Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Beyond Net Neutrality: Saving the Internet from Upload Filters
12 views
Skip to first unread message
BTR1701
Dec 1, 2017, 1:54:25 PM12/1/17
to
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3xg57/europe-needs-to-save-it
self-from-internet-upload-filters
The internet has radically democratized creativity. What previously
required special recording equipment, contracts with distributors, and a
major financial investment is now accessible to everyone for free: The
opportunity to reach a global audience with your work.
While corporate broadcasters have seized on the internet's advantages as
a distribution medium for their content, the much more fundamental
impact on our society is that it has allowed everyone to become a
broadcaster themselves on an equal footing. But that equal footing is
now at risk.
For the past year, a fight has been brewing in Brussels. A draft law
currently making its way through the EU lawmaking process would force
all internet platforms where you can upload media to install so-called
upload filters. Their job: To surveil all your contributions on behalf
of big media companies, trying to detect copyright infringement and stop
it before it ever sees the light of day.
Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
YouTube already has such a filter. It was put in place several years ago
in an effort to appease record labels. As almost any YouTuber can tell
you, "Content ID" has been a constant source of pain for individual
creators. Regularly, perfectly legal uploads get taken down or
"demonetized" (depriving creators of advertising income). Creators then
need to go through an arduous process to fight for their rights and get
their videos reinstated.
In the court of the upload filter, uploaders are guilty until proven
innocent. Corporate giants provide the "Wanted" list of media that
filters must look out for. Platforms blindly trust this input, as well
as the technology that scans your uploads looking for any signs of it.
What hasn't cleared the filters can't be seen. In effect, your freedom
of expression has become subject to corporate approval.
Even if copyright infringement were as widespread and as harmful as
media giants would like to make us believe-- and it's not-- that measure
would be completely disproportionate. In addition, there are two
glaringly obvious pitfalls: Filters can't tell what's legal from what's
illegal. And filters fail.
It's legal to make parodies, to quote works, to use copyrighted content
in educational contexts and so on. These exceptions and limitations to
copyright enable the essential human right of cultural participation.
But filtering technology can't tell whether your use of, for example, a
few seconds of music is legal under of an exception, or just an illegal
copy.
When in doubt, block it: That will be the principle of upload filters.
Platforms will configure their filters to err on the side of taking down
your uploads. They're more afraid of media companies' armies of lawyers
than of you and me claiming our human rights. In this way, upload
filters tip the balance of power all the way to big business.
If you thought I was joking earlier about the cat meowing a song, well,
reality is stranger than fiction: YouTube's filter once claimed that a
12-second recording of a purring cat contained works copyrighted by a
major record label.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/12/cat-purring-youtube-in
fringing-music-copyright
And that's after Google had spent $60 million on the filter's
development杵ow imagine how often cheaper filters built by smaller
companies will get it wrong!
In fact, small platforms may have no other choice but to outsource their
upload filtering to Google-- then we'll truly have created one big
centralized censorship machine that undermines everything the web once
stood for.
European internet platforms and apps that can afford neither the
licensing nor the development costs for upload filters will need to shut
down. It will become even harder for EU companies to compete with the
dominant US platforms, and innovation will be discouraged.
Unfair, prone to malfunction, a restriction of human rights, harmful for
European innovation: Upload filters are a bad idea in so many ways.
Human rights organisations and independent academics have been urging
politicians to drop these plans for months now, but whether their
warnings are being heard is unclear.
Last week, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament
voted to remove automated upload filters from the copyright reform law.
That's good news. But other committees had previously come out in their
favour, and the most important decision is yet to come: The Legal
Affairs Committee, in charge of this law, is scheduled to vote in
January 2018. Whether it supports or opposes upload filters will come
down to every single member's vote. Meanwhile, several national
governments of EU member states are staunchly defending these filters in
the Council, which holds just as much sway in the lawmaking process as
the Parliament.
Upload filters would chip away at the internet's role as a public space
for everyone. The internet would increasingly come to resemble cable TV,
where it's up to a few big companies to decide what goes on air.
