Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses The Internet News

Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl 406

Posted by Zonk from the pull-no-punches dept.
praps writes "When Sweden's Data board gave the film and games industry organisation Antipiratbyrån an exemption from data protection laws last week it seemed that file sharers were on the ropes. Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online. Suddenly, file sharers have the support of their ISPs, who are refusing to cooperate with the big industries - and it's game on." From the article: "Only the file sharer's ISP can link the IP address to the person. If the ISP receives a request for such information from the police, they cannot refuse it, but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored." We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl More

Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl

Comments Filter:

  • Makes me laugh. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:09AM (#13836740) Homepage Journal

    Every lawsuit against people not judged to be criminals by their friends and family is just another mark against the recording and film industries. You know what they say about business: anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.

    These lawsuits go beyond anger, they financially hurt customers. For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.

    My luddite parents discovered P2P because of some news article about these suits in the U.S. They were blind to Napster since its inception.

    I wasn't surprised to see Limewire on my dad's PC a few months ago. This is a guy who never touched a mouse until 2003.

    You can stop a river with a boulder when it is still a 6" trickle. Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.

    In the long run, ISPs who share privilege information will go out of business. I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

    • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 )
      For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.

      Not trying to pick on you, but I find that statement little odd. May be I am not understanding RIAA business, but are they selling anything directly to the consumer? RIAA is an association - a front for Recording industry. If people collectively decide that RIAA is evil, which they wouldn't be wrong by the way, how hard is to abolish that start a new front with a new name and do the same shoddy things a

      • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by adavies42 ( 746183 )
        Metallica are in it purely for the money--they are one of the few bands out there that gets a significant portion of album sales (50%, IIRC). I don't know what kind of deal Eminem gets, but I wouldn't be surprised it it's similar.
      • do you understand they've built a kind of mafia and monopoly, and they have politicians and judges in they're back pocket. Saying it would go away if people didn't want it is very naive, kind of like saying Republican neo-cons will go away because most people don't like what they're doing

      • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jhill ( 446614 )
        The reasons why the ones you've mentioned are supporting the RIAA is that they have deals put on their album such that they make a good chunk of change off of each one sold ( points per album, etc ). Plus when you are the one that manufactures the album, own your own recording study, have your own distribution network, the RIAA sees very little off of those albums. So why not be seen as a standup citizen. It's the people/bands who are just hitting the seen that get bent over the most by the likes of the
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by robertjw ( 728654 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:30PM (#13838032) Homepage
        Once people are listening to the music they like, they don't think about RIAA or BMG for that matter.

        That's why the RIAA exists, to protect the interests of the studios while minimizing negative PR for individual companies in the recording industry. If one individual company, say Sony, started throwing around lawsuits it would be easy for consumers to stop buying their products. With the RIAA it's difficult to know where individual studios, publishers, distributors or artists stand on the issue. Most people don't want to boycott music altogether, so the RIAA can act without hurting it's market much.

        But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co. To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc.

        A lot of artists? You named two, and neither are what I would call typical artists. Metallica has sold out and is over the hill. Most old school Metallica fans I know either have grown up or think all of their new stuff sucks. Their career has peaked and they have much more to gain by supporting the RIAA than by pissing off their fans. Eminem is similar. He's at the point where he can put out any crap and people will buy it, kinda like U2, plus there's rumours he's going to retire. Again, he has nothing to lose from denouncing file sharing and everything to gain.

        It's interesting to me that there are only a few artists that have actively come out in support of the RIAA's position out of thousands of musicians. I don't think the quiet ones are guilty, I think they are just smart enough to not get involved. They don't want to alienate their fans, but they want to keep a good relationship with their studios. It's actually somewhat unfortunate. It would be interesting to know what most artists honestly think about file trading, but as long as the RIAA and the studios are involved I don't think we will get an honest answer from anyone.
      • "I know every body keeps complaining that artists are screwed and blah blah blah. But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co."

        Of course, established 'artists' with strong contracts written to fit the current system will support them. Garth Brooks at the peak of his industry power even called for levies on the resale of used CDs reasoning that, after all, consumers are paying to hear his music, not buying a CD. For every one of them there are thousands for whom the RIAA do nothing o

    • I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

      What about the innocent artists, most of who are just trying to make enough money to live on by selling their music?

    • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:5, Funny)

      by www-xenu-dot-net ( 922425 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:25AM (#13836919)
      "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible." Could we please stop anthromorphising information. It doesn't like that.
    • Verbatim:
      Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.
      Long live Bram Cohen

    • Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wcrowe ( 94389 )
      I disagree, and the reason is because people are like crack addicts when it comes to music. And the music industry knows it.

    • I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."

      No, all information wants to be free, just like chlorine gas wants to expand to fill whatever volume it occupies.

  • The Shell Game Continues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:12AM (#13836786) Homepage Journal
    So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world. This game will continue because, like all forms of covert smuggling operations, the excise tax charged by these organizations are viewed by the consumer as onerous and overpriced. If the music and film industry were to reduce their taxes, just as England did in the mid-18th Century, they will find that compliance increases and smuggling declines to nominal levels.

    You can say the same thing about prohibition. Once you create a black market for a product through legislation or exorbitant pricing, it is impossible to put smuggling down permanently.

    • Re:The Shell Game Continues (Score:5, Informative)

      by trynis ( 208765 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:33AM (#13836987)
      So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world.

      Actually, they have not succeeded in anything except that they are now allowed to store and process personal information about file sharers. Recently the data board classified IP-adresses as personal information, which meant they needed permission to store and process it without the users consent. They now have this permission. However, since it is now clear that they are subject to this law (called PUL, which means something like Law of Personal Information), they are also required to tell the registered person about the registration. In order to do this they need to know who has a particular IP, and only the ISP can help with this, but they refuse to cooperate. It is all very confusing and amusing to follow.

  • Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:15AM (#13836824) Homepage
    That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important.

    What's more, it's not immediately clear to me why it would even be legal for an ISP to give out data about customers to a private company that asks for it, without (I presume) the customer's knowledge or consent. Not that I know a thing about Swedish law, of course, but that sounds like exactly the kind of thing that could result in class action lawsuits and the like, so if I was an ISP, I'd definitely err on the safe side here and only hand over customer data to the police, not private companies, and only when ordered to do so by a court of law.
    • So you think there should be no such thing as a civil law suit? Or do you think that its the job of the police to deal with things such as slander and malpractice? Copyright violcation is a civil matter. Look at it this way. If someone setup a web page that listed personal information about you, called you names and had doctored photos of you in secual congress with farm animals. Should you not be able to get the ISP to shut them down and tell you who they are so you can sue?
      • So you think there should be no such thing as a civil law suit?

        Fine, file a lawsuit, have the court issue a subpoena. Even civil law has processes to follow. Just because it's Big Business going around rounding up people doesn't make them any less of a vigilantee than the "good ol' boys" going out with their whiskey and guns to "get that feller".
        • "Fine, file a lawsuit, have the court issue a subpoena. Even civil law has processes to follow. Just because it's Big Business going around rounding up people doesn't make them any less of a vigilantee than the "good ol' boys" going out with their whiskey and guns to "get that feller"."

          You cant file a suit against a "jon doe" in many cases. You need at least a name. Often you need to serve the person with papers so you need to know who and where they are.

          I agree that there is a legal process to follow. Bu

          • You cant file a suit against a "jon doe" in many cases. You need at least a name.

            What makes you think so? John Doe suits are fairly common. There is such a thing as pre-service discovery so as to facilitate serving process on the right person when you don't know their identity at the commencement of the suit.

            Honestly, it makes sense. If you can discover who injured you, why should we have an artificial barrier that impairs your ability to seek redress for your injury just because the culprit hid himself a b

      • Re:Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by technos ( 73414 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:36AM (#13837007) Homepage Journal
        Should you not be able to get the ISP to shut them down and tell you who they are so you can sue?

        No. You should have the ability to get a court order to shut them down based on facts.

        No private citizen, company, or trade-association deserves police powers, or the power to subpoena at will, or the power of injunction. Ever.
      • photos of you in secual congress with farm animals.

        What makes you think you have the right to run around with a camera on my farm?

        --
          Waging war against fundamentalism is as likely to make the fundamentalists give up as 9/11 was likely to make the United States give up.

