Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Media The Courts

Can You Be Sued For Helping Clients Rip DVDs? 231

Posted by timothy
from the ooh-jah-you-betcha-probly dept.
DRMer writes "CE Pro has a series of stories that tries to untangle the legalities of DVD ripping in light of the recent RealDVD announcement from RealNetworks. In one of the stories, EFF Attorney Fred von Lohmann discusses the potential liability of those who resell or install DVD-ripping machines (the courts have yet to rule). Another article provides a rather amusing look at how manufacturers justify the legality of their products. Here's one example: 'We are just like Microsoft Vista that does not have a CSS [Content Scramble System] license.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can You Be Sued For Helping Clients Rip DVDs?

Comments Filter:
  • by JohnHegarty (453016) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:49PM (#24966685) Homepage

    You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued

    • by ccguy (1116865) * on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:55PM (#24966823) Homepage

      You can be sued for anything

      Not everywhere. In Spain there must be some merit to the claim... if it doesn't make sense at all they send you home (ie the court can reject your filling).

      • Any court in any country can reject a filing. Nothing Spain does is any different. Do you think every meritless case in every other country is heard, no matter how foolish or a waste of the court's time it may be?
      • by againjj (1132651)
        Yes, everywhere. You can be sued (all that is necessary is for the other party to file), but the suit can then be rejected as meritless (or something else). It doesn't mean you weren't sued.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770)

      If those suing are the same as those who successfully lobbied for the law, then the answer is almost certainly yes.

    • by overshoot (39700) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:06PM (#24966977)

      You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued

      "Success" depends on objectives. As J. K. Rowling found out, "profit" doesn't follow from "winning." On the other hand, if the objective is to drain your opponent's bank account, then "success" is almost certain.

      • by Firehed (942385)

        He quite obviously meant "winning the lawsuit" by "success". Whether you get any significant amount of money from it is an entirely different matter.

    • by phorm (591458) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:10PM (#24967049) Journal

      And in both cases, a lot of this seems to depend on where you live.

      In North America, Canada seems safer, but there's also a push to hit us with new laws that would be even more draconian than those in the US.

      Personally, if person X wants to pay person Y $1.50 to copy his (bought and paid for) "Little Mermaid" DVD so that the kids don't ruin the original, why shouldn't he be able to?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cdrudge (68377)

        Personally, if person X wants to pay person Y $1.50 to copy his (bought and paid for) "Little Mermaid" DVD so that the kids don't ruin the original, why shouldn't he be able to?

        Obviously because Company D(isney) doesn't get any of that $1.50. Company D would rather you purchase additional copies of "Little Mermaid" at full MSRP.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Except Person Y is simply providing a service. No copies are distributed. Person X just had Person Y push the button that made the copy. In fact, Person X gave their copy to Person Y (fair use), Person Y made a backup (fair use), and Person Y then gave back both copies (fair use). That Person X paid Person Y to do this is irrelevant, as no copies were distributed and Company D had no rights saying that they could be involved in theses various fair use actions. If anything, you could say that Person X s
      • by Pope (17780)

        So don't buy the kids DVDs in the first place, or wait until they're older and can take care of them properly. If they break it, tough.

        • by phorm (591458) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @04:09PM (#24967855) Journal

          Right. Why should I buy him anything at all? Clothes, well he just rips them and gets them dirty. Toys, nah, they break too. He can sleep as well on the floor as on a bed.

          So I'll just let him wandering around naked and play with a stick, it'll build character, that's what Calvin's dad always says...

          Or I could just copy the damn DVD...

  • Of course (Score:3, Informative)

    by Normal Dan (1053064) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:51PM (#24966729)
    You can be sued for anything. It doesn't mean you'll lose.

    But in this case, you just might.
    • Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by compro01 (777531) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:00PM (#24966897)

      With the current US system, you lose practically automatically as you're out a reasonably large amount of money in legal fees. Sure, you can counter-sue for your costs, but that could very well be several years down the road.

      This is why the RIAA's sue-them-all-and-sort-it-out-later campaign has enjoyed such success. the cost of the settlement is significantly less than the cost of fighting it in court, regardless of the validity of their claims.

  • Why risk it. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:52PM (#24966751) Homepage

    I hand the client on my own time a un-labelled Cd with instructions to get anyDVD and the other software they need along with a basic guide. I tell them, you did not get this from me and will deny I have ever seen it or know about it.

