Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music The Internet United Kingdom Entertainment Your Rights Online

Don't Stop File-Sharing, Says Former Pink Floyd Manager 243

Posted by timothy
from the leave-those-kids-alone dept.
Barence writes "The former manager of Pink Floyd has labelled attempts to clamp down on music file-sharing as a 'waste of time.' 'Not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s,' said Peter Jenner, who's now the emeritus president of the International Music Managers' Forum. 'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.' The comments come as Britain's biggest ISP, BT, said it was confident that Britain's Digital Economy Act — which could result in file-sharers losing their internet connection — would be overturned in the courts, because it doesn't comply with European laws on privacy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Don't Stop File-Sharing, Says Former Pink Floyd Manager

Comments Filter:
  • by KarrdeSW (996917) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:13PM (#32905744)

    They are comparable to prohibition in the US in the 1920s

    I wish a bittorrent network was anything like a speakeasy.

    Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.

    • In Canada we have on the extremely rare occasion had Referendums dealing with important legislation. I believe the last national one we held was in 1992? And there are provincial ones every decade or so. We had one upon the subject of Prohibition in the 20's, which I think actually ended up passing, but was repealed shortly thereafter because of its unenforceable nature. Exactly what Mr Pink up there is saying.

      But I disagree when he says

      It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not

      No, I don't think it's absurd at all - in Canada we may have still ende

    • Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:28PM (#32905934) Homepage Journal

      Filesharing may be free as in beer, but it does not deliver you free beer.

      Neither did speakeasies [virginia.edu]; you had to pay for the beer, and Al Capone and his ilk got the money for your beer. And comparing file sharing to alcohol prohibition is a dubious analogy at best (is slashdot's "badanalogyguy" really Peter Jenner?). It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded. Alcohol prohibition is more like drug prohibition -- it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances, and the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved, and many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves, rather than the substances.

      But I have to agree with Jenner, and add that piracy and the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P. P2P does in fact cost the RIAA labels sales; when you hear an indie song you like and buy the CD, that's money you don't have to buy RIAA music. The RIAA's war against "piracy" is a war against their competetion.

      If there was no such thing as radio, the RIAA would certainly welcome P2P and "pirates".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556) *

        It only holds in that both were laws that the public vehemently disagreed with and disregarded.

        Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by interval1066 (668936)

          "Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing?"

          They don't, which makes the label's attempts to equate file sharing with more egregious crimes all that more laughable. This three strikes nonsense they're trying to pass in France is one example; French law makers passed it with flying colors last year because label lobbyists showering them with contributions and everything was great. Then a little earlier this year those same politicians realized they had to get re-elected; now they're balking, and some are even backing out of the pockets of those label l

        • Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by PCM2 (4486) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @06:20PM (#32907400) Homepage

          Does John Q. Public really care all that much about file sharing? It doesn't seem to hold much sway (in either direction) outside of the geek/teenager/record-label-executive world.

          I don't know what kind of people you hang around with, but I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who doesn't know about BitTorrent, or at the very least some other means of downloading non-free music for free. Years ago I had a 35-year-old single mom from Detroit tell me she hasn't bought any music in a long time, because she just downloads it. My musician friends are some of the most avid consumers of music I've ever met, and since they can't afford to buy every CD they want to hear, they generally get everything they want to hear from torrents before buying some of it. (And yes, they would also like people to buy their own CDs, but they all accept the way the modern music world is.) Other friends spend whole weekends at home watching entire seasons of HBO TV shows, because they download them one torrent at a time. If you don't hear much about the "file sharing controversy," I'd say it's because that ship has long since sailed.

        • by Draek (916851)

          Yes, they do. YMMV and all that but even my grandma uses Ares from time to time.

          In fact, I'd say the geek and the yuppie crowd are the only ones that care about *paying* for your music online, or if not pay per se at least download it legitimately through sites such as Jamendo [jamendo.com]. Myself included, before all the idiot "stfu u pirate n stop pirateing" trolls.

        • by mstahl (701501)

          I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make when he said "It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.". Because downloading music became so easy and so anonymous so quickly, it entered into the ordinary workflow of people's lives and users that download are so numerous that the chances of any one of them getting caught are infinitesimal at best. Geeks get rea

        • by selven (1556643)

          There are about 30 million teenagers (using the strict definition of 13-19 here) in the US. They also have a disproportionately loud voice because they're more likely to have internet access and lots of spare time. Teenagers are a very powerful social force indeed, and they should not be underestimated.