    • Re:Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:50AM (#13837141) Homepage
      I disagree. I think that copyright infringement should be decriminalized and that law enforcement should not enforce copyrights sua sponte.

      Instead, if it's entirely a civil matter, then businesses will have to decide for themselves whether they want to enforce their rights, and will have to bear their own costs when doing so. My taxes won't subsidize them then. This also frees up law enforcement resources for serious matters.

  • Perhaps it's time for a compromise. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:21AM (#13836880) Journal
    How about these concepts as a starting point; These are simply ideas that in my opinion are not too controversial.

    We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
    People will copy data.
    Sharing between friends is not going to bring down the music/movie/software industry.
    Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
    Awarding disproportionately huge damages against file sharers is not a just solution.
    A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.

    When we have the government siding strongly with the media cartels, and disproportionate penalties for file sharers, as well as the invasion of privacy by a private organisation means that people loserespect for the law. This is generally speaking a bad thing. m'kay.

    Most people agree that copyright is largely a good thing. Most people also have no qualms about using pirated software. I'm sure we can find a compromise.

    • Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:06PM (#13837273) Homepage
      A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.

      That was how the original "fair use" precedent was set, and described in the AHRA. Small scale copying between friends was covered under fair use, large scale copying for selling unlicensed copies was illegal. The problem is that the Internet introduces a third type- large scale copying not for profit. Both sides of the debate are now trying to treat this new category in terms of the existing two- sharers by arguing that it's not fundamentally different from making a copy for a single friend, and publishers by arguing that its effect is not fundamentally different from selling bootleg movies on a streetcorner. But both of these positions are wrong. It's something entirely new.
    • A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.


      Then it's the ISPs the should be paying, shouldn't it?


      How much money have they from people that bought an Internet connection so they could get free music?


      ISPs have made plenty of money from other people's music and haven't paid them a cent.

    • Re:Perhaps it's time for a compromise. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:19PM (#13837400)
      I disagree with these points:

      We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
      Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.

      I could care less about profits from creative works. Copyright law doesn't exist to make people money. It is to increase the amount of information available to the citizenry. The idea is that if you give someone a monopoly on disseminating their works, they will be more likely to disseminate said works. What needs to occur is to find out what length of copyright will allow for the dessemination of the most works into the public domain, wether that be 10 days or 10 years.

      Online file sharing should be strongly encouraged. If P2P file-sharing falls out of favor, we'll go back to the days when only someone who can afford to buy web space in order to disseminate their program. File sharing takes the power of information out of the hands of large conglomerates and gives it back to the people, where it rightly belongs.

  • Compromise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stmr ( 853326 )
    Where do we draw the line? Are those 5gigs quotas gonna be enough in 2010? :(

  • Slightly OT: pirating in general (Score:5, Informative)

    by Skadet ( 528657 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:29AM (#13836948) Homepage
    I work for a webhosting firm and almost monthly we get calls from old dudes with fishing websites asking why they used 500 Gigs of transfer and got an insane bill last month. Invariably it's because their ftp password was "cat" or some nonsense and somebody dumped a copy of dreamweaver, or a ton of MP3s, etc. on their account and linked it to a pirate site. But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.

    For example, when the above happens, we usually do a one-time refund of the bandwidth charge, which is often considerable, and I'm sure we're not the exception. That means we eat the bandwidth bill for that person. Now, consider that all webhosts are likely to do the same and I wonder what the economic impact is across the board?

    Interesting how there are facets you don't even realize exist.
    • You need to point out however that the real problem here is a theft and bandwidth (which unlike copying, is a limited resource).

      I'd have to point out the similarities to prohibition. Yes, selling alchohol was illegal. However, stealing and killing over it was wrong.

      Alchohol (or filesharing) isn't the problem... it's prohibition that convinces people to do things they wouldn't usually do.
    • Why do your company allow the fishermen to use ftp instead of something secure like ssh? Why aren't password complexity rules enforced.

      Certainly there is a cost to be absorbed in doing business safely and securely over the internet. Seems like your company is taking it in the wrong end.
    • Damn... at first I read fishing as phishing, so the rest of the post didn't make much sense ;)

      I need to get out more.