    I inform them that the MPAA thinks they are crooks and actually hates them and that is why you have to do this silly cloak and dagger crap to rip a DVD for their new expensive Media server system for the home so they can actually have 21st century entertainment.

    they typically understand after the mess is explained to them. My sticker is they want to hire someone to do all the ripping for them.

  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <<elmuerte> <at> <drunksnipers.com>> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:57PM (#24966835) Homepage

    It is not interesting if you can be sued (as mentioned by others, you always can be).

    There are two questions that should be answerd:
    1) is it right or wrong?
    2) is it legal or illegal?

    If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.
    Lawsuits often don't answer any of the questions (which is actually a very bad thing).
    Of course answering question 1 is the tough one.

    • by Lord_Frederick (642312) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:59PM (#24966869)

      The issue is that different people will give different answers for both 1 and 2.

      • by VeNoM0619 (1058216) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:14PM (#24967105)
        Survey says! I'm sorry, looks like "wrong" is not up there and that's your third strike. Now over to the Morrison team.

        This is why I don't believe in having "for the people by the people". In modern days, it should be, "by the people"... we have the technology... we can build it.

        Imagine a system where every law gets voted yes or no by anyone who wants to vote on it. No attachments of crap underneath. If it is too complex, even have a 3rd option "too complex/ambiguous" to force a rewrite of the law. Tie it into a continuously voted law (where every 6 months, voting begins again). That way, those who voted against (example) nuclear power, and learned how safe it became can now vote for nuclear power.
        • by Rude Turnip (49495) <valuation.gmail@com> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:31PM (#24967325)

          Basically mob rule. Nothing will ever get done (esp. your nuclear power example) if the crowds are just going to change their minds that often and change their votes. And you thought bureaucracy was bad now...

          • by WK2 (1072560)

            Actually, I think bureaucracy is good. It slows politicians down, and prevents them from getting things done. It would be even better if they could go in reverse.

            That said, I think that the GPP has a great idea, but I also agree that a society need leadership. Perhaps a hybrid. Something like what we have, but more power to the people, and less to the politicians. Perhaps an authoritative document that describes a bunch of stuff that the leaders can and can't do, with consequences for violating the document

      • different people will give different answers for the question "how old is the earth" but that doesn't mean the matter is entirely subjective.

        this particular issue may be controversial, but the argument for one side is much stronger than for the other. and on legal matters the court's interpretation of the law should be that which protects public interest and best serves public good.

    • by corsec67 (627446) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:09PM (#24967031) Homepage Journal

      (Note, I am very libertarian)

      I would disagree with you on that.

      Laws should only intervene when your actions directly harm another person. So, only a subset of "wrong" should be illegal.

      When talking about psychological harm "wrong" gets very muddy. Does protecting people under 18 from any sexual information help or hurt [amazon.com]?

      Is it wrong to be rude to someone? Should that be illegal?

      • by mcgrew (92797) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:24PM (#24967227) Homepage Journal

        I would say that in this case, #1 is subjective, #2 is not. The law is written down, if a judge has ruled that the law is legal then it's legal. For instance, the SCOTUS has said that when it comes to copyright, "limited" means whatever congress says it means, despite all logic and reason.

        A movie studio would disagree with me on whether there is harm; I would say "no", he would say "yes" (althogh the MPAA said through its spokesthing that "the VCR is to the movies industry as Jack the Ripper was to women"; obviously Mr. Valenti was a shortsighted fool for saying that).

        Legal != "right" and illegal != "wrong". Adultery causes great harm; nothing in my life ever came close to hurting me as much as my ex-wife's adultery. You will never convince me it isn't wrong. Yet adultery is perfectly legal, and the only bearing it has on a divorce is it is grounds for divorce. yet if I have a joint in my pocket it harms no one, yet having a joint in my pocket is illegal.

        • Adultery doesn't even matter in court if you live in a no-fault divorce state. My ex-wife cheated on me and it amounted to exactly jack squat in court. She still ended up getting a settlement for half my retirement fund...
    • by oGMo (379) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:09PM (#24967041)

      If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.

      They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).

      And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by causality (777677)

        If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.

        They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).

        And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.