        • I don't know if the geek will inherit the earth - but the teenagers certainly will. Today's teens are tomorrow's voters. Piss 'em off now with irrational laws, and they will remember. I wish that RIAA would piss off a whole LOT of teens. Not to mention their parents, who happen to be eligibile to vote today, AND tomorrow.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Hatta (162192)

        it spawned violent gangs that were funded by the illicit substances

        Remember allofmp3? Weren't they run by the Russian mob?

        the laws themselves caused more problems than they could possibly have solved

        Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.

        many of the problems attributed to alcohol then and illegal drugs now are caused by the laws themselves

        Many of the problems attributed to piracy (artists getting screwed over) are caused by the o

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Nope, they weren't run by the russian mob. Or at least in no more way than the USA Mob ran entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sinatra).

          Odd you bring up RIAA accounting because AllOfMP3 had the monies owed to the artists available, but RIAA refused to take it.

          Compare the rates paid to the 3c/song compulsory licensing that radio (which you can tape from for everyone in the US). The money was the same.

        • Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.

          Can you elaborate on this? The only "creative work" that I can see being unpublished due to copyright laws is work based on samples. While some sample use is indeed quite creative (Radiohead's Idioteque comes to mind), the vast majority just capitalizes on people's familiarity with the original work, and it seems to me that the creator of the original work should be compensated for its use.

          • Consider ASCAP's recent attack on the EFF and Creative Commons. If they get some heavily restrictive law passed, you'll find people who wanted to publish using CC not bothering because CC is illegal and they don't want the protected shite that ASCAP pushes.

      • Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:49PM (#32906236) Homepage

        ...the phantom "lost sales" aren't the real reason the RIAA is against file sharing. It's because the RIAA labels have radio, and the indies have P2P.

        I think it's important to understand that the whole thing is largely about controlling distribution channels. Once upon a time, record companies made money by manufacturing and selling actual records. The big companies secured their business by controlling the distribution channels for music. They made deals with record stores about which albums would be shelved and which albums would be prominently featured in their stores. They made deals with radio stations about which songs would be played. That's how they made their money, and that's how they kept competition at bay.

        Now, they aren't in the business of manufacturing records anymore. CDs are pretty much done. All they have left is the distribution. If they had been smart and technologically savvy, they would have taken control of online distribution quickly and maintained control of the distribution channels. But they weren't smart and technologically savvy. They still aren't.

        The people working for these companies flatter themselves that their business is about being cool and making music. The reality is that they've been soulless marketing companies for years, and now they're turning into providers of technical services. Large portions of these companies should be run by IT people, and they should be providing high-quality Internet distribution services.

    • Re:Prohibition? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:32PM (#32905992) Journal

      Filesharing today is a lot like Prohibition during the 1920s. I'm worried however that it will end up more like Prohibition of the 1990s-200s. That is, an endless war for which countless civil liberties are sacrificed.

      • by jd (1658)

        Please bear in mind that the 1920s involved machine guns, really bad nicknames, dreadful musicals and even worse Hollywood blockbusters.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by elvesrus (71218)

          this is different how? your points in order

          machine guns - we have uzis instead of tommy guns
          really bad nicknames - have you seen some of the nicknames used on the internet?
          dreadful musicals - high school musical, hamlet 2, etc.
          even worse Hollywood blockbusters - do i need to say more than twilight?

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Contrary to what you might believe, speakeasies didn't provide free beer either.

      • by mangu (126918)

        speakeasies didn't provide free beer

        I don't think they provided beer at all, free or not. AFAIK, what speakeasies sold was moonshine. Beer has too little alcohol per volume, why would you go to the trouble of carrying that much water around when the cops were after you?

        • by Thing 1 (178996)

          I don't think they provided beer at all, free or not. AFAIK, what speakeasies sold was moonshine. Beer has too little alcohol per volume, why would you go to the trouble of carrying that much water around when the cops were after you?

          Exactly. Same reason we now have crack; it's more concentrated than cocaine, so one can carry higher dollar value for the same risk (or same dollar value, for lower risk). I fucking hate the war on some drugs. Go watch "Union", Canada rocks (BC bud!).

  • And Don't Stop Believin', says Journey (and the cast of Glee)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:14PM (#32905770)

    RIAA, Leave Them Kids Alone!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      We don't need no regulation!