It's time to speak up against these plans-- while we can still do so
unfiltered.
self-from-internet-upload-filters
The internet has radically democratized creativity. What previously
required special recording equipment, contracts with distributors, and a
major financial investment is now accessible to everyone for free: The
opportunity to reach a global audience with your work.
While corporate broadcasters have seized on the internet's advantages as
a distribution medium for their content, the much more fundamental
impact on our society is that it has allowed everyone to become a
broadcaster themselves on an equal footing. But that equal footing is
now at risk.
For the past year, a fight has been brewing in Brussels. A draft law
currently making its way through the EU lawmaking process would force
all internet platforms where you can upload media to install so-called
upload filters. Their job: To surveil all your contributions on behalf
of big media companies, trying to detect copyright infringement and stop
it before it ever sees the light of day.
Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
YouTube already has such a filter. It was put in place several years ago
in an effort to appease record labels. As almost any YouTuber can tell
you, "Content ID" has been a constant source of pain for individual
creators. Regularly, perfectly legal uploads get taken down or
"demonetized" (depriving creators of advertising income). Creators then
need to go through an arduous process to fight for their rights and get
their videos reinstated.
In the court of the upload filter, uploaders are guilty until proven
innocent. Corporate giants provide the "Wanted" list of media that
filters must look out for. Platforms blindly trust this input, as well
as the technology that scans your uploads looking for any signs of it.
What hasn't cleared the filters can't be seen. In effect, your freedom
of expression has become subject to corporate approval.
Even if copyright infringement were as widespread and as harmful as
media giants would like to make us believe-- and it's not-- that measure
would be completely disproportionate. In addition, there are two
glaringly obvious pitfalls: Filters can't tell what's legal from what's
illegal. And filters fail.
It's legal to make parodies, to quote works, to use copyrighted content
in educational contexts and so on. These exceptions and limitations to
copyright enable the essential human right of cultural participation.
But filtering technology can't tell whether your use of, for example, a
few seconds of music is legal under of an exception, or just an illegal
copy.
When in doubt, block it: That will be the principle of upload filters.
Platforms will configure their filters to err on the side of taking down
your uploads. They're more afraid of media companies' armies of lawyers
than of you and me claiming our human rights. In this way, upload
filters tip the balance of power all the way to big business.
If you thought I was joking earlier about the cat meowing a song, well,
reality is stranger than fiction: YouTube's filter once claimed that a
12-second recording of a purring cat contained works copyrighted by a
major record label.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/12/cat-purring-youtube-in
fringing-music-copyright
And that's after Google had spent $60 million on the filter's
development杵ow imagine how often cheaper filters built by smaller
companies will get it wrong!
In fact, small platforms may have no other choice but to outsource their
upload filtering to Google-- then we'll truly have created one big
centralized censorship machine that undermines everything the web once
stood for.
European internet platforms and apps that can afford neither the
licensing nor the development costs for upload filters will need to shut
down. It will become even harder for EU companies to compete with the
dominant US platforms, and innovation will be discouraged.
Unfair, prone to malfunction, a restriction of human rights, harmful for
European innovation: Upload filters are a bad idea in so many ways.
Human rights organisations and independent academics have been urging
politicians to drop these plans for months now, but whether their
warnings are being heard is unclear.
Last week, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament
voted to remove automated upload filters from the copyright reform law.
That's good news. But other committees had previously come out in their
favour, and the most important decision is yet to come: The Legal
Affairs Committee, in charge of this law, is scheduled to vote in
January 2018. Whether it supports or opposes upload filters will come
down to every single member's vote. Meanwhile, several national
governments of EU member states are staunchly defending these filters in
the Council, which holds just as much sway in the lawmaking process as
the Parliament.
Upload filters would chip away at the internet's role as a public space
for everyone. The internet would increasingly come to resemble cable TV,
where it's up to a few big companies to decide what goes on air.
It's time to speak up against these plans-- while we can still do so
unfiltered.
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 3:18:49 PM12/1/17
to
In article <atropos-F63A1C...@news.giganews.com>,
returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3xg57/europe-needs-to-save-it
> self-from-internet-upload-filters
>
> The internet has radically democratized creativity. What previously
> required special recording equipment, contracts with distributors, and a
> major financial investment is now accessible to everyone for free: The
> opportunity to reach a global audience with your work.
