Exactly. This has nothing to do with the RIAA or their methods. This is simply a scan artist conducting an illegal scam by making false copyright claim. As opposed to the RIAA who represents people who have actual copyright material that is actually being stolen. If anyone here had property of theirs stolen, they would immediately call the police. The artists and record labels don't have the ability to call the police and legal action is their only protection. And now everyone can unleash their negative karma points because someone dare not support stealing other people's property so long as it's music or movies.
The fine's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself. When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client, almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others. So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song. The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily.
But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there's some big government conspiracy because that's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue.
The OP claims that music and film industries are not using the new business model, hence their losses. I hear this a lot. Can someone lay out this business model that would make them successful? If it's that simple, then someone just explain what this supposed model is and how it works. Or is it like saying the only reason we haven't eliminated spam from the internet is because everyone has been too lazy to use the proper spam elimination model?
While I know Slash.dot is almost completely pro piracy, I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy. Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law, but it hurts others.
The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people's rights. Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing. If we didn't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business. Just like what is happening with media right now.
While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone, the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work. Most people here don't have to witness the outcome of the stealing. Some of us do. Some of us want to support music, not steal it. The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich. They are poor people. THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing, not the few rich people.
You’re assuming 1) there was a cheaper store in my area and 2) whatever you pay in your area is the norm.
Well then the problem is the area you live in. That is an absurdly high price which in no way is indicative of the market. I don't recall seeing any prices over $12 except in high profile shopping malls which jack up the prices of everything. But having traveled around a lot, I am can say that that's not the usual cost.
I’m pretty sure I said if I like something I buy it. When did paying for something become stealing? They use this concept in grocery stores; I had a mini-pizza the other day and bought a whole box of them.
Yes I understand. But I meant to yous "You" in a proverbial sense, and not you personally. In fact I have never met anyone on the internet that actually steals music from torrents. everyone just does it to later buy the same material. And the other 99.999% are just other people. But your position is anything but the norm.
But in your example, the store had the choice of offering a small sample, just like is the case with music. And you aren't able to take an unlimited number of samples, thus removing the need to buy the product.
I’m conceding this point to you. All we have here is speculation that IF Napster hadn’t made file sharing popular and IF the XYZ industry had of been the one to kick the snowball instead of the one trying to stop the avalanche things might have been different.
But this is simply how business works. Any large business is not going to be able to be the first to jump on a new technology. The machine in any area of large business is simply too big to make sudden changes. And had they been there first it would not change the fact that someone can still get their products for free and not pay.
The issue isn't about who came out first, it's that no one can compete with free. Not even itunes who make their profit on ipod sales.
Yes it does, people have gotten use to doing something easy, doing things the “hard” way is illogical. Alienating them by imposing DRMs, ridiculous EULAs and making laws that will most likely only affect “innocent” people only makes things worse. Sorry the box is open you can’t put the bad things back in
Most people that steal from torrents now were not old enough to have been downloading when the Napster issue happened. Many don't even know what the issue was. They only know that they can download a simply program and have any song they want and never have to pay for it.
Again, no one can compete with free. Nothing can be easier than free. And DRM was not implemented from the start. It was added after it was realized how rampant theft was. But it was still a failure, because no one can compete with free.
So they can not use copy protection and people will steal. Or they can use copy protection and peal will steal AND complain about copy protection. Either way, they have no means to protect their business.
The cap is what the market is willing to pay.
Now that's a contradiction to your previous statement. They should be able to make what the market will bear, but when they do you have a problem with it. Isn't that a bit unfair?
The music industry makes an initial investment to record something, and then makes money indefinitely off distribution of the product. They recover the cost and then make profit hand over foot only having to pay for the media the product is distributed on. If only there was a magical way to distribute a product over a large “digital” network using other peoples machines as a place to store it.
This is a misconception. Because what you may not be aware of is that for every successful album that sells well, there are 20 that lose money. Music is an art and there is no way to predict what will and won't be a commerc
I have never paid $30 for a CD. Perhaps you should have gone to a cheaper store? And while iTunes is not financially successful, it demonstrates that your argument of wanting only certain songs is nor an excuse for stealing. You can do it legally. But most choose not to.