  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:16PM (#32905792)
    He is just upset that when the RIAA cracks down, some users will not have gotten a complete Floyd album. [arstechnica.com]
  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:17PM (#32905800)
    ... another brick in the firewall.
  • The recording industry can go burn for all i really care, though i'd rather artists just release their stuff in the public domain rather then the public making it their domain. I can completely support hurting the recording industry, but I'd rather do it in a way that respects artist's wishes, even if those wishes be that i should not have their material without paying an overpriced fee to a record company I as a consumer do not support. Though that is just my view on the matter, truly i believe that the e
  • by gilesjuk (604902) <giles.jones@nospAm.zen.co.uk> on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:20PM (#32905842)

    The Somali pirates. These are the ones extorting millions out of companies and threatening to kill people.

    • by socz (1057222)
      But they have boats & swords (guns)! Not DSL lines, so they're useless to *IAA!
    • by sconeu (64226) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:46PM (#32906188) Homepage Journal

      Hey, they're helping to fight global warming [venganza.org]!

    • by eulernet (1132389)

      No, it's too dangerous.

      It's easier and safer to attack weak people, and to ransom them.

      Hmm, it sounds like the RIAA are acting like real pirates.

  • by by (1706743) (1706744) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:25PM (#32905904)
    If you read TFA while watching an old Judy Garland flick on groovy couches with a bunch of your friends from college, you'll see that the naive interpretation of Jenner's sentiment given in the summary is way off.

    Get it right next time, man.
    • You left out the part about several species Of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @04:26PM (#32905910)
    If - like me - you asked yourself who exactly he is: Jenner has managed Pink Floyd, T Rex, Ian Dury, Roy Harper, The Clash, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, Robyn Hitchcock, Baaba Maal and Eddi Reader (Fairground Attraction). And Billy Bragg! Jenner and his wife Sumi set up Sincere Management which managed a range of artists. (from wikipedia [wikipedia.org])
  • by cdrguru (88047)

    If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

    This will certainly leave the field open to whomever wants to distribute their stuff because they know thiers has value. Most of this will be like Darwin Reedy [youtube.com] th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rpervinking (1090995)

      Every Henry Fonda movie is over 25 years old. Copyright doesn't need to last that long in order for the artists to receive some reasonable compensation. The fact that a crazy long copyright period made a bunch of people richer than they would otherwise be is not interesting to me.

      From everything I've ever observed about performers, good ones, they'd do it for free if they couldn't get paid to do it. Losing a shot at retiring on the proceeds of one big hit wouldn't stop a single artist. It might slow

    • by Afecks (899057)

      If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

      I find it hilarious that some people think that without copyright laws nobody would want to support artists when the very fact that copyright laws exist is a demonstration that people want to support artists! If you think it's not then that means you think that the majority of people don't really want to support artists but they do want the government to hold a gun to their heads and force them to do it. Huh? What?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0123456 (636235)

      There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

      I know plenty of people making movies, software and music that will never make them any money. I know about three million people writing novels that will never make them any money.

      I also know one person who does make money from making movies who's publically stated that he thinks P2P helps his sales because people see one of ihs movies and then buy others. Of course he doesn't pay his actors $200,000,000 for six weeks' work.

      No matter how hard you try, you aren't going to get rid of the distribution companies.

      In a digital world the only benefit that distributors provide is advertising; people

    • "If people copy this, nobody will make it anymore!"

      We keep hearing this, yet new music, movies, books, and software continue to be produced. Why do people continue spouting this crap? It is as if you are praying for it to happen just so you can say, "told you so!"
    • by 2obvious4u (871996) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @05:04PM (#32906480)
      Peter Jenner has one thing right: the general public doesn't understand why they can have a song on their ipod and why they can't just copy the file to their friends ipod. What is wrong about that? The only thing wrong is that someone said it was illegal.

      Now if that same person has a band t-shirt they would then have to give up their band t-shirt to give it to their friend. That is where there is value that can be controlled by distributors. The artists will not starve, they will make their money on merchandising and live performances. They need to give up on making money on bits. They should be using bits to advertise their merchandise and live events - things that can be monetized.

