Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Communications Your Rights Online

WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters 223

Posted by michael from the suck-it-up-peons dept.
An anonymous reader writes "WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization) created by the UN is now creating a new copyright for 'broadcast transmissions' giving broadcasters ownership of the content that they broadcast (even if the program being broadcast is in the public domain). IP Justice has created a Top 10 List of reasons to reject this proposal and has published a detailed report that dissects the proposal from a civil liberties and freedom of expression point of view." See our previous story for more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters More

WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters

Comments Filter:

  • Also see (Score:5, Informative)

    by JamesD_UK ( 721413 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:32PM (#9370798) Homepage
    See the Union for the Public Domain [public-domain.org]. We're also working on these issues and have summaries of WIPO proceedings and an analysis of the treaty.

  • The "perfect enemy" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#9370805)
    I keep wondering how long it will be until we have the completely formed "perfect enemy" -- that combination of totalitarianism and corporatism all rolled together.

  • WPDO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leandrod ( 17766 ) <l@dutras . o rg> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#9370808) Homepage Journal

    I hereby propose the creation of WOFO -- the World Public Domain, Fair Use, Open Content and Free Software Organisation.

    • Re:WPDO (Score:2, Informative)

      by Lotharjade ( 750874 )
      AMEN brother.

      Also this needs to also go and cover the situation between radio stations and record companies. Do you know that radio stations have to PAY the record companies per song, despite the fact that the stations is doing multiple services for the record company. They track songs, tell which are good, provide free advertising for the cd, and usually provide encouragement for people to buy the CD's.

      This new WOFO group would make it free for radio stations to use ANY song as long as they provide tho

    • Re:WPDO (Score:5, Funny)

      by Sponge Bath ( 413667 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:56PM (#9371088)

      How about World Organization for Open and Free Software.
      WOOF!

    • How about the Association to Stifle the Scale of the World Intellectual Property Organization?

      In other words, the ASSWIPO.
    • Don't for get open standards. Directly, it's open standards that's threatened by patents. If it ever becomes possible to shield open standards from patent encumbrance, then open source will enjoy a lot more free reign; at least open source implementations of open standards.
    • What was wrong with the acronym WPDFUOCFSO?

  • What if they don't own it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:34PM (#9370821)
    *off to start broadcasting illegal copies of stuff and then re-download it as the owner of those things*

  • Fine by me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:34PM (#9370826) Homepage Journal
    giving broadcasters ownership of the content that they broadcast (even if the program being broadcast is in the public domain)

    as long as they pay me royalty for tresspassing my property with their airwaves without my consent.

  • Fuzzy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by z0ink ( 572154 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:35PM (#9370832)
    Of course I didn't RTFA, but would this mean if I broadcasted the latest RIAA single I would own the rights to a recording of that broadcast? Even if I never owned the rights to the actual songs in the broadcast?
    • You would not own rights to the song, but you would own rights to the broadcast; copyright can have many layers with different people holding the rights to the different layers.

      It's analogous to the copyright a printer has in the typesetting of a book. You are infringing copyright if you photocopy a recently typeset Penguin Classic of a public domain work, but not if you transcribe it. You can however photocopy older published books at your leisure.

      Another example: Dangermouse infringed on both the Beatle

  • Distributing freely? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#9370846) Journal
    This proposal by the UN can, and has been used to define web content [com.com] distribution.

    Seems to indicate that in the case of public domain content, such as a government-created documentary or a very old movie or audio recording--you would not be able to freely store and redistribute that content.
    • "Seems to indicate that in the case of public domain content, such as a government-created documentary or a very old movie or audio recording--you would not be able to freely store and redistribute that content."

      So no public domain then?

      So if writers are contributing nothing to the public domain, tell us again why they deserve the exclusive privileges part of copyright which is their payment for writing work for the public domain?

      • Face it. It will be litigated into oblivion, and simply mentioning that it ever existed will be made illegal.

        Long live the new public domain! [google.com]

        It's really, really time to reconsider anarchism guys. Democracy been has proven so flawed by capitalism, that it really hurts. By the people for the people my ass. Any mention of that and you're a communist/terririst/cyber-criminal (insert favorite none-commercialist decoy hot-word of the day here).

        In case you can't stand the idea of anarchism, at least it's

        • > I, for once, would consider the second lawyers are needed the moment of decline

          Do you have ANY idea how long lawyers have been around? As long as Democracy; longer, even. Never heard a quote from a Greek philosopher about lawyers, eh? They were considered a "necessary" evil WAAAAY back then too.

