How is it stolen property when Adywan, Harmy or anyone else is distributing something that can't physically be purchased? If you already own the source movie and watching an edit or restoration of it is not actually denying LFL/Disney the sale of a product I fail to see how it can be considered theft. Is it also theft if you DVR a television show and watch it again after the show has originally aired? I mean, technically you could be buying that episode on Amazon or iTunes so recording it and watching it over and over again is theft, right? You can take these arguments as far as you want to go, but at some point they just become tiresome and exist solely for the sake of arguing. As I said before, when someone compares editing a film to rape it's clear that all logic has been thrown out the window.
 
How is it stolen property when Adywan, Harmy or anyone else is distributing something that can't physically be purchased? If you already own the source movie and watching an edit or restoration of it is not actually denying LFL/Disney the sale of a product I fail to see how it can be considered theft. Is it also theft if you DVR a television show and watch it again after the show has originally aired? I mean, technically you could be buying that episode on Amazon or iTunes so recording it and watching it over and over again is theft, right? You can take these arguments as far as you want to go, but at some point they just become tiresome and exist solely for the sake of arguing. As I said before, when someone compares editing a film to rape it's clear that all logic has been thrown out the window.

i never made a comparison to rape, JD did. But I agree with the point he was illustrating, just as I did in the thread we just had in this topic which you seem to have missed. What's tiresone is your lack of understanding of copyright law. Perhaps you should familiarize yoursel with it and then opine as to the legality of what you suggest. It is theft because you now are in possession of an alternate version of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. You DVR argument has no merit as the license holder for that content have agreed to allow that content to be distributed and viewed by consumers who can record it and watch at their discretion. Now, try and DVR a show, rip it to a DVD, and give it to your friends and now you are n violation. What's tiresone is having to explain the patently obvious and the current law over and over.
 
i never made a comparison to rape, JD did. But I agree with the point he was illustrating, just as I did in the thread we just had in this topic which you seem to have missed. What's tiresone is your lack of understanding of copyright law. Perhaps you should familiarize yoursel with it and then opine as to the legality of what you suggest. It is theft because you now are in possession of an alternate version of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. You DVR argument has no merit as the license holder for that content have agreed to allow that content to be distributed and viewed by consumers who can record it and watch at their discretion. Now, try and DVR a show, rip it to a DVD, and give it to your friends and now you are n violation. What's tiresone is having to explain the patently obvious and the current law over and over.


I really don't care how many times you try to explain it because I refuse to accept your viewpoint and if you find my comments tiresome feel free to gloss right over them without responding from this point forward. I've said how I feel and I have no interest in continuing this back and forth with you as we will never see eye to eye on the subject.
 
I really don't care how many times you try to explain it because I refuse to accept your viewpoint and if you find my comments tiresome feel free to gloss right over them without responding from this point forward. I've said how I feel and I have no interest in continuing this back and forth with you as we will never see eye to eye on the subject.

It's not a viewpoint, it's the law, big difference.
 
Every DVD or BR I've ever watched has a notice at the beginning explaining the copyright law and terms of use the consumer agrees to by purchasing the film. There is no reasonable argument against making a copy, re-editing (or not) and distributing it, that is theft under the law. Much like taking a prop design (Intellectual Property) and creating a "better" or more screen accurate version that hardcore fans would enjoy, and offering a run.

Maybe it is time to step back from hypocrisy and just lock the thread. It no longer has anything to do with an official release anyway.
 
At the risk of distracting from the discussion of ephemera, I'm curious about something technical... When doing the Special Editions, George said that the original negative had been destroyed by the process of scanning/digitizing it for restoration, augmentation, and other SE fiddling. Does this just mean the reel was sliced up into individual frames that were then scanned? Or that the entirety of it, already fragile, was rendered useless in the transfer? Also, whether this holds for ESB and ROTJ.

My big concern is that, since George the technology guy somehow didn't predict higher resolutions, the Special Editions and Prequels aren't in 4K resolution or higher. The Prequels can never be, because they were shot digitally to their native resolution and that's it. But if even the individual frames from the OOT negatives still exist, there's some hope for higher-resolution transfers, and I don't want to let go of that hope unless I have to.

--Jonah
 
Your post above that is complete nonsense. Consumers are the ultimate arbiters of a products success.