      Now lets say that Apple uses a song from a band without their permission to promote their products? That is a valid use of copyright law, the business is profiting off of the endorsement of the artist without the artists permission. A consumer spreading the works of the artists does nothing but improve the popularity of the artist, a business associating themselves with an artist has the potential to tarnish the artists reputation hence the need for them to be able to sue that company. Imagine if BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it puts Bono in a bad light.

      The problem with stopping file sharing is how it limits communication. If you are speaking about a piece of music, a movie, a book, or news article is that we now have the ability to perfectly convey what part we are talking about. We just link to it. It is a great way to enhance communication and should be encouraged. If IP law is changed it needs to allow for this type of communication. Viral spreading of information should be encouraged, even if torrent sights like bit torrent are condemned (one is organic spreading of information, another is centralized distribution for monetary gain). Basically if you are making money off of someone else they are owed compensation, if however you are just spreading information all you are doing is advertising for them for free.

      For something like an OS, or Office software, the software could be free and all income from the software could come from training and support. Yeah the company won't become a 250 billion dollar giant like microsoft or apple, but do we really need to be aggregating funds into a few companies. I don't think those companies would be in bad shape if they were just a 5-10 billion dollar company. That is 240 billion that could be going into making actual goods. It could be used to build housing, hiring employees, buying cars, etc. Hell everyone could donate all that extra money to the space program and we could build a public hotel on the moon. It is just a horrible waist of funds to drop $300 on a piece of software that 6 billion people use (I'm thinking windows on the majority of consumer desktops - they make enough funds off of businesses that it should be free to consumers). Yes I know I've been smoking the Utopian cool aid, but at no point in history has humanity been able to give something to every person on the planet. We can't do it with food, clothing, shelter, but we can do it with digital information. Yes there is money to be made on it, but it shouldn't be criminal to share information and it definitely isn't immoral.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by zmollusc (763634)

        If BP used Bono's music in their cleanup ads for the oil spill, then it would put BP in a bad light.

    • If music, movies, software and books are freely distributed they pretty much have zero value. There will be some very talented folks that are also independently wealthy (or have gotten rich from when their music had value) that can afford to work for nothing. The rest of the world is going to do something that pays the rent and the grocery bill.

      The "Rest of the world doing something" in terms of musicians usually equates to shows and merchandise at said shows, since they make about Minimum wage from a record going gold anyways. If a song had zero value - the only people it would hurt is the distributors, not the artists. We've had a few stories on here about how artists don't make much money, if any at all, on record sales.

      There are many bands, even big ones, that can afford to give their music away for free online because they make much more in s

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        Plus I think Trent Reznor was pushing for this with Nine Inch Nails? Or something like that.

        Nine Inch Nails have been releasing their music under a CC license for a few years now, as well as selling it from their web site in FLAC format (I think) or on CD. I'm guessing they probably make more money from that than they did from their 2.3% cut of RIAA CD sales.

    • by John Whitley (6067) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @05:08PM (#32906532) Homepage

      What on earth are you talking about? You're making up a random argument ("without copyright protection and enforcement") that has nothing to do with the summary or TFA. Those discuss the reprehensible and inefficient tactics of suing members of the general public for file-sharing, and warping of the law to suit the tastes of large rightsholders (e.g. the US' DMCA and similar). No mention is made of eliminating copyright or of not enforcing against corporations (who damn well should know better).

      As far as revenue in the real world, many independent artists and small labels (often a single individual) have cropped up in recent years who are successfully selling non-DRM'ed downloadable music to the general public, either directly or via intermediaries (c.f. Amazon, Beatport, iTunes, etc., etc.). For the small artists, I expect they are likely doing vastly better than they ever would through a traditional recording company contract. [slashdot.org]

    • lol that was the best laugh I've had all week. Darwin Reedy deserves her own show, she's hilarious.
    • by Bert64 (520050)

      Sure, you would still get those who can't imagine the world without their questionable talent...
      You would also get those who have a real passion for their work, some who are good some who are bad...

      On the plus site, you wouldn't get the manufactured bands who couldn't care less about music and who are only in it for the money...
      You would also still get people performing live, you know actually working to earn their money instead of sitting back and collecting royalties for years.

      In years gone by sure the bi

  • It might just be more creative accounting on their part. They can apply the costs of looking for these "pirates" against the artists earnings, and apply any money collected to their own pockets. They get to screw both the artists and the pirates, while getting more wealth.

  • 'It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.'

    Ignorantia juris non excusat.