        To me this is much simpler than what you're presenting. To me the First Amendment is a recognition that trying to determine what speech is right and wrong is, in itself, far more wrong (dangerous) than anything that anyone could say. Wherever possible the law should work this way since you are correct, morality and legality are two entirely separate issues. Handling things this way wherever possible recognizes not only that they are separate issues, but also that it is not the province of the State to d

    • by skeeto (1138903)
      Who gets to decide #1? I don't want anyone deciding that for me.
  • In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by causality (777677) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:58PM (#24966865)
    Maybe we should sue Craftsman for making hammers and chainsaws, since those might be used as murder weapons. Or perhaps Raid for making bug spray, since it could conceivably be used to poison someone. Or architects for designing tall buildings since a suicidal person might jump off of them. How about manufacturers of ropes or chains, since those might be used to hang somebody?

    Why do we collectively accept this madness when it's copyright that we don't accept otherwise? There are legitimate reasons to rip a DVD, and there are also uses of a DVD ripper that violate copyright. A hammer can help to build a house to shelter a family, or it can be used by a criminal to bludgeon someone to death. In principle, I see no fundamental difference here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by corsec67 (627446)

      The hammer lobby in DC isn't big enough.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by causality (777677)

        The hammer lobby in DC isn't big enough.

        Haha that's a good answer. But still. That only explains the source of this madness. It does not explain why we (collectively) would ever put up with it for one minute. The cynic in me thinks that the average American doesn't have a single thought in their head that the media didn't put there, and you can rest assured that such messages are bought and paid for. I really think that many years from now, this will be considered a Dark Age because it represents the near-death of critical thinking and inde

        • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

          by corsec67 (627446) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:17PM (#24967157) Homepage Journal

          I agree with you about the media thing. The "infinity+" copyrights are a horrible abomination on the public.

          The other thing is that the US isn't a democracy, especially at the federal level, so it really doesn't matter what "the people" want. Just look at the War on Drugs.

          • by causality (777677)

            I agree with you about the media thing. The "infinity+" copyrights are a horrible abomination on the public.

            The other thing is that the US isn't a democracy, especially at the federal level, so it really doesn't matter what "the people" want. Just look at the War on Drugs.

            The form of government isn't really at issue here. There are many non-governmental ways to solve this problem, a widespread boycott being one idea. If enough people got pissed off enough, this is not outside the realm of possibility -- my question relates more to why people are laying down and accepting this instead of getting pissed off and doing something about it. I think we forget sometimes that we are the *aa's customers, that they are nothing without us, that they will go bankrupt and disappear in

    • by i.r.id10t (595143)

      It has happened. Several gun makers have had to defend themselves...

      However, since they lost, I think that families of folks killed by drunk drivers shoudl be able to sue Ford, etc. (whoever made the DD's car)

    • by againjj (1132651)

      The question usually comes to whether there is a legitimate legal use of the item, and how common that use is. As an extreme example, what about an atomic bomb? Could any individual legitimately have one for a lawful purpose? I would say not. What about a hammer or chainsaw? I would say most definitely, and the illegal uses are miniscule in comparison. Then you get into the grey area of automatic machine guns, DVD ripping software, and other items that have substantial illegal use. To not see that t

  • DCMA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew.gmail@com> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:59PM (#24966867) Homepage Journal

    I though assisting one in bypassing DRM to copy media was very direct and clear in the DCMA, which is why people are wary of including libdvdcss in Linux distros, even if it is used for playback and not copying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Repossessed (1117929)

      CSS isn't really a copy protections scheme though, in fact it provides no protection at all against copying the DVD. I could easily distribute a .iso file over the internet that could then be burned to a DVD and played in a regular DVD player. I don't know of any precedent that says if DRM can legally be used to prevent space shifting but not copying though. So its definately a shakey argument.

      If you are going to set up DVD ripping for a client, it might be very wise to

      A) refuse to work for or sell rippi

      • by joostje (126457)

        CSS isn't really a copy protections scheme though, in fact it provides no protection at all against copying the DVD. I could easily distribute a .iso file over the internet that could then be burned to a DVD and played in a regular DVD player.

        (Part of) the CSS keys are stored in an area on the DVD that is not present/writable in writable DVDs (at least not those sold in normal shops).

        Quoting [wikipedia.org]:
        Some of the keys are stored on the lead-in area of the disk, which is generally only read by compliant drives. Keys can be passed from a DVD drive to a descrambler over a PC bus using a secure handshake protocol. [1]
        ...
        CSS can only be added to replicated DVDs. A duplicated DVD, i.e. DVD burned from recordable media such as DVD-R or DVD+R cannot have C

    • by MikeURL (890801)
      The actual text of the DMCA is here [loc.gov]

      I'm not sure how RealDVD will survive the very first injunction (or why one hasn't been issued yet).
  • Story Repackaged (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thundermace (951553) <T_hunD*erM()#ace ... > a > ho(9o.C)m> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:00PM (#24966887) Homepage

    Selling products that archive DVDs

    The MPAA is likely to argue that (1) selling anything that makes copies of movies if you have reason to know that the customer is going to use it to infringe is, itself, an act of contributory infringement and (2) while the "archiving" may not violate the DMCA's [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] prohibition on unauthorized decryption, any device that includes any unlicensed "decrypter" or "player" is a circumvention device prohibited by the DMCA.

