to avoid being bankrupted by such a suit?
... why we should give a shit?
Copyrighted material is not mine and I don't need it and I am not feeling the sense of entitlement to copyrighted works.
I am a photographer and I certainly support copyright protection but I don't understand the hysteria over the expiry date issue.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The German state of Bavaria has claimed the copyright over Adolf Hitler's book 'mein Kampf' and used it to prevent it from being printed. This copyright has expired now so the book becomes free.
More slack rights to write something that resembles something else. Only punish if the work is unquestionably a deliberate ripoff.
do work for hire, paid by the job or salaried and that's it - on to the next job/pay? Is it possible that colors the discussion? Seems to me there would be a different take on it if most of the people here worked for advance against 8-10% royalties or percent of sales. Not sure the /. take on this is global.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Of course people who don't create anything want it all for free. It's called "greed". And human beings are nothing if not endlessly greedy.
In colloquial English, "is" can refer to identical sets or to subsets. Set theory notation is more rigorous: A is a subset of B (A c B) if all elements of A are in B, and A equals B (A = B) if A c B and B c A. Consider these five sets of actions:
Obviously, copyright infringement doesn't equal patent infringement (C != P). Yet we say copyright infringement "is" infringement in the sense of a subset (C c I): all actions in C are in I. It's also true that infringement doesn't equal larceny (I != L). The question here is one of definition: whether "stealing" is a good name for some set that contains I union L. If this is true, then "stealing" is broader than larceny, and copyright infringement "is" stealing (C c S).
If Congress enacts any retrospective copyright term reduction, copyright owners will likely sue the United States under their Fifth Amendment right to "just compensation".
OK, here we go: Name all filmmakers that would get sued if William Shakespeare's descendants still owned copyright in his plays.
I am a photographer and I certainly support copyright protection but I don't understand the hysteria over the expiry date issue.
It limits the photos you're allowed to take if there happens to be a 1923-1958 sculpture or mural in the frame.
Poe's Law.
These are all actually equally crazy ideas, but there's a lot of nutcases going around clamoring for the first one. "Copyright should be limited to the original creator's natural life." Simple question: why?
Second question: why do we have to wait for the government to fix this? I suppose there's a pretty good reason to have a maximum copyright duration so Disney doesn't immediately realize their dreams of indefinite copyright, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with licensing a work so that it reverts to the public domain in a more reasonable time frame. Creative Commons and other permissive licenses have been making slow progress towards an open culture, shouldn't this be the next step?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The original term was 14 years, are you saying that in a time where the market is insanely bigger, the cost of creation is insanely smaller, and worldwide distribution is almost free you believe you should have a longer license to control your creation? That's insane.
You do point out one of the problems though, that copyright has become a trade-able commodity. If you are a creator, then copyright should always be held by you, for your life, but shouldn't be able to be passed on or sold off in my view.
Another problem is who really creates? You are releasing a trilogy of novels. Without having read them, what have you created? A new language? A new technology? A relationship that hasn't already been written about before? There are roughly 129,000,000 books in existence. What have you created that someone hasn't before?
I reserve the write to mangle english.
The original term (or at least the first nationwide term in the U.S.) was 14 years, with the ability to renew for 14 more years if you were still alive at the end of the first term, for a total of 28 years, which is considerably longer than the 20 years proposed, even in purely absolute terms. Further, that original 28-year term (14+14) was essentially the rest of your life in that era, even if you were young. The proposed twenty-year period would be about a fourth of the rest of your life these days.
The cost of creation is not significantly smaller than it was then. It still takes a long time to write a book. Yes, mechanically, it takes less time to type than to write by hand, but that's a minuscule fraction of the time spent creating a compelling story. If anything, the cost of creation is much higher now on average, because a much higher percentage of modern stories are written in a distant future, or in an alternative fantasy world that does not actually exist. Today, the author has to create the universe in addition to creating the characters and the plot. And modern readers are more demanding when it comes to self-consistency in that universe.
The potential audience might be larger, but the number of writers increased proportionally to the number of people on Earth, so the market is effectively the same. The only difference is that now you have to compete using more than just word-of-mouth, because that same-sized potential number of readers is spread across a larger area.
The cost of production and distribution is lower. Unfortunately, because more people can afford to publish their works, on average, each writer makes less money.
But the biggest reason that copyright should be a reasonable percentage of the author's is as a partial defense against the growing inequality between individual authors and the corporate world. Even with the current copyright durations, we see authors getting locked into extended contracts, and publishers dragging their heels on reprints, hurting the author's ability to profit off of their creations. Imagine if they could drag their heels just a few more years, and then reprint those works for free. They would do so. At every possible opportunity. The publishers would get everything, and the actual authors would get screwed.
Basically, in an era where lots of works are still highly popular after forty or fifty years, in a world where corporations have the ability to trivially outlive the authors and out-wait them, the copyright for works of individual authorship needs to be long enough to at least partially restore the balance.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Accidental? Go listen to the two tunes again. The opening riff with three notes, maybe. But then song(s) continue. Whether Harrison recognized it or not at the time, that's infringement. If I published a science fiction story that wasn't a parody and it had a character named Luke Skywalker, I shouldn't be surprised to get a nastygram from Disney's lawyers.
Whenever someone posts a reasoned, thoughtful, non-trolling defense of copyright they get downmodded as a troll.
Why? Because the mods are mostly people who steal movies and other digital goods and have for years, even though in most cases they can well afford to pay for the titles that they're really interested in. They won't even admit what they're doing is stealing, they have their own ideology on what it should be called. Illegal downloading and file sharing is a way of life for them, and now they're only interested in hearing arguments on why that should legalized.