And it seems the argument is that people now still steal because it took too long for an industry to provide content online. Yet now that they do, most people still steal. Does that really sound logical? I steal because of how things once were and that it took too long for someone to change something 10 years ago.
So you think that everyone should have a cap on how much money they can make? That someone should say that at a certain point no one is allowed to make any more money? What if someone decided that you make too much money now. Someone who made less money than you decided that it's unfair that you make more than them. Would you agree?
Most artist don't make more than doctors. Most people make more than teachers. Does that mean we should all be able to steal from anyone who makes more money than teachers? If you make more money than a teacher, is it OK for me to steal from you?
And yes, I am not in favor of piracy, so here come all the negative scores because I don't share the same opinion and I dare support the artists who are being ripped off, the majority of which are poor. And let's not forget about the millions of people who all work to make the music possible, most of which make minimum wage and just want to put food on their table. But are now being put out of work.
Yes I suppose anyone who doesn't go along with your opinion is a troll right? I seem to recall Hitler having the same mentality. Anyone who doesn't support piracy is ranted down, and labeled as a troll.
Does anyone really care about the people being ripped off? Would you have the same opinion if it was you who's work was being stolen?
I suppose I may be the only one here that thinks protecting the rights of the people who's work is being stolen is a good thing? The whole point of the 3 strikes is in case mistakes are made and there are plenty of points to appeal etc.
Is it really that unfair for their to be at least some sort of protection for people to prevent their worked from being stolen and to prevent them from being put out of business by theives? Of is the mentality that anyone who creates content that is digital has no rights to make a living?
Perhaps if people who are against these protections would simply come up with a better way to protect digital content from rampant theft, then this wouldn't be an issue. If someone did, they would be rich. So there's plenty of incentive, yet no one does. Why? The people creating the content certainly have been trying.
So is everyone really against this because they really think it's against the law, or is it because many people simply enjoy the ability to steal anything they want and have no regard for the people who are being put out of work?
This claim that record labels don't give bands any money form record sales is a complete lie. That would be illegal. This claim is made by groups who simply don't understand how business works and simply don't produce enough sales in order to sell albums.
Yes artists DO have to sell a certain amount of albums in order to make a profit. This goes for ALL businesses. Before you can make a profit, you have to first recoup the expenses paid. The expenses that the record label pays for and that the artist has absolutely no obligation to pay if the album doesn't sell. In any other business you are obligated to pay all loans back no matter what. Artists on the other hand get a free pass from record labels who have to take on all of the loss themselves.
It's these kind of false claims such as the ones you make that cause people to have this baseless hatred towards record labels. If consumers would educate themselves on how the music business worked instead of making up false claims about it, we might be able to find a solution. And the primary reason this false information spreads so much is that so many people simply make it up in order to justify stealing (and of course EVERYONE claims they themselves don't steal).
This is happening a good part because of illegal file sharing. IF the sales from indi stores are atoo low to justify the distribution costs, why do you think those stores aren't selling enough? Because they too cannot compare to free downloading. If your competition is theft, you cannot compete. Now if you're busy stealing and not buying from those indie stores, then it's YOUR fault, not the people you are stealing from.
When you buy a used CD, the label and artist already made their profit from that CD to one person and it continues to be held by one person. That's how it should be.
When you steal, and distribute it to millions of others to steal, profit is lost. Cuts have to be made form these losses to thieves, and stuff like this happens. Thanks to the thieves.
So yes, fight back. Stop thieves from destroying music.
The artist gets a cut of the album sales. And this is where their real income comes from more so that concerts. Most often they make no money from concerts and use it just to promote the album sales.
Many pirates try to use examples of bands who do make money in concerts to claim that they all do and thus try to not feel guilty about stealing from artists. As if that by stealing you are helping artists.
Artists are not being ripped off by record labels. There are bad deals from time to time, just like in every business. But trying to make up the claim that artists are getting ripping off by labels just to justify stealing from those artists is wrong.