    I think the gist of the story is broken down into those two questions and based on the response from von Lohmann, I would say is the profit worth the risk. I wont argue anything that allows you to backup the legally purchased DVD's you own (or is it lease...might have to re-read the license)is and should be 100% legal, however, if I am just an installer putting these devices in play, I would think long and hard when the customer who begins his "dvd-reselling" business points the finger back at you..

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spazdor (902907)

      Then that customer has broken the law and you haven't. It's no different from the bank-robbery getaway car and the auto dealer, or the counterfeiter and the printing-press manufacturer.

  • MPAA/RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:00PM (#24966891) Homepage Journal

    They keep telling us we're buying a license to listen/view the content they are selling to us.

    But then they try to lock it down to the actual media.

    If I pay for the content, let me rip it so I can use it on my own hardware, the way I see fit (MPAA/RIAA calm down, that doesn't include giving away nor selling copies to others). Also, why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.

    • RE: why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.

      'cause they can.
      They paid for a law to protect profits from their outdated business model.
      Unless you can find a congress critter who doesn't take bribes, we are stuck with laws that kill progress and the public domain.

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      They keep telling us we're buying a license to listen/view the content they are selling to us.

      What's funny is that at least the EULA-using software companies, include a copy of that license (after you've already bought it). The MPAA/RIAA don't even do that. Some RIAA/MPAA lawyer might be saying they're selling licenses, but the packaging (no license included) and advertisements ("own it now!") say otherwise.

      And DMCA might be why they don't include that license. If they did give you permission to watch

  • How to speed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:01PM (#24966909)

    1. Take note of the posted speed limit. On many major highways it is generally 55 or 65 MPH, but this varies from region to region. Better to check first.

    2. Press down on the accelerator of your vehicle until your speedometer indicates that you are traveling at a speed higher than the posted speed limit.

    3. Maintain a rate of travel above this speed by keeping the accelerator depressed and by not hitting your break pedal.

    Now I guess I can be sued if you ever get a speeding ticket.

     

  • Tedious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kidcharles (908072) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:19PM (#24967181)
    There is an inherent stupidity to much of what goes on in the new frontier of digital media. Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping to mollify the networks, but I can install MythTV and skip as much or as little as I want. Ipods are built to be crippled with DRM and the inability to move files from one player to the other, but anyone can go out and legally purchase an MP3 player from a different manufacturer that allows you to move files onto it or off of it without restriction. Anyone with minimal savvy can use the publicly-available DeCSS code to rip as many DVDs as they want onto their home media server and have been able to do that for years, but now the Copyright Patrol has its panties in a bunch over boxes that are dedicated to this function. The discourse is fundamentally stupid.
    • Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping ...

      Actually, you just have to enable it. See http://bigmarv.net/how/tivo30secondskip.html [bigmarv.net]. They don't enable it by default or advertise the feature in order to mollify the networks, but it's still there.

      The rest of your post I basically agree with, but I thought I should pass that tip along.

    • by Duradin (1261418)

      How exactly are iPods crippled by DRM?

      You mean the fact that they won't play non-Apple DRMed files, right? If so then they're crippled by DRM like EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER IN THE MARKET.

      Okay, so iPods don't squirt songs at each other. But with a handy-dandy computer(they're quite cheap these days, you should try to get one) of some sort you can transfer music, or *gasp* any old type of data from the iPod to, brace yourself, ANYTHING! Now Apple tries to keep this a secret, but the iPod is basically just a hard

    • by spazdor (902907)

      The Copyright Cartel knows that the technology to thwart them already exists, and that they'll never get that toothpaste back into the tube.

      Their big fight now is to keep that technology from appearing friendly and safe to the general public. If they can make it look to Joe Average like there's a Copyright War going on, and he might get hurt, then they can bully the general public into another few years' compliance before the technical know-how becomes ubiquitous.