The way you interpret the system sounds more like the issue of quality isn't even a factor in a product's success or failure. I don't think it's good business practice for companies to write off failed products as completely the consumers fault because they simply didn't buy it. I can see Lucasfilm doing that because, well it's pretty obvious. George Lucas, the man who controlled Star Wars at the time was already a billionaire who declared “I’ve earned the right to fail". Having someone not care if he succeeds and releases a product he doesn't care about, it's not hard to see why the product didn't connect with the consumers. Maybe if he cared just a little bit more, the consumers would have as well.
 
At the risk of distracting from the discussion of ephemera, I'm curious about something technical... When doing the Special Editions, George said that the original negative had been destroyed by the process of scanning/digitizing it for restoration, augmentation, and other SE fiddling. Does this just mean the reel was sliced up into individual frames that were then scanned? Or that the entirety of it, already fragile, was rendered useless in the transfer? Also, whether this holds for ESB and ROTJ.

Inquisitor, they are lying through their teeth with that story, even on ones where they've stated that the negatives were permanently altered. You don't do that with negatives! Scanning a film takes time and is a very supervised process. The only way for this story to even be remotely true is if Lucas deliberately told the technicians in charge of scanning the negative to destroy it once they were done. Otherwise Lucas is the most incompetent studio head this world has ever seen for hiring folks who can't tell that the scanning process was destroying the film itself on all three films.

Plus, why would Lucas do that? These negatives are ASSETS. When the quality and method of how movies are distributed change though out the years, you've got to have a source that you can go back to in order to meet those standards.

I'll give you an example. When the Indiana Jones movies were released onto DVD, Lowry Digital remastered the film and per instruction, eliminated some of the film's most obvious goofs like the snake's reflection on the glass. When it came time to release the film in high-definition, they did a completely new remaster of the source material and this time chose not to alter the film in any way. So on the original DVD you don't see the snake's reflection, but on the BluRay you do. Unfortunately this was not handled with the other two Indy films for they used the same remastering work that Lowry had done for the DVDs. Thankfully when they were doing the remastering for the DVD, they worked in a higher resolution so it could still be true 1080p, but films definitely look better when they're remastered specifically for High Definition.

Now, how did Lucasfilm handle the BluRay release of the original trilogy? BY USING THE SAME SOURCE THAT WAS USED FOR THE DVDS. And unlike the Indiana Jones movies which gave Raiders a genuine newly remastered picture for the BluRay standard, none of the films in the original trilogy were lucky. The only thing we got was more tinkering. In fact, a lot of faults that were on the original Special Edition DVD release (An overall blue tint to the image. Luke's lightsaber being green in ANH) weren't even fixed.
 
This his I agree with. I don't believe their official story regarding these prints no longer existing has any veracity.


Inquisitor, they are lying through their teeth with that story, even on ones where they've stated that the negatives were permanently altered. You don't do that with negatives! Scanning a film takes time and is a very supervised process. The only way for this story to even be remotely true is if Lucas deliberately told the technicians in charge of scanning the negative to destroy it once they were done. Otherwise Lucas is the most incompetent studio head this world has ever seen for hiring folks who can't tell that the scanning process was destroying the film itself on all three films.

Plus, why would Lucas do that? These negatives are ASSETS. When the quality and method of how movies are distributed change though out the years, you've got to have a source that you can go back to in order to meet those standards.

I'll give you an example. When the Indiana Jones movies were released onto DVD, Lowry Digital remastered the film and per instruction, eliminated some of the film's most obvious goofs like the snake's reflection on the glass. When it came time to release the film in high-definition, they did a completely new remaster of the source material and this time chose not to alter the film in any way. So on the original DVD you don't see the snake's reflection, but on the BluRay you do. Unfortunately this was not handled with the other two Indy films for they used the same remastering work that Lowry had done for the DVDs. Thankfully when they were doing the remastering for the DVD, they worked in a higher resolution so it could still be true 1080p, but films definitely look better when they're remastered specifically for High Definition.

Now, how did Lucasfilm handle the BluRay release of the original trilogy? BY USING THE SAME SOURCE THAT WAS USED FOR THE DVDS. And unlike the Indiana Jones movies which gave Raiders a genuine newly remastered picture for the BluRay standard, none of the films in the original trilogy were lucky. The only thing we got was more tinkering. In fact, a lot of faults that were on the original Special Edition DVD release (An overall blue tint to the image. Luke's lightsaber being green in ANH) weren't even fixed.
 