>
> While corporate broadcasters have seized on the internet's advantages as
> a distribution medium for their content, the much more fundamental
> impact on our society is that it has allowed everyone to become a
> broadcaster themselves on an equal footing. But that equal footing is
> now at risk.
>
> For the past year, a fight has been brewing in Brussels. A draft law
> currently making its way through the EU lawmaking process would force
> all internet platforms where you can upload media to install so-called
> upload filters. Their job: To surveil all your contributions on behalf
> of big media companies, trying to detect copyright infringement and stop
> it before it ever sees the light of day.
>
> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>
> YouTube already has such a filter.
So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3xg57/europe-needs-to-save-it
> self-from-internet-upload-filters
>
> The internet has radically democratized creativity. What previously
> required special recording equipment, contracts with distributors, and a
> major financial investment is now accessible to everyone for free: The
> opportunity to reach a global audience with your work.
>
> While corporate broadcasters have seized on the internet's advantages as
> a distribution medium for their content, the much more fundamental
> impact on our society is that it has allowed everyone to become a
> broadcaster themselves on an equal footing. But that equal footing is
> now at risk.
>
> For the past year, a fight has been brewing in Brussels. A draft law
> currently making its way through the EU lawmaking process would force
> all internet platforms where you can upload media to install so-called
> upload filters. Their job: To surveil all your contributions on behalf
> of big media companies, trying to detect copyright infringement and stop
> it before it ever sees the light of day.
>
> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>
> YouTube already has such a filter.
returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
moviePig
Dec 1, 2017, 3:23:56 PM12/1/17
to
infringement-claim that's challenged and not upheld. Of course, some
may say that would abridge the claimant's freedom of speech...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
Dec 1, 2017, 4:00:58 PM12/1/17
to
On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>>
>> YouTube already has such a filter.
>
> So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
> returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
> Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
> recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
order to get it to upload. Otherwise, it did likely detect something in
your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like. You should
quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
BTR1701
Dec 1, 2017, 4:03:48 PM12/1/17
to
In article <5a21ba59$0$1686$b1db1813$c2d2...@news.astraweb.com>,
Well, it's already a crime to file a false DMCA copyright challenge. You
have to swear under penalty of perjury that you're the valid copyright
owner when you file a challenge, which makes felons out of most of the
major movie and music companies many times over. Problem is finding a US
Attorney willing to pursue it.
have to swear under penalty of perjury that you're the valid copyright
owner when you file a challenge, which makes felons out of most of the
major movie and music companies many times over. Problem is finding a US
Attorney willing to pursue it.
BTR1701
Dec 1, 2017, 4:08:12 PM12/1/17
to
In article <anim8rfsk-B6167...@news.easynews.com>,
Yes, all those social media platforms, as well Google itself, have done
a masterful of job of completely insulating themselves from providing
any avenues of customer complaint or contact.
And if you do somehow manage to find a telephone number that leads
directly to a human being at one of those companies, they lose their
shit over it. A friend of mine obtained a direct line to someone at
Google's YouTube department and when she called it, not only did they
refuse to address her issue, she was threatened with legal action if she
ever called again, and also threatened with legal action if she made the
number public or told anyone else about it.
a masterful of job of completely insulating themselves from providing
any avenues of customer complaint or contact.
And if you do somehow manage to find a telephone number that leads
directly to a human being at one of those companies, they lose their
shit over it. A friend of mine obtained a direct line to someone at
Google's YouTube department and when she called it, not only did they
refuse to address her issue, she was threatened with legal action if she
ever called again, and also threatened with legal action if she made the
number public or told anyone else about it.
Dimensional Traveler
Dec 1, 2017, 4:17:36 PM12/1/17
to
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
moviePig
Dec 1, 2017, 4:24:28 PM12/1/17
to
as you describe them, seem defensible as """honest mistakes""". Rather,
I'm hearing the threat of a de facto system where merely pointing a
finger suffices to inflict damage. Seems to me that finger-pointers
should be motivated to think twice...