This site basically sucks whenever there's a story about copyright. It's a joke. There's no discussion, just mods making sure that the board "looks good" by modding dissenting posts into oblivion.
Short copyrights benefit everyone. Since works of art inspire other artists, much of what copyright laws hope to protect is negated anyway. Don't get me wrong, someone who innovates and comes up with something original and creative should be compensated for that effort. And not just for a couple of years, but for a good decade or two if it remains relevant. But in practice whatever it was that was original and interesting about what they created gets riff'd on anyway. How many songs have similar riff's and beats to something that came out 5,10,15 yrs ago? How many movies and books recycle similar themes that were innovative at one time? My point being that by releasing copyright restrictions, beloved characters, art works and songs can be re-invented and re-enjoyed in new and interesting ways.
Rosencrantz And Gildenstern type spins on relatively modern stories not only create new, interesting tales, but I would guess they might spawn new (profitable) interest in the original work. Yes there will be Mickey mouse and superman parody porn -- welcome to the less enjoyable side of free speech. I'm going to skip the Thomas Jefferson spin on this argument, but if you created something innovative 2 or 3 decades ago, it's likely that the world has moved on and you aren't raking in the cash. Hand it off to th next generation of artists to build in, and take pride in the fact that they do. You might start a new revenue stream from something that had stopped being productive. Not to mention the great pride from contributing to a new revelation of ideas, or, for the egoist, being relevant again.
Whether Harrison recognized it or not at the time, that's infringement.
So what specific precautions ought one to take to avoid such infringement?
Copyright started out as 'right to copy'. People who create artistic works can have exclusive rights to their creations for 20 years. Then people can copy your work. But someone said 'my baby, my baby'. They created one thing, and wanted to get paid for it forever. And so 20 years became 30, became 40, became 50, and now its something like 75 years past the death of the author, and others no doubt want it to be 150 years past the death of the 14th generation grandchild. And when an American politician stated that 'forever is not constitutional', a copyright length extension proponent said 'well then we will try for forever minus one day.' In reality, 20 years --one generation-- is long enough. And copyrights and patents should not be saleable. The originator gets the exclusive rights. And rights are non-transferable, they are exclusive to an individual. You can't sell rights for money. Or maybe in the US you can. Money is speech after all.
It would be great to fuck 50 foot woman...
Copyright should be infinite. If an author is so good that demand for his works is infinite, then so be it.
You, me or anybody else have zero rights over someone else's works.
Twenty years from first publication might be reasonable, but it is still problematic for works of fiction, because it is a short enough period of time that a film studio wanting to make a movie would be sorely tempted to wait out the copyright rather than paying the author for the use of his or her work.
For the first 20 years, the author controls the royalties for third party use. "I want 50% or forget it!" After that, there is a defined royalty payment for the author and his estate. So if your trilogy is turned into a hugely successful series of virtual reality experiences after 2035, the $10 billion the publishing company grosses would be partly yours. Say 2%. So you would get two hundred million for having authored the work and letting the internet or a paper publisher present it to the world for the prior 20 years. If another $100 million in print is published, you get another two million.
The big companies would lobby to get that number down, of course.
I have no idea if 2% is reasonable, but it sure seems that way to me.
I would go the same way with patents. The patent holder has full control over compensation for some period of time, then a default compensation kicks in.
Don't be careless and rip off someone else's melody. Harrison KNEW the song - he and his band mates were avid pop music fans, and certainly knew Motown and girl groups - it's just possible he didn't make the connection, or didn't care.
It's the same when a melody pops into my head or your head that sounds catchy, so catchy that it's quite possible that we heard it before on the radio. That may have been what happened here, and that's being charitable to Harrison. It's also possible that he knew at the time that it was a "He's so fine" ripoff. The jury evidently considered his prominence and stature when it ruled that it was "subconscious plagiarism".
Remakes are a cheap, lazy way to make money. [...] I say, let 'em come up with something new.
So under the assumption of centuries-long copyright, what step should a filmmaker take to ensure that his work is in fact "something new" and not an accidental infringement?
Your descendants' benefit has nothing to do with why we have copyright. The ONLY reason copyright exists is because it was thought to be good to encourage people to create more that would become part of society's culture and knowledge by giving them a *limited* period of time to exclusively profit from that creation. It was not intended to become a never-ending gravy train for the creator and his heirs.
Don't be careless and rip off someone else's melody
That's what I'm asking: what measures constitute "care".
"But what if I make a great work, and it only becomes profitable after 95 years? Leeches could steal all that income from my corpse. That's why I think everything should be copyrighted forevers and evers, in the unlikely case I'm this generation's greatest storyteller."
SCARFACE have made a coment on this subject , on this site once before , howard hughes made a movie called Scarface in 1932 . at the start of the movie is an intro , an explanation as to why the violance was depicted , he also reminds people that they are in control of the goverment !! ( i do not live in the USA , but have always lived in countries where we are free , growing up in the 80's this was a forein concept for me , i thought we had to do everything the gov told us to ) . around 1985 a movie was made called Scarface ( sorry for degressing , one of the things i believe is that even public domain items must be refrenced ) 90% of the dialog came verbatin from the first Scarface , with no reference to the first . in my opinion this makes it theft . then there is microsoft copying new york library books , and stamping " digitalised by microsoft " thruout it , here again i see no "fair usage " but the most important aspect is are they going to make money out of it ! and quite often " free " is relative , even the photos my sister sends me cost in terms of up and downloads , it costs me between 15 and 20 $ per GB ,i take it from this that even with pirated movies books ect , some company's are doing very well !
the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
I will design PROFESSIONAL Ebook Cover or Kindle Cover https://www.fiverr.com/s/50tp2...