OK, well feel free to notify me when LFL shuts down Adywan, Harmy and the rest of the fan editors on OT.com for all of that law breaking they've done for the past 10-15 years.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't trying to claim that what these guys do isn't a clear-cut violation of copyright law. I suspect you know it is because, y'know, that's what the law says. Likewise, I doubt you'd claim "I'm not speeding" if you were driving 70mph in a 55mph zone, because that's really the kind of statement that "It's not copyright violation" is in this case. Now, maybe you want to argue about the morality of it, or maybe your attitude is that you don't care that it's against the law. And hey, that's your call. But there's basically no argument under the law as to why these guys ought to be able to keep distributing their stuff, because the law explicitly prohibits their actions just like the sign explicitly says "55mph speed limit."

The fact that Disney (and LFL before it) didn't enforce yet doesn't change the fact that it's still a copyright law violation. At best, these guys could argue that Disney knew and therefore they can't be punished for what they did previously (which is a shaky argument as it is, because then they'd have to prove Disney was aware of their actions). But nothing would protect them from Disney, say, getting an injunction to prevent future distribution, if Disney cared to.

They just don't seem to care right now. But that doesn't change the fact that they're basically driving 70 in a 55 zone. It just means that nobody's enforcing the speed limit...yet.

At the risk of distracting from the discussion of ephemera, I'm curious about something technical... When doing the Special Editions, George said that the original negative had been destroyed by the process of scanning/digitizing it for restoration, augmentation, and other SE fiddling. Does this just mean the reel was sliced up into individual frames that were then scanned? Or that the entirety of it, already fragile, was rendered useless in the transfer? Also, whether this holds for ESB and ROTJ.

My big concern is that, since George the technology guy somehow didn't predict higher resolutions, the Special Editions and Prequels aren't in 4K resolution or higher. The Prequels can never be, because they were shot digitally to their native resolution and that's it. But if even the individual frames from the OOT negatives still exist, there's some hope for higher-resolution transfers, and I don't want to let go of that hope unless I have to.

--Jonah

That's about the only hope for an OOT release that anyone has. George's statement might be true about the very specific copy of the original negative to which he was referring. Like, the very first negative to be made, that might be totally trashed. But that doesn't mean there aren't other negatives that are just as or almost as good, and wouldn't be perfectly useable IF someone wanted to make a new transfer at higher resolutions. As with the PT stuff, the SE additions were done in 1080p HD. Which means...that's it. That's as much resolution as anyone's ever gonna get from those images natively. Any upscaling would involve mathematical equations to basically guess at what's between those pixels, and wouldn't look as "real" as a scan from another film negative.

So, the theory is this:

- Disney will inevitably want to reissue the old films if and when the technology gets to a point where 1080p is no longer the consumer level standard, and something like 4K or above is.

- Disney will need to rescan some old copy of the film to do that, which means it won't be the Lowry Digital transfer, which also means it won't be the SE version.

- If Disney wants to add back the SE things, it'll need to do so from the ground up.

- Either Disney will say "Meh, screw it. Not worth the money to do SEs" and release the OOT, or they'll say "Meh, might as well scan and correct this stuff, and then release it on its own before we release the SEs."


And that's about the only angle where an OOT gets released. All of that requires the other stuff we've discussed to happen: recapturing the rights from Fox and/or working a deal with Fox for ANH, consumers adopting display technology that leads Disney to want to do this at all, probably that broadband connections grow exponentially in speed and remain affordable for consumers, etc.

In short, there are a bunch of dominoes that have to fall before Disney even gets round to considering whether to release the OOT. It could still happen, but there's a lot that needs to happen first, and then Disney needs to see a profit in it. And none of that will happen pre-2020. So, in the meantime, your options are the existing blu-rays, or copyright infringement.
 
Going by what Dan said, if Disney were to re-release the OT in 4K (or whatever the new standard might be) and it does involving scanning the negatives again, I'd say that the odds are good that what would get released would basically be a re-mastered release as opposed to a new SE since that would be the cheapest and easiest to do. I'm not saying that this is what they would do but I think that it's the most likely since it would likely be the cheapest and easiest route for them. Once they have a newly restored master it would be easy enough for them to go re-visit it later on down the line and see what it would take to up-res the SE specific footage and re-edit their master to create a new SE master.
 