          What should be considered the moment of decline (in that regard) is when people decided they could make a quick million by acting like a retard and hurting themselves and not taking responsibility for their

  • reason.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#9370853)
    11. When I broadcast a fart, I don't want to be legally responsible for damage it does.

  • Hand-in-Hand with Broadcast Flag (Score:4, Interesting)

    by william_lorenz ( 703263 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#9370856) Homepage
    Seems to me that this goes hand-in-hand with the broadcast [mpaa.org] flag [eff.org].

  • There's an old saying... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:38PM (#9370878)
    Rob's Rule of Misgovernment: "When idiots write the law, the law will be idiotic."

  • They are already doing this successfully! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:43PM (#9370946)
    Perhaps you have noticed that most broadcasters are super imposing their logos and other copyrighted images on your screen. That logo effectively stamps the film that they are broadcasting. They own the logo. You can't copy or distribute that logo without their permission. Therefore, you can't use the film in the background without their permission either.

    • "You can't copy or distribute that logo without their permission."

      Other than for purposes of Fair Use, you'd agree. Satire, criticism, etc.

      The creeping doom here is the removal of Fair Use by all means subvert and obvert.
      • The creeping doom here is the removal of Fair Use by all means subvert and obvert.

        Already done. The corporate content owner simply files suit on any unauthorized use and forces the user to hire a lawyer to defend fair use. If the gain from the fair use is less than the cost of defending the suit, the user loses, even if he's right. Rather than take the risk of having to defend fair use, most will either license it or do without.
    • And you'd be responsible for their loss of revenue if you redisplayed their logo. Since they generally don't get paid for display of their logo the penalties might not be so bad.

    • Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:16PM (#9371263)
      My school's TV station (and bunches of other TV stations rebroadcasting news clips) get around this by blotting out the logo in the corner. If the content is freely distributable, the broadcaster can't do a thing as long as their logo is not visible, especially if a network broadcast is the only viable way to obtain publicly avaliable content (e.g. speeches, breaking news events, etc.)

  • Sound and Light! (Score:2, Informative)

    by alficles ( 781213 )
    "Broadcasting" means the wireless transmission to the public of sounds and/or images, including transmissions via satellite or other radio waves that propagate freely in space.
    Wireless transmission would indeed cover everything you say. Not only that, you are reflecting lightrays from about your person. Outlaw mirrors!

  • silly notion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wmeyer ( 17620 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:46PM (#9370978)
    I'd guess that the MPAA might disagree with the notion of a broadcaster acquiring ownership of a feature film, simply because he broadcast it one night.

    Europe seems determined to do away with property rights altogether.
    • it'll only apply to public domain stuff, stuff no one claims ownership of. Come'on people, do you think the RIAA/MPAA just missed this little law? They've got their lawyers/lobbiests all over it.
      • It will apply to all content, not just what's in the public domain. But it's perfectly possible for the broadcaster and the filmmaker both to have rights with respect to a broadcast. This is already the case with books: the author's copyright and the publisher's copyright are distinct and last for different terms. The publisher's copyright applies to a specific edition of the book, including typesetting, layout etc, while the author's copyright applies to the text. In cases where the author's copyright has
  • This does suggest that there is anything in the public domain that anyone would want to broadcast.

    Considering the vast majority of the public domain is targetted at an audience who were around 95 years ago, and is likely to be highly degraded, or even non-existant, this sounds like a largely academic objetion.
    • How is this academic? If they now own the rights just because of broadcasting it, you can now get sued for having a copy of something YOU HAVE THE FULL RIGHTS TO USE. That is insane. I'm really getting sick of legislation that is using a shotgun to swat a fly and not caring about the collateral damage.
    • This is a hedge bet against them being unable to contine to extend copyright terms indefinitely.
    • This does suggest that there is anything in the public domain that anyone would want to broadcast.

      But there is. There's a lot of material in the public domain because they were American works that failed to renew or register in the first place. Old news casts, most of Ed Wood's movies, a lot of Charlie Chaplin's works are just some of the things in the public domain.

      I'm currently preparing something copied from TV for Project Gutenberg. It's not academic for me.