And the irony is that its ticket sales where artists really do get ripped off. Companies like ticketmaster abuse they monopoly.
The cost of the media is not even note worthy. You're not paying for a piece of plastic. You're paying for the contents on it. Those contents cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to produce an put on that piece of plastic.
The cost of living has gone up. You don't complain that a gallon of milk costs more than it did when you bought records instead of CDs do you? The cost of everything goes up because of inflation. The cost to produce a record has gone up as well.
Pricing is not magic. They don't pick some random price and have a committee on it. The prices SHOULD go up. Just like in every other industry in the world. But for music you want the prices to go down even though the costs for the producers goes up.
You're saying that if people who steel then had the option of paying for a tracker instead of using a free one that they would then start paying money?
Right now the service you speak of does exist. It's been tried many times and has failed. Because you simply cannot compete with free.
The record companies ARE seeking listeners and they are using online methods. But again, nothing can compare with free.
The record companies didn't figure out iTunes, apple did. And not much money is being made on iTunes. The reason Apple has iTunes is because it helps them sell iPods. They take a loss on music so they can sell hardware. The record labels HAVE started online stores and subscriptions just like you described. But they all fail because they can't compete with free.
By stealing you are simply causing artists to have to be come trinket sales people. You don't want to pay them for their work, you want them to have to sell crap on the side so you can continue to steal from them. And you're stealing money from the band by stealing the records because they have to pay for that.
In addition, by stealing records, there is then no money to develop artists. The reason record labels take a big chunk is because they have to fund all the artists that flop. For every successful artist you know of, there are 10-15 failures. No one can predict what will or won't sell. So they have to take risks.
Piracy is the major reason why there isn't much variety in music these days. And it's the criminals who steal that are to blame, not the record labels.
As someone who works in the music business and works with the major record labels and artists I can tell you that most of the people in the business are now out of work of struggling just to pay bills. Most of the labels are out of business, most of the facilities are closing down, and many of the people in the industry are suffering.
It's sad to see so many people touting stealing. I wonder how many would feel if people were stealing from them and taking pride in it.
And most of the arguments people here are making are false claims that they are making up simply so they can talk themselves out of feeling guilty for stealing from other people.
Interesting how the poster refers to STEALING as censorship. I wonder if someone stole from the poster the thief could just accuse the victim of trying to censor him from having anything he wants for free.
I think everyone that thinks music should be given away for free and should only be allowed to make money from t-shirts and trinkets should consider this model for themselves.
How about your boss doesn't have to pay you. And instead you can sell T-shirts and other goods at your work to make money. It's only fair right? Connect with your customer. Give them your services for free and try to make your money outside of your work.
So long as people keep trying to justify stealing by using excuses like "consult the people", there won't be much left to steal soon.
We wonder why the economy is as bad as it is yet still feel entitled to just take everything without paying for it and then get upset at the people we're stealing from. Imagine if our employers started taking the same approach to employees.
Not to worry. Pretty soon there will be no more record labels and no more music to buy as the piracy puts everyone out of business. And I hope everyone that cheers on piracy remembers this. I also hope that when they complain that there's no good music being put out, that one of the primary reasons is that you're stealing the stuff that you consider good, so they can only support the stuff that makes money. The stuff you don't steal.
If someone steals from a store, the police come and put them in jail. If we don't afford IP businesses the same protection from theft, then how can we expect to keep IP? It's true these people should not be sued. But they should go to jail just as if they were to steal anything else. It affects us all because the billions a year lost from music piracy affects the entire economy. Only when someone steal music and puts it on an online file sharing, they aren't simply doing the damage of one unit, they are redistributing it and causing the loss of much greater sales.
Maybe suing people isn't the greatest thing to do. But until the law decides to help out by enforcing the law and throwing thieves in jail, there is nothing else the labels can do to protect themselves from being stolen out of business. Luckily a lot of courts seem to understand this. They know that the case of the RIAA is not the same as other issues that would be laughed out of court.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. This has nothing to do with the RIAA or their methods. This is simply a scan artist conducting an illegal scam by making false copyright claim. As opposed to the RIAA who represents people who have actual copyright material that is actually being stolen. If anyone here had property of theirs stolen, they would immediately call the police. The artists and record labels don't have the ability to call the police and legal action is their only protection. And now everyone can unleash their negative karma points because someone dare not support stealing other people's property so long as it's music or movies.