    • Re:Slightly OT: pirating in general (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sleepy ( 4551 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:45PM (#13837609) Homepage
      >But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.

      Let me get this straight:
      If your customers are being routinely hacked
      You know why this happens ...

      The link to piracy here is circumstancial. Your bandwidth could be misused in some other way just as easily... a Paris Hilton video, a very popular Linux ISO, or "anything" really.

      Of course the customer is always 'right' and you let them use '1234' as a password, and the cycle repeats.
      Banks do NOT let their customers use '1234' or '9999' as a PIN!

      The person holding you to this policy IS THE PROBLEM. They do not care about the loss of revenue or the distress to the customer, so long as their job is made easier.

      There are little rules you can enforce on passwords: 8 characters at least, include at least 1 number, etc. Make it easy to resend the password automatically if they forget it, so you're not getting support calls on that either.

      You do NOT need to make them use difficult random passwords to eliminate most of the problem.

      'cat'.. LOL...

  • I can tell you who will win this brawl... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:32AM (#13836968)
    Whoever has the most money to buy legislation protecting themselves. My bet is the music/film industry will purchase the right to sue.

  • PB (Score:5, Interesting)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:33AM (#13836986) Homepage
    PB, based in Sweden, has some fun to read legal threats [thepiratebay.org] from Microsoft, Dreamworks, EA, White Stripes, etc. along with PB's responses.
    • The difference here is that ThePirateBay does not actually host any material copyrighted to third parties, and neither do they transfer such material themselves. They merely provide a service that allows others to coordinate their efforts to commit copyright infringement.

      It's understandable that the industry doesn't like this, but it's also understandable that this isn't (yet?) illegal under Swedish law. Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, so aiding and abetting (which is all they're doing) is
  • Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online.

    It's time that the powers that be recognized that the current IP laws are not only stupid but have become obsolete in the internet age. Certainly, artists and inventors must be compensated for their work and creativity but the IP laws are not the way to do it. The IP laws are being unfairly used by a few to oppress the many, all in the name of greed. The nations of the world should form a fac

  • "In the long run a working copyright law is also a condition for their business - we are in the same boat since we have the content and they have the means of distribution," said Pontén.

    In the US, many ISPs are a division of a larger media corporation. Therefore, their finances come from hawking such media (See AOL etc.). The obvious connection to this is that the ISP will not stop their parents from impeding their customers. In Sweeden, however, this appears to not be the case. The ISPs make m

  • Give us legal TV show downloads (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MagerValp ( 246718 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:38AM (#13837028) Homepage
    Of course, the ISP:s aren't refusing to identify customers because they're a bunch of swell guys. They make a bunch of money selling fast [bredbandsbolaget.se] broadband [telia.se] connections, where the faster ones are primarily used by file sharers. Forwarding warning letters would also be a bunch of extra work, and they have nothing to gain - they'll just lose customers.

    The only solution is legal download services. TV shows, which make up a large part of the traffic, are distributed in an antiquated fashion, and the technology is here to change that.

    Imagine if music was distributed the same way that TV shows are. The new song of your favourite artist would only play on radio stations in the US, where it's interrupted by commercials halfway through. After a couple of months it'd start to play on radio stations in the rest of the world. Only after a year would you be able to buy the CD in a store, but it would be protected by DRM so you couldn't pick it up a few months early on your visit abroad. Bizarre, isn't it?

    Let's hope iTunes TV download service turns out well, so we can finally get fast, legal downloads at a decent price.
  • In Ireland both Eircom (www.eircomsucks.com) and BT Ireland (www.btirelandsucks.com) have agreed in court that if any Music or Movie company asks them for customer information that they'll give it to them.

    All in all a crap situation compared to Sweden :(
    • The situation in Ireland isn't necessarily different from that in Sweden. The Irish arrangement was settled in court, whereas the Swedish ISPs are being contacted by the movie and music industries privately. The point is that companies are not the law, the law is the law.

      Montreal, Canada, had a similar situation which was featured in newspapers. The CRIA (Canadian RIAA) petitioned the city's ISPs to translate IP addresses to subscriber names in order to prosecute individuals. All ISPs but one refus

  • Not such a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:46AM (#13837094) Journal
    The Swedish Data Inspection Board gave the APB a green-light to collect IP adresses.