    • The direct tv drvs have 30 second skip on them

  • CSS license (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bloater (12932) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:25PM (#24967237) Homepage Journal

    They could get a CSS licence from somebody else other than the DVD-CCA. The DVD-CCA has no special authority to license the use of a CSS descrambler than any content producer.

    Since CSS isn't a trade secret anymore (it is PD knowledge now) nobody is prohibited from implementing it on trade secret grounds.

    Since CSS was never patented, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on patent grounds.

    Since each CSS implementation is an independent work rather than derived, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on copyright grounds.

    I'll give them a licence for free. Here you go. I hereby license you all, each and every one.

    • Counter Strike Source hasn't been a trade secret since they released the game. Since it (CSS) is a game, I am pretty sure they cannot patent it--you can implement your own CSS, but maybe no one will play it. [/joke]
    • by Sloppy (14984)
      The license is worthless, though. What people need is authorization from the DVD copyright holders, and you can't provide that.
  • This issue interests me regarding MythTV setups. There's already a feature to backup DVDs (rip option when you load a dvd), but I was pondering adding an option to "time-shift" rentals. In other words say you get some movies out of order from Netflix, you could simply have it automatically backup the dvd and hold it for a maximum of x days (then delete it after being viewed or when the time is up).

    Currently you can do this manually, but adding a feature that does this explicitly would run afoul of some co

  • Can I archive rented or borrowed DVDs? [cepro.com]
    No. The ReQuest server has a built-in physical verification system that will ask for physical DVDs at random times to verify ownership.

    What the fuck? I understand trying to cover your asses and all, but who in their right mind would produce such a crippled piece of hardware? And who would buy it?

  • By plain reading of the law, you may not assist anyone, in any way in circumventing DRM...

    No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

    (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

    (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

    (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

    A and B are pretty clear, regardless of C. You might argue that the primary purpose is convenience, but since it could also be argued that convenience explicitly requires circumvention that may be shaky ground. I haven't heard of a test case in this, as nobody has been willing to put their corporate butt on the line yet.

    Now, this doesn't mean that making the copy is illegal, as the DMCA does _not_ take away any right

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:05PM (#24968717) Homepage Journal

    You have to keep in mind the very radical terms of DMCA. That law is unlike anything else that people have experience with, and you can't just apply common sense to it, or think about the issues in terms of what copyright is for. Anyone who talks about issues like "copyright infringement" in this context, is not in the right frame of mind. Copyright infringement is a totally unrelated concept to DMCA.

    The key part of DMCA is that no one is allowed to access the content without authorization from the copyright holder. Do you have authorization? (Can you prove you do?)

    We generally ass/u/me that we have authorization to play our DVDs, provided that we are using equipment for which the manufacturer got a DVDCSS license. But look at your DVD and the booklet and the case: the conditions under which you are authorized to play it, are not actually stated anywhere.

    If you play a DVD and then for whatever reason, and in service of whatever agenda, the copyright holder decides to sue you for violating DMCA, then they just need to answer one question: Do you authorize what the defendant did?

    If the copyright holder says Yes, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the defendant."

    If the copyright holder says No, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the plaintiff."

    The same goes for a manufacturer. If a copyright holder decides that people are not authorized to play their DVDs on your equipment, then the primary purpose of your equipment is to play DVDs without authorization.

    There is no code of conduct you can follow, or rules spelled out, or anything you can do to make sure what you're doing is legal. There aren't even vague rules of thumb, parallel to the Fair Use criteria like you have in copyright-infringement related discussions. Every DVD user, every DVD player manufacturer, and every DVD-related toolmaker (which accesses the content of CSS-scrambled DVDs) is at their arbitrary mercy. All they have to do, is say you are not authorized, and then unless you have some sort of evidence that they did authorize you (do you (does anyone?) have this evidence, for any of the DVDs that you own?), then you have clearly violated DMCA.

    This holds even if you get a DVDCSS license, and strictly adhere to its terms. But, if you do that, then they have no incentive to come after you (and they would undermine all the reasons that anyone bothers to get DVDCSS licenses), so you will get away with it. That's the safest way to go.

    If this all seems unfair to you, then I advocate you vote against everyone in the 2008 elections who doesn't say they will sponsor or vote for legislation that repeals DMCA. Remember: a president, a third of the senate, and the whole house. This law could be gone in a few months, if only people would vote on it. Yes, some will say it's naive to think people would vote on actual issues, but we do have the ability, should we ever choose to exercise it.

  • by temcat (873475)

    the courts have yet to rule

    You mean, they have sucked to date?

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

Working...