      Furthermore, if you look around Wal-Mart,

    • Re:Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrogers ( 85392 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:12PM (#9372864)
      The treaty applies to all material, not just what's in the public domain. In my opinion the public domain angle misses the point, which is that copyright law will apply to all broadcasts, regardless of the content of the broadcast. The broadcaster, as well as the producer of the content, will have rights over how the broadcast is used. This will allow broadcasters to use the DMCA and other laws to prevent unauthorized access, recording and retransmission of their signals. Implications:
      • Unauthorized cable/satellite decoders will become circumvention devices.
      • It will be illegal to play a radio or TV program in a public place (eg a bar or a TV shop window) without the permission of the broadcaster.
      • It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the permission of the broadcaster - see Article 8 of the treaty.
      • Any recording device which ignores the "broadcast flag" will become a circumvention device.

  • I get it now (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jlaxson ( 580785 ) * <(moc.cam) (ta) (nosxalj)> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:54PM (#9371067) Journal
    This is how copyright holders are shoving the First Ammendment up our collective asses. Many of the articles in this treaty are patently unconstitutional. However, international treaty is held to supersede the constitution, thus conveniently bypassing any constitutional protections in place.

    • Re:I get it now (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:59PM (#9371116)

      However, international treaty is held to supersede the constitution, thus conveniently bypassing any constitutional protections in place.

      In what dreamworld? the constitution is the supreme law. International treaties themselves are just paper - it is only local laws that implement those treaties that hold any force, and they are also subject to the constitution.

    • Casual inspection will show beyond doubt that it is reasonable to obey treaties you freely agreed to. It is unreasonable to be forced into treaties by bullying.

      - I am referring to the US bullying Europe into accepting genetically modified food products, despite the fact that the voters here don't want them, and will not re-elect politicians who agree to this. People will not buy GM products other than General Motors (which is called Vauxhall or Opel here anyway) unless the fact that they are GM is conceale

    • Re:I get it now (Score:4, Informative)

      by MenTaLguY ( 5483 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:10PM (#9371216) Homepage
      I used to think that, but someone corrected me and I did some research.

      In reality, treaties are given equal precedence with federal law (in case of conflict, whichever treaty or law was ratified/passed most recently takes priority).

      The Constitution has higher precedence than either treaties or federal law.

      The bigger problem is that we've gotten very, very sloppy about enforcing the Constitution as written.
      • Administration lawyers agree with you. According to today's NY Times, treaties against torture don't apply to the president or those below him - including military - in wartime because that would usurp the powers vested in him by the Constitution - so said a team of his lawyers last year in a memo.
        • That the Constitution takes precedence over treaties signed is a legal fact. I've not seen a compelling argument that the Constitution permits torture, however.

          There is certainly an explicit (and unconditional) prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" (amendment 8).

  • What the treaty actually says... (Score:5, Informative)

    by AaronGTurner ( 731883 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:55PM (#9371083)
    It gives broadcasters the option to copyright their particular transmission of a work. They do not gain any retereospective copyright over works in the public domain as a whole, simply their transmission of it.

    Really this isn't much different from a record company deciding to produce a CD of work so old that it is out of copyright. They would have copyright on the arrangement of bit on the CD, but not on the underlying work. This treaty seems to be an attempt to bring things into line with this, to be honest.

    Or alternatively you can take a copy of a Dickens novel and reproduce the words (since they are out of copyright) but you can't simply photocopy a recently printed copy of the novel and distribute that without breaching copyright.

    • Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by amRadioHed ( 463061 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:20PM (#9371302)
      It gives broadcasters the option to copyright their particular transmission of a work. They do not gain any retereospective copyright over works in the public domain as a whole, simply their transmission of it.


      Really this isn't much different from a record company deciding to produce a CD of work so old that it is out of copyright. They would have copyright on the arrangement of bit on the CD, but not on the underlying work. This treaty seems to be an attempt to bring things into line with this, to be honest.
      So what's the point? Broadcasts are by their nature transient. If I record something from the radio then rebroadcast it, it isn't their particular transmission of the work anymore. Their transmission ended 5 minutes ago. This one is mine.
      Or alternatively you can take a copy of a Dickens novel and reproduce the words (since they are out of copyright) but you can't simply photocopy a recently printed copy of the novel and distribute that without breaching copyright.
      I don't think that's quite right. I think it's more like them copyrighting a particular instance of a printing of the book, i.e. the physical book. Clearly that's a stupid and useless idea.
      • Actually, it is quite common to copyright instances of books. Take sheet music of classical pieces, for example. It is not at all uncommon for subtle errors to be introduced intentionally and copyright placed upon those newer editions so that the company can make money if anyone uses their edition as a source for creating a new edition.