    It's not quite a big deal, since the anti-pirate folks already can do that legally in a number of countries (such as the US) which don't have strict data-protection laws.

    And the ISPs are not only doing the right thing but probably the only legal thing, since it'd quite likely violate the very same data-protection laws if they gave information about their customers to a private third party without permission from either the government or their customers.

    The "Anti-Pirate Bureau" isn't a government agency after all. And while the USA seems to have happily handed over law-enforcement to the copyright holders, Europe has not. So far.

  • Pirates are supported by ordinary citizens (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mowler2 ( 301294 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:49AM (#13837127)
    In polls in swedens biggest newspaper, with 80000 respondants, on this question: "Is it morally right to download movies and music illegaly?"

    > 85% answered yes.

    The pirates and antipirates has debated in newspaper, television and the "piratbyrån" (pro piracy organization) has even published a book which has recieved good critics. The sum of all this is that the pirates is seen as normal humans that download stuff on internet and the antipirates are greedy corporate a**es. Its not hard do figure out which side will win the hearts of the population.

    This has even gone so far as the minister of justice has stated in media that "with the new anti-piracy laws the police should not go hunt for teenagers downloading music, but for big scale for-profit copying"

    Since we have a democracy the only outcome I can see in the long run is that not-for-profit private piracy will become legal, even two parties in our parliament has expressed support for piracy.

    Also, the results of a lawsuit will be released next week which will determine wether it will even be possible for police to request information on IPs from ISPs when they suspect piracy. One pirate has ben sued because he shared a movie on the internet, if he gets anything below prison swedish privacy laws will make it impossible for the police to request identy of IPs in the future. (which says that for the identity to be reviled for the police it is required that the crime commited has prison as one possible punishment).

    (* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @11:55AM (#13837182)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • ISPs also doing it for the money. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mc6809e ( 214243 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:02PM (#13837237)
    This idea that ISPs are being noble here is silly. They're doing what they do for the money as much as anyone.

    Fact is, many people that pay for an Internet connection do so in part so they can swap music. Getting free
    music is part of the value of that connection for them.

    Now put yourself in the place of the ISP. You have customers paying you so they can have access to this free music.
    Why would you want to stop this? You don't have to pay for the music yourself, but you get a financial benefit from it.

    So I don't see anything heroic about these ISPs. Helping to make sure their customers can get free music helps
    their bottom line.

  • I'm a little slow today... so does all of this mean "thepiratebay.org" is going to have trouble?
  • organization that planted "evidence" on computers in order to make the case for widespread "piracy"?

    yeah, i trust them.

    indeed i do.

    why plant evidence when there's millions upon millions of people commiting "piracy"?

    sort of like why forge evidence of iraq importing yellowcake from niger if they had WMDs.

    they have delegitimized themselves. their word means nothing.

    hope sweden's population kicks their lying asses and gets those thieving copyright cartels off their backs.

  • Swedish music? (Score:3, Funny)

    by LightningBolt! ( 664763 ) <lightningboltlightningbolt.yahoo@com> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:50PM (#13837659) Homepage
    Are they really making such a fuss over these bands [nyheter.nu]?

  • Besides this hurdle... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @03:04PM (#13838829) Journal
    The Anti-piracy Bureau are also forced to inform everyone they register the IP address of in their databases, otherwise they aren't allowed to store the IP address according to Swedish computer privacy laws.

    So... The APB then have problems with following this practice since the ISP's won't give them personal data (necessary to contact the user they log) without a police order, and it all turns into a kind of circular legal problem that benefits the file sharer, and makes the APB databases illegal if they'd keep registering IP's and bypassing the police. (in Sweden, an IP address is definitely considered private information you can't just register however you like; much like a social security number)

    Personally, I believe this is more proof that our privacy safety nets are working as intended than that they're broken. If the APB find an IP address and want to register this one, they should really need to contact the police, and if they decide it's worth tracking up, let them proceed, and if not, force them to delete the IP address from their databases. That way, it's in the end the police that enforce our laws and not a private organization.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Close