4K is getting more mainstream and affordable. I don't know if 8K will ever be more than a gimmick, but we'll see. If I remember right, 4K was arrived at not just to double the previous "HD" horizontal resolution of 2K (or 1080 vertical resolution), but because that was pretty durn close to the resolution of 35mm film stock and it made a good digital cinema standard. Since the OT was shot on 70mm, 8K might be the best resolution to scan it, regardless of how it's encoded onto retail media.

The bit where 4K hurts the most, for me, is trying to upscale stuff shot in the '70s, '80s, and '90s on video tape with its lovely 720 vertical resolution. :facepalm

--Jonah
 
The Special Editions came about when LFL and Fox were looking to re-release the films to coincide with Star Wars' 20th anniversary. They needed to strike new prints but found that all the printing materials in the vaults had deteriorated drastically. When they looked at the conformed negative (which would be made up of cut segments of the original camera negative and, in the case of Star Wars and other effects heavy films, final composite shots) it was found to be unusable.

The composite shots, which were printed on a different type of film to the camera negative, had faded irretrievably. The rest of the negative was faded and damaged due to over use because of to the immense popularity of the film and the need for prints to satisfy demand. The solution was to perform a restoration at a cost of more than $10,000,000.

At that time digital storage was still expensive. It wasn't until the early 2000s that it became cost effective to store a whole film digitally at the quality required. So the restoration was largely photo-chemical. That meant taking the negative and other early generation film sources and use old-school printing techniques to bring it back from the dead.

As the composited (effects shots, wipes etc.) material was so degraded they had to be recreated from the original elements. It was at this point, if reports are to be believed, that the idea came about to revise certain shots. These recreated and revised shots were done digitally, printed to film and cut back in with the camera negative. When George Lucas said the original versions don't exist I suspect this is what he was alluding to. The negative is now conformed to the Special Edition. That doesn't mean the originals can't be restored it just makes it more difficult.

The original shots excised from the Special Editions only exist in later generation materials and would likely be noticeably lower quality if cut in unaltered with the camera negative: especially at HD resolution and beyond. However in the last 20 years the tools have improved and the cost of doing a restoration today would be far cheaper than back then. It would also be far easier. The shots could potentially be recreated from the original camera elements (although that would likely cause debate from the ultra-purists) as Lucas saved everything and Disney took possession of it after the sale. Disney has a world-class asset preservation unit and it would shock me if they hadn't begun preservation of the materials they acquired very soon after they received them. This would have been done at at least 4k and at far higher bit depth than consumer video.

Whether or not they choose to release them is another matter, and Disney has plenty of stuff preserved that will not be released (Song of the South and certain shots from Fantasia for example). But it seems to me that they are keen on harnessing the Original Trilogy going forward and releasing a restored OT would be a good way to build good will from the fan community.

The Fox issue doesn't seem much more complicated than it was when LFL was an independent body. Back then Fox could only release the films when LFL allowed them to, and acted merely as a distributor. They signed away all claims to the copyright in the OT in the late '90s and I can't see a for profit corporation turning down what would be, effectively, free money.
 
Going by what Dan said, if Disney were to re-release the OT in 4K (or whatever the new standard might be) and it does involving scanning the negatives again, I'd say that the odds are good that what would get released would basically be a re-mastered release as opposed to a new SE since that would be the cheapest and easiest to do. I'm not saying that this is what they would do but I think that it's the most likely since it would likely be the cheapest and easiest route for them. Once they have a newly restored master it would be easy enough for them to go re-visit it later on down the line and see what it would take to up-res the SE specific footage and re-edit their master to create a new SE master.

Right, but the general theory behind the future release of the OOT is based on the notion that any higher-than-1080p-resolution release will require rescanning the OOT...at which point, why wouldn't you just clean it up and release it as is? Or, if they do an SE, since they'll already have a scanned OOT, why not use the cleaned up OOT as the basis for a new SE master and either re-do the effects or upscale what was done before? As you say, the cheapest route is to release the OOT in the new format, since it actually becomes more expensive to re-do the SE on top of that. And if you do release the SE, then releasing the OOT next to it (or, more likely, as part of a megaset where you have to buy all 15 discs or whatever), is pure profit, since you're already redoing the OOT to do the SE.