        However, the issue of books is not a good analogy, as there are usually many editions of anything worth caring about, many of them old enough to no longer be under copyri

        • Actually, it is quite common to copyright instances of books. Take sheet music of classical pieces, for example. It is not at all uncommon for subtle errors to be introduced intentionally and copyright placed upon those newer editions so that the company can make money if anyone uses their edition as a source for creating a new edition.
          Yes, yes. Maps too. We all know that, but you're still talking about the content. They want to copyright the paper and ink.
      • If I record something from the radio then rebroadcast it, it isn't their particular transmission of the work anymore.

        The treaty also gives the broadcaster rights over "fixations" of the broadcast, and their reproduction and retransmission by any means (not just rebroadcasting, but private copying too).

    • I believe that is not quite correct. I believe the correct interpretation is:

      You can take an "ancient" copy (as in one of the original copies) of Dickens' novel and reproduce it yourself. However, a recently printed copy of the same novel can also be reproduced without the printing company having any recourse to your doing so.

      The reason is that the work has fallen into the public domain. Anyone can use it as they see fit. This means that anyone can reproduce the work in full or in part but the person
      • However, a recently printed copy of the same novel can also be reproduced without the printing company having any recourse to your doing so.

        That is not true. The processes of editing (if any was done) and typesetting (which was certainly done, for a printed work) both create copyright.
      • The publisher does own the copyright to a particular edition of a book, even if the text is in the public domain. That's one of the reasons publishers release new editions of old books rather than endlessly reprinting old editions - the duration of publisher's copyright is quite short compared to author's copyright (25 years in the UK, I believe).

        The reason these books are so cheap is that there's competition between publishers selling different editions of the same text.

        • The publisher does own the copyright to a particular edition of a book, even if the text is in the public domain. That's one of the reasons publishers release new editions of old books rather than endlessly reprinting old editions - the duration of publisher's copyright is quite short compared to author's copyright (25 years in the UK, I believe).

          It depends. In the UK, there's exists a 25 year copyright for the typesetting of a text. In the US, however, no such copyright exists. You have to make creative
    • So, let us assume that I want to access a work that is in the public domain and reproduce it - say, broadcast it myself. How will I get a copy? Either I need to grab one of the existing copies flying around, or I need access to the source material.

      The source material will be lying safely in a safe, somewhere. The owner is not in any way required to give me access to it. This effectively stops my ability to access the public domain work through this route.

      Of course, any other copies will now be covered w

  • Ow my head (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenrod ( 188428 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:11PM (#9371220)
    Unfortunately, there's nothing more mind-numbing than international law, particularly regarding intellectual property rights. A cursory read of the linked articles had me praying for death. Can someone objective sum up the issues and present them here, in colloquial English. Thanks. And dear God please no more acronyms.
    • You have certainly not heard any vogon poetry recently...
      • ...Groop I implore thee my foonting turlingdromes.
        And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
        Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
        see if I don't!
    • "Can someone objective sum up the issues and present them here, in colloquial English"

      All your copyrights are belong to us.
    • I feel your pain! Skip to the top ten reasons [ipjustice.org] why the rules are teh suck. It gave me that instant "god i hate lawyers" feeling that I find so comforting these days.
    • Broadcasters, as well as content producers, will have rights over how a broadcast is used.

      It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 8).

      It will be illegal to retransmit a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 6).

      It will be illegal to distribute or retransmit recordings of a broadcast, including private copying (articles 9-12).

      An exclusive "right of communication", broader than copyright, will apply to anything shown in cinemas (article 7)

  • One question... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by midifarm ( 666278 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:14PM (#9371253) Homepage
    What are they worried about? Have the advent of Tivo, the DVD-R and the VCR prevented the purchase of the rampant release of entire season's worth of programming on DVD? Are sales that low? I would think that syndicators would be angrier about the DVD's than things like Tivo.

    Peace

  • #10 should be #1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snax ( 160434 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @06:20PM (#9371297)
    Read the list. Go. Now. Look at #10.

    The proposed treaty would grant broadcasters the right to stop the original creators from otherwise distributing their work!

    That, mes amis, is WRONG.

  • Start stockpiling comms gear, folks.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    and maybe guns too. Comms gear and guns. Lots of guns.

    This is going to get ugly. A free society needs free information, as Popper elucidated. The neofascists who want control over information flow MUST be stopped. By whatever means necessary, including flaming microwave pulse death.