The fine's arne't simply based on the damages on the download of the individual song itself. When someone downloads those songs with the file sharing client, almost always it then makes that song available or downloading by others. So the damages done by that person are far more than the cost o a single song. The damage don is how many copies of that song are then downloaded from that copy which could be in the 1000's easily. But of course everyone would much prefer to pretend there's some big government conspiracy because that's so much easier than actually looking at the details of the issue.
The OP claims that music and film industries are not using the new business model, hence their losses. I hear this a lot. Can someone lay out this business model that would make them successful? If it's that simple, then someone just explain what this supposed model is and how it works. Or is it like saying the only reason we haven't eliminated spam from the internet is because everyone has been too lazy to use the proper spam elimination model?
While I know Slash.dot is almost completely pro piracy, I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy. Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law, but it hurts others. The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people's rights. Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing. If we didn't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business. Just like what is happening with media right now. While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone, the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work. Most people here don't have to witness the outcome of the stealing. Some of us do. Some of us want to support music, not steal it. The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich. They are poor people. THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing, not the few rich people.
You’re assuming 1) there was a cheaper store in my area and 2) whatever you pay in your area is the norm.
Well then the problem is the area you live in. That is an absurdly high price which in no way is indicative of the market. I don't recall seeing any prices over $12 except in high profile shopping malls which jack up the prices of everything. But having traveled around a lot, I am can say that that's not the usual cost.
I’m pretty sure I said if I like something I buy it. When did paying for something become stealing? They use this concept in grocery stores; I had a mini-pizza the other day and bought a whole box of them.
Yes I understand. But I meant to yous "You" in a proverbial sense, and not you personally. In fact I have never met anyone on the internet that actually steals music from torrents. everyone just does it to later buy the same material. And the other 99.999% are just other people. But your position is anything but the norm. But in your example, the store had the choice of offering a small sample, just like is the case with music. And you aren't able to take an unlimited number of samples, thus removing the need to buy the product.
I’m conceding this point to you. All we have here is speculation that IF Napster hadn’t made file sharing popular and IF the XYZ industry had of been the one to kick the snowball instead of the one trying to stop the avalanche things might have been different.
But this is simply how business works. Any large business is not going to be able to be the first to jump on a new technology. The machine in any area of large business is simply too big to make sudden changes. And had they been there first it would not change the fact that someone can still get their products for free and not pay. The issue isn't about who came out first, it's that no one can compete with free. Not even itunes who make their profit on ipod sales.
Yes it does, people have gotten use to doing something easy, doing things the “hard” way is illogical. Alienating them by imposing DRMs, ridiculous EULAs and making laws that will most likely only affect “innocent” people only makes things worse. Sorry the box is open you can’t put the bad things back in
Most people that steal from torrents now were not old enough to have been downloading when the Napster issue happened. Many don't even know what the issue was. They only know that they can download a simply program and have any song they want and never have to pay for it. Again, no one can compete with free. Nothing can be easier than free. And DRM was not implemented from the start. It was added after it was realized how rampant theft was. But it was still a failure, because no one can compete with free. So they can not use copy protection and people will steal. Or they can use copy protection and peal will steal AND complain about copy protection. Either way, they have no means to protect their business.
The cap is what the market is willing to pay.
Now that's a contradiction to your previous statement. They should be able to make what the market will bear, but when they do you have a problem with it. Isn't that a bit unfair?
The music industry makes an initial investment to record something, and then makes money indefinitely off distribution of the product. They recover the cost and then make profit hand over foot only having to pay for the media the product is distributed on. If only there was a magical way to distribute a product over a large “digital” network using other peoples machines as a place to store it.