HOWEVER


For all of the discussion about how Lucas didn't foresee the future of high-res video, I don't think we can knock ol' George quite too hard. Jumping from 1080p to higher res requires a whole bunch of other things falling into place. Lucas may not have foreseen it, but streaming video creates a serious bottleneck for technology at the moment, or at least, that's how I see it.

You have several interests at play that make streaming a major factor. First, consumers love it. It's cheaper than buying, they don't have walls of discs they never watch, and you typically pay a low fee on a monthly basis to access tons of content. And you aren't having to upgrade your media system every few years just to play a new type of media. Second, the media companies love it. It erodes the "ownership" mentality surrounding media, because people get used to licensing it and never having a copy they can hang on to. It also helps cut back on piracy because you have nothing that resides permanently on the consumer's system (although someone will eventually figure out how to pirate stuff from Netflix, I'm sure).

The thing is, you also have interests arrayed against it. The companies that own the "pipes" over which streaming stuff flows are PISSED right now, because they just lost the FCC ruling about net neutrality. That will slow down how fast they'll be upgrading these pipes to handle more data flow. Which means that it'll slow down how fast resolutions change. You need much fatter pipes to handle consumers downloading 4K streams across the US.

I really, really doubt we'll see the 4K shift happen before 2020, and maybe even later. I mean, yeah, they're selling 4K TVs, and they're actually somewhat affordable, but nobody's making content in 4K yet, or even 2K. DVD was future-proofed for a while because it was higher resolution than the displays most people had. That meant that you could grow "into" the DVD resolution. Blu-ray came out just as everyone was finally switching over to an HDTV, so we've basically already maxed out that media. But the streaming thing is, I think, really going to slow down development of further high-res media formats. I mean, companies like Samsung and LG can make 90gajillionK displays, and put out new media formats like, I dunno, "Purple-Ray" or something, but what will slow the adoption of any of those formats.....is the people who own all the content. And they, I suspect, do not want to shift to another format. Not when they can license streaming rights to new sources, or start their own streaming services. So, in spite of the 4K displays out there, I don't think you'll see 4K content for a while.

And that means, I don't think you'll see a Disney release of the OOT for a while, even assuming the rights issues can be resolved.
 
OK, well feel free to notify me when LFL shuts down Adywan, Harmy and the rest of the fan editors on OT.com for all of that law breaking they've done for the past 10-15 years.

This gets me wondering: aren't the fan editors not promote the original films they're editing? I mean at FanEdit.org, everyone who does any edits post the films their editing, and even list the sources that they borrow any additional footage from (in fact, all pages at FanEdit.org also literally state that people should purchase the films instead of just downloading the fan edits, including links to Amazon where people can purchase the original films (for example, for a fan edit of Doom, the editor removed the whole "the monsters are genetically modified humans" aspect and edited in footage from other films, including Resident Evil, to have the "monsters are demons from Hell" aspect from the games. For that page, it includes links to the Amazon pages for Doom, Resident Evil and any of the other films that the editor borrowed clips from).

So, aren't fan edits in themselves serving as promotions for the films, thus leading more money to the original owners instead of taking it away?
 
This gets me wondering: aren't the fan editors not promote the original films they're editing? I mean at FanEdit.org, everyone who does any edits post the films their editing, and even list the sources that they borrow any additional footage from (in fact, all pages at FanEdit.org also literally state that people should purchase the films instead of just downloading the fan edits, including links to Amazon where people can purchase the original films (for example, for a fan edit of Doom, the editor removed the whole "the monsters are genetically modified humans" aspect and edited in footage from other films, including Resident Evil, to have the "monsters are demons from Hell" aspect from the games. For that page, it includes links to the Amazon pages for Doom, Resident Evil and any of the other films that the editor borrowed clips from).

So, aren't fan edits in themselves serving as promotions for the films, thus leading more money to the original owners instead of taking it away?