  • the UN is teh sux (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    .. it never ends, agenda 21, the desertification treaty,small arms, abuses by UN troops, issuing bogus vaccines, it never ends, now this amalgamation of bad news

    "Article 6 - Right of Retransmission

    Article 6 provides broadcasting organizations with an exclusive right to authorize the retransmission by any means of their broadcasts. The phrase "by any means" creates a dangerously broad grant of control over all retransmissions, including rebroadcasting and retransmission by wire, cable, or even over comput

  • Dose this mean? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Felinoid ( 16872 )
    If I brodcast something the IP rights transfer to me?
    While UPN owns Star Trek WB dose not own Yugioh. Most brodcasters don't own any of the content they brodcast but liccens it from the actual creators.
    As IP law is now the act of creation itself gives you the rights so this dosen't matter if the brodcaster and creater are the same entity but when they are diffrent entitys this could mean a liccens to broudcast becomes a transfer of ownership.

    On a side note it's the UNs job to foster peace through out the w

  • No more TV! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alficles ( 781213 )

    I don't claim to understand all of this, but it seems to either do nothing or do way to much.

    (f) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device;

    Ok, one view says that you are not fixing the signal, you are fixing the "interpretation" of the signal. The signal itself is modulated EMR.

    However, the bad physics aside, this seems to prohibit (or allow Broadcasti

  • If they own the broadcast, can they put in a disclaimer that says I cant skip commercials/cut out commercials if I record it?
    • Effectively, yes. They can add a "broadcast flag" to the signal and then sell authorized recorders which will record and play back the program, but won't copy the program or skip commercials if they see the broadcast flag. Then they can classify any recorder which doesn't honour the broadcast flag as a circumvention device under the DMCA, since it defeats an effective technical measure designed to control copying. In fact the broadcast flag can have any number of meanings - do not skip, erase after 7 days,
  • In related news a new bill has been passed requiring every newborn to be implanted a security chip.

    This chip - unpon receipt of proper proof of payment - will unlock the individual's eyes and ears. This is to protect our investment in the patented design of flowers and birds... So that we can continue to innovate and develop new species for your entertainment.

    Thank you very much...

  • Does anyone else see... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:24PM (#9372949)
    That this is the first step in re-creating the old guild system of the middle ages?

    The net effect of all these laws and treaties is to eliminate the public domain and force all of us into a pay-per-listen kind of license?

    All under the guise of "protecting the musician".

    I wonder who is stupid enough to fall for it. I mean, besides congress.

  • Avoid the UN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:48PM (#9373148)
    WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization) created by the UN is now creating a new copyright for 'broadcast transmissions'

    Does anybody think anything created by any committee of the United Nations would actually have our best interests at heart?

    (Mod me Troll is you must, but at least give some good example to back up your opinion.)

  • Why do broadcasters want this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:07PM (#9373649)
    What benifit does this give to the broadcasters?

  • IP Justice physics (Score:3, Informative)

    by srleffler ( 721400 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @11:31PM (#9373789)
    I wish, in criticizing WIPO's physics, that IP Justice had at least gotten their own physics right. In #2 on their top 10, and elsewhere on the site, they complain that broadcast signals cannot become "fixed" since "broadcast signals exist only in the air and dissolve upon reaching [solid] matter". This is bullshit. I am a physicist. Broadcast signals (e.g. RF) pass right through many solid materials. They are absorbed by other materials to varying degrees. They certainly do not "dissolve" on contact with solid matter, however. By criticizing supposedly-bad physics from WIPO with bad physics of their own, IP Justice just lowers their own credibility.

  • Background on WIPO (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @12:38AM (#9374145)
    The WIPO Copyright Treaty [wikipedia.org] was internationally developed back in a time when people, especially politicians, had no grasp of how digital data was an integral part of the modern world. The Internet, and copying of files, was seen as something awfully scary which threatened companies. Old white men fear change, and in 1996 the Internet looked like a pretty wild frontier. WIPO demands that digital data be treated specially, which IMHO is a big mistake. Everything we do these days relies on digital media and copying, an inherent action of computers and networks.

    The WIPO was ratified in the United States to create the DMCA, which you all know and love. The similar EU laws, which are just as bent as the US's DMCA, also came from WIPO.

    Now Canada is looking at bringing the WIPO [parl.gc.ca], i.e. their own version of the DMCA, into Canadian copyright law. Terrible idea - visit this site [digital-copyright.ca] if you want to learn more, and exert political pressure to stop this from happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close