    I sympathize, and to some extent I agree, but it's not a legal defense and it doesn't legitimize breaking copyright law. Howabout just not making copies of things you paid for? How hard is that to remember.

    • by Andorin (1624303) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @05:08PM (#32906536)

      Howabout just not making copies of things you paid for? How hard is that to remember.

      It's not hard to remember, but it's also unjust. We have fair use for a reason, including format-shifting and creating backups.

    • by KahabutDieDrake (1515139) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @07:08PM (#32907796)
      How about I copy anything I damn well please and you can shove your artificial scarcity into the nearest orifice? In fact, let me give you a simple choice. Continue this charade of an economy based on "scarcity", OR create an economic paradigm where cost+value = price.

      Everyone, including the so called "artists" has a right to make money on their works. Those that provide good works for reasonable prices with high levels of value, will. Those that rely on lying, cheating, stealing and trickery, and control of distribution... won't. The real world has shown this, time and again. Music and media is the latest in a long line of battlefields fought for rational economics. Of course, money and power tend to win out of rational thought, at least for a time. The fight is costing us far more than the shift in paradigms will, and it's not even delaying the shift. Itunes is the number 1 music market in the world. That didn't take long. How much longer before Apple realizes they can cut the middle men out and just open their own publishing studio?

      There are a lot of really talented people in the music industry. Almost none of them work with or for the RIAA anymore. Once the plaque of lawyers is done picking the bones, the RIAA, and most of the rest of the "professional recording" industry will collapse and reform, hopefully into something a little more intelligent and rational. (I know, call me an idealist).
  • Yeah, he's my hero (Score:2, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) *

    It's funny to me that so many most of these artists and rebels like to bad-mouth the music industry after they hit it big. But, it's strange, I never once hear them complain when they're nobodies and a big studio shows up to give them a contract and a check. Oh yeah, it's easy to shoot your mouth off now that you're famous. But what about back when you were a club band? What about all those years when the studio was paying your bills before you had even hit it big, when there was a very good chance that you

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Andorin (1624303)
      The Internet, and therefore the issue of file sharing, wasn't around back then. Try again, please.
  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @05:30PM (#32906824) Homepage

    He said the industry could adopt the model of sites such as Rapidshare, which offers paying subscribers the opportunity to get faster downloads. "If we can get £1 a month from every person on this island [Great Britain] for music... this is getting very close to the current level of revenue for recorded music," Jenner claimed.

    I've been saying for years that the music industry (and movie industry) should change their business model on the Internet to sell services rather than copies. Say, "For a low monthly fee, you can have free access to our super-fast servers that have all the newest releases and a huge back catalog (every piece of music ever recorded)." Divide up the profits from that service to pay royalties.

    At least speaking for myself, I'm quite sure the music industry could make more money off of me during my lifetime by offering a $X/month service of providing all-you-can-eat drm-free music downloads than... well, any other business model I can think of. Give me a bundled deal including all movies and TV shows, and I'd pay a decent monthly fee.

    You probably don't even need DRM. I know, you're thinking that people will just download the whole catalog in a month and then cancel their subscription, but that's really more trouble than it's worth. You have to go through all the trouble of downloading, storing, and backing up all that data. And then your computer crashes or a file gets corrupt, and you have to do it all over again. You quit again, but then a new song comes out that you want, so you'll have to resubscribe.

    Most people will may for a service that makes their lives more convenient. Make a service that makes it easy to find and enjoy the media you want. Add a good recommendation engine on top of it. Price it competitively with cableTV+Rhapsody. Watch the money roll in.

    • Every industry fights like this when their gravy train is destroyed by new technology. The bigger the gravy train was, the more litigious it gets. It's a lot easier to pay a lawyer to scream than it is to redesign the business model that you thought 30 years ago was going to last for all times.

    • by znerk (1162519)

      Make a service that makes it easy to find and enjoy the media you want. Add a good recommendation engine on top of it. Price it competitively with cableTV+Rhapsody. Watch the money roll in.

      You pretty much just described Pandora's [pandora.com] business model. They have a free internet radio service that works something like this: You tell them what kind of music you want to hear, they let you listen to it (and things like it, thanks to their "music genome project"), they link everything to Amazon and iTunes so you can buy it if you like it, and POOF! They make money. Adding their "pay us and you can stop getting ads with your music" service just ices their cake.

      Disclaimer: I don't have any affiliation with

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...