Logical fallacy. :)
 
This gets me wondering: aren't the fan editors not promote the original films they're editing? I mean at FanEdit.org, everyone who does any edits post the films their editing, and even list the sources that they borrow any additional footage from (in fact, all pages at FanEdit.org also literally state that people should purchase the films instead of just downloading the fan edits, including links to Amazon where people can purchase the original films (for example, for a fan edit of Doom, the editor removed the whole "the monsters are genetically modified humans" aspect and edited in footage from other films, including Resident Evil, to have the "monsters are demons from Hell" aspect from the games. For that page, it includes links to the Amazon pages for Doom, Resident Evil and any of the other films that the editor borrowed clips from).

So, aren't fan edits in themselves serving as promotions for the films, thus leading more money to the original owners instead of taking it away?

This kind of stuff comes up periodically on this board, both in terms of things like fanedits, and in terms of props and costumes.

The bottom line, under the law at least, is that it doesn't matter. It's still infringement. There might in some situations be an argument to be made for fair use. But fair use is an "affirmative defense." That means that, legally speaking, you have to admit first that you broke the rule, but then claim an exception to the rule. Going back to my speeding argument, it'd be as if there was a rule saying "You can speed if you have a pregnant passenger giving birth." You're still speeding, even if you're racing to the hospital with said passenger. And by claiming "But my passenger was pregnant!" you basically admit that, yeah, you were speeding...but it's ok because the law said so in this limited exception. That's how fair use works under copyright law. You admit you infringed copyright, but you claim it's ok because you meet the exception.

A lot of people don't really understand fair use. That's not surprising, since it's actually a lot more complicated in practice than it sounds in theory. Fair use is actually a four-part test under the 1976 Copyright Act and its amendments, and all four parts are equally important. ONE of those parts is focused on the "nature and purpose" of the use you claim is fair. The argument that you're actually "promoting" the films probably won't fly either, because your promotion is itself unsanctioned by the rightsholder.

The abilities to reproduce, display, and distribute a copyrighted work are all reserved to the rights holder, as is the right to made modifications to the work (also known as making a "derivative work"). This would include "promoting" the work by giving away free altered copies. So, saying "But I'm helping the film!" won't fly. Plus, even if a court would entertain the argument in terms of the legal basis for it (which it wouldn't), you'd then have to prove that you were actually doing that...and the fact is that the Star Wars franchise doesn't need anyone's help, and no court would buy the argument that fan edits help promote the work. Of course, as I said, no court would entertain the argument in the first place, and would simply say "This is a blatant case of infringement."

I'm not saying this stuff to be snotty, either. I'm just trying to explain how copyright law works, since folks seem curious to come up with arguments as to why what the law says is infringement isn't infringement. Fair use is easy to claim in some limited cases, but in most cases relating to this hobby, what we do isn't really "fair use," as much as it is "tolerated de minimis piracy." We fly under the radar because it's too much of a pain/expense for the rights holders to pursue us. It's like we're driving, oh, 56-60 in a 55mph zone. Most cops will ignore us, as long as we slow down a little when we pass them, or if the whole flow of traffic is around 57mph or whatever. But when a cop sees a guy going 80? Doing 15-25mph more than what surrounding traffic is doing? That guy's getting a ticket, assuming there's a cop around to give him one. The main reason why the "cops" don't pay attention here is that the people in question are really going more like 75mph in a 55mph zone, but on a stretch of otherwise deserted highway that nobody ever drives, and where you almost never see a cop. In short, their impact is minimal, even though they're clearly breaking the law. So, the enforcers ignore it.

They'd pay more attention if they had more reason to worry. They don't, though, for now.
 
IIRC, the resolution of 35mm film for much of the 20th century is said to be around 5k. So 4k is probably the ceiling of possible consumer-grade resolution formats for the next few decades. Even if they want to go higher there isn't enough raw material improvement to be had.

I will expect a new cut of the OOT to be released in 4k sooner or later though. They formats will keep increasing res periodically as long as there is more res in the source material to be had. I've already got Blu-Rays of old movies that fail to look any better than the DVD cuts.



As for the SE's -
Those were considered very CGI-intensive projects in the 1990s but they aren't so much by 2015 standards. The cost of recreating them from scratch at a higher-res has been steadily falling since they were done. By the time there is a serious demand for a 4k re-release of the OT it will probably be cheap enough not to view the cost as a major obstacle.
 
Can't beleive I opened this thread again.If this ever gets released can the OP please change the title to "it's happening" so I don't have to bother other wise. :rolleyes


Ben
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top