This is a misconception. Because what you may not be aware of is that for every successful album that sells well, there are 20 that lose money. Music is an art and there is no way to predict what will and won't be a commerc
I have never paid $30 for a CD. Perhaps you should have gone to a cheaper store? And while iTunes is not financially successful, it demonstrates that your argument of wanting only certain songs is nor an excuse for stealing. You can do it legally. But most choose not to. And it seems the argument is that people now still steal because it took too long for an industry to provide content online. Yet now that they do, most people still steal. Does that really sound logical? I steal because of how things once were and that it took too long for someone to change something 10 years ago. So you think that everyone should have a cap on how much money they can make? That someone should say that at a certain point no one is allowed to make any more money? What if someone decided that you make too much money now. Someone who made less money than you decided that it's unfair that you make more than them. Would you agree? Most artist don't make more than doctors. Most people make more than teachers. Does that mean we should all be able to steal from anyone who makes more money than teachers? If you make more money than a teacher, is it OK for me to steal from you? And yes, I am not in favor of piracy, so here come all the negative scores because I don't share the same opinion and I dare support the artists who are being ripped off, the majority of which are poor. And let's not forget about the millions of people who all work to make the music possible, most of which make minimum wage and just want to put food on their table. But are now being put out of work.
Yes I suppose anyone who doesn't go along with your opinion is a troll right? I seem to recall Hitler having the same mentality. Anyone who doesn't support piracy is ranted down, and labeled as a troll. Does anyone really care about the people being ripped off? Would you have the same opinion if it was you who's work was being stolen?
I suppose I may be the only one here that thinks protecting the rights of the people who's work is being stolen is a good thing? The whole point of the 3 strikes is in case mistakes are made and there are plenty of points to appeal etc. Is it really that unfair for their to be at least some sort of protection for people to prevent their worked from being stolen and to prevent them from being put out of business by theives? Of is the mentality that anyone who creates content that is digital has no rights to make a living? Perhaps if people who are against these protections would simply come up with a better way to protect digital content from rampant theft, then this wouldn't be an issue. If someone did, they would be rich. So there's plenty of incentive, yet no one does. Why? The people creating the content certainly have been trying. So is everyone really against this because they really think it's against the law, or is it because many people simply enjoy the ability to steal anything they want and have no regard for the people who are being put out of work?
So only 136 people in the UK file share? Sounds like it's not a very big industry.
This claim that record labels don't give bands any money form record sales is a complete lie. That would be illegal. This claim is made by groups who simply don't understand how business works and simply don't produce enough sales in order to sell albums. Yes artists DO have to sell a certain amount of albums in order to make a profit. This goes for ALL businesses. Before you can make a profit, you have to first recoup the expenses paid. The expenses that the record label pays for and that the artist has absolutely no obligation to pay if the album doesn't sell. In any other business you are obligated to pay all loans back no matter what. Artists on the other hand get a free pass from record labels who have to take on all of the loss themselves. It's these kind of false claims such as the ones you make that cause people to have this baseless hatred towards record labels. If consumers would educate themselves on how the music business worked instead of making up false claims about it, we might be able to find a solution. And the primary reason this false information spreads so much is that so many people simply make it up in order to justify stealing (and of course EVERYONE claims they themselves don't steal).
This is happening a good part because of illegal file sharing. IF the sales from indi stores are atoo low to justify the distribution costs, why do you think those stores aren't selling enough? Because they too cannot compare to free downloading. If your competition is theft, you cannot compete. Now if you're busy stealing and not buying from those indie stores, then it's YOUR fault, not the people you are stealing from. When you buy a used CD, the label and artist already made their profit from that CD to one person and it continues to be held by one person. That's how it should be. When you steal, and distribute it to millions of others to steal, profit is lost. Cuts have to be made form these losses to thieves, and stuff like this happens. Thanks to the thieves. So yes, fight back. Stop thieves from destroying music.
The artist gets a cut of the album sales. And this is where their real income comes from more so that concerts. Most often they make no money from concerts and use it just to promote the album sales. Many pirates try to use examples of bands who do make money in concerts to claim that they all do and thus try to not feel guilty about stealing from artists. As if that by stealing you are helping artists. Artists are not being ripped off by record labels. There are bad deals from time to time, just like in every business. But trying to make up the claim that artists are getting ripping off by labels just to justify stealing from those artists is wrong. And the irony is that its ticket sales where artists really do get ripped off. Companies like ticketmaster abuse they monopoly.
The cost of the media is not even note worthy. You're not paying for a piece of plastic. You're paying for the contents on it. Those contents cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to produce an put on that piece of plastic. The cost of living has gone up. You don't complain that a gallon of milk costs more than it did when you bought records instead of CDs do you? The cost of everything goes up because of inflation. The cost to produce a record has gone up as well. Pricing is not magic. They don't pick some random price and have a committee on it. The prices SHOULD go up. Just like in every other industry in the world. But for music you want the prices to go down even though the costs for the producers goes up.
You're saying that if people who steel then had the option of paying for a tracker instead of using a free one that they would then start paying money? Right now the service you speak of does exist. It's been tried many times and has failed. Because you simply cannot compete with free. The record companies ARE seeking listeners and they are using online methods. But again, nothing can compare with free. The record companies didn't figure out iTunes, apple did. And not much money is being made on iTunes. The reason Apple has iTunes is because it helps them sell iPods. They take a loss on music so they can sell hardware. The record labels HAVE started online stores and subscriptions just like you described. But they all fail because they can't compete with free. By stealing you are simply causing artists to have to be come trinket sales people. You don't want to pay them for their work, you want them to have to sell crap on the side so you can continue to steal from them. And you're stealing money from the band by stealing the records because they have to pay for that. In addition, by stealing records, there is then no money to develop artists. The reason record labels take a big chunk is because they have to fund all the artists that flop. For every successful artist you know of, there are 10-15 failures. No one can predict what will or won't sell. So they have to take risks. Piracy is the major reason why there isn't much variety in music these days. And it's the criminals who steal that are to blame, not the record labels.
As someone who works in the music business and works with the major record labels and artists I can tell you that most of the people in the business are now out of work of struggling just to pay bills. Most of the labels are out of business, most of the facilities are closing down, and many of the people in the industry are suffering. It's sad to see so many people touting stealing. I wonder how many would feel if people were stealing from them and taking pride in it. And most of the arguments people here are making are false claims that they are making up simply so they can talk themselves out of feeling guilty for stealing from other people.
Interesting how the poster refers to STEALING as censorship. I wonder if someone stole from the poster the thief could just accuse the victim of trying to censor him from having anything he wants for free.
I think everyone that thinks music should be given away for free and should only be allowed to make money from t-shirts and trinkets should consider this model for themselves. How about your boss doesn't have to pay you. And instead you can sell T-shirts and other goods at your work to make money. It's only fair right? Connect with your customer. Give them your services for free and try to make your money outside of your work.
So long as people keep trying to justify stealing by using excuses like "consult the people", there won't be much left to steal soon. We wonder why the economy is as bad as it is yet still feel entitled to just take everything without paying for it and then get upset at the people we're stealing from. Imagine if our employers started taking the same approach to employees.
Not to worry. Pretty soon there will be no more record labels and no more music to buy as the piracy puts everyone out of business. And I hope everyone that cheers on piracy remembers this. I also hope that when they complain that there's no good music being put out, that one of the primary reasons is that you're stealing the stuff that you consider good, so they can only support the stuff that makes money. The stuff you don't steal. If someone steals from a store, the police come and put them in jail. If we don't afford IP businesses the same protection from theft, then how can we expect to keep IP? It's true these people should not be sued. But they should go to jail just as if they were to steal anything else. It affects us all because the billions a year lost from music piracy affects the entire economy. Only when someone steal music and puts it on an online file sharing, they aren't simply doing the damage of one unit, they are redistributing it and causing the loss of much greater sales. Maybe suing people isn't the greatest thing to do. But until the law decides to help out by enforcing the law and throwing thieves in jail, there is nothing else the labels can do to protect themselves from being stolen out of business. Luckily a lot of courts seem to understand this. They know that the case of the RIAA is not the same as other issues that would be laughed out of court.