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 4:29:26 PM12/1/17
to
In article <ovsfu7$vi6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> >> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> >> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> >> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
> >>
> >> YouTube already has such a filter.
> >
> > So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
> > returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
> > Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
> > recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
>
> Do you have your video set up with an embedded copyright notice to
> indicate that it belongs to you?
No, there was nothing that should have tripped any flag.
Maybe you have to turn that off in
> order to get it to upload. Otherwise, it did likely detect something in
> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like. You should
> quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
lol
wrote:
> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> >> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> >> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> >> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
> >>
> >> YouTube already has such a filter.
> >
> > So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
> > returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
> > Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
> > recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
>
> Do you have your video set up with an embedded copyright notice to
> indicate that it belongs to you?
Maybe you have to turn that off in
> order to get it to upload. Otherwise, it did likely detect something in
> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like. You should
> quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 4:43:02 PM12/1/17
to
In article <atropos-640C84...@news.giganews.com>,
Google's "don't be evil" policy clearly doesn't apply to themselves.
suzeeq
Dec 1, 2017, 5:28:27 PM12/1/17
to
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
> On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
>>> Â BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
>>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
>>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
>>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>>>>
>>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
>>> So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
>>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
>>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
>>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
>>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>>>>
>>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
>>> returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
>>> Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
>>> recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
>> Do you have your video set up with an embedded copyright notice to
>> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
>> order to get it to upload. Otherwise, it did likely detect something in
>> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
>> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like. You should
>> quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
>>
> Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
> since he's an old fogey.
>
Is that official now?
>>
> Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
> since he's an old fogey.
>
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 7:12:29 PM12/1/17
to
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 7:12:58 PM12/1/17
to
Dimensional Traveler
Dec 1, 2017, 7:26:11 PM12/1/17
to
suzeeq
Dec 1, 2017, 7:30:09 PM12/1/17
to
suzeeq
Dec 1, 2017, 7:30:29 PM12/1/17
to
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 12/1/2017 4:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <ovsl28$75i$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Â BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
>>>>>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
>>>>>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
>>>>>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
>>>>>> So does The Facebook. I uploaded something recently and it *instantly*
> On 12/1/2017 4:12 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <ovsl28$75i$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Â BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
>>>>>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
>>>>>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
>>>>>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
>>>>>> returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
>>>>>> Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before. There's no
>>>>>> recourse either. No place or way to appeal.
>>>>> Do you have your video set up with an embedded copyright notice to
>>>>> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
>>>>> order to get it to upload. Otherwise, it did likely detect something in
>>>>> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
>>>>> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like. You should
>>>>> quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
>>> > since he's an old fogey.
>>> Is that official now?
>> It's not the years, it's the means.
>>
> The mean years.
>
I'm glad you said that.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
>>> > since he's an old fogey.
>>> Is that official now?
>> It's not the years, it's the means.
>>
> The mean years.
>
BTR1701
Dec 1, 2017, 7:53:40 PM12/1/17
to
In article <anim8rfsk-6FF7D...@news.easynews.com>,
> > >>> recourse either.A No place or way to appeal.
> > >> in
> > >> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like.A You should
anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <ovsl28$75i$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > > On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> > >>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> > >>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> > >>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
> > >>> So does The Facebook.A I uploaded something recently and it
> In article <ovsl28$75i$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > > On 12/1/2017 1:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 12/1/2017 3:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Every video you upload of your cat doing that adorable thing that it
> > >>>> does would then by law need to be automatically checked against Taylor
> > >>>> Swift's and Justin Bieber's body of work, to make sure your cat wasn't
> > >>>> illegally meowing a copyrighted melody.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> YouTube already has such a filter.
> > >>> *instantly*
> > >>> returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
> > >>> Too bad it was a movie I'd made myself moments before.A There's no
> > >>> returned a "can't upload copyright belongs to someone else" warning.
> > >>> recourse either.A No place or way to appeal.
> > >> Do you have your video set up with an embedded copyright notice to
> > >> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
> > >> order to get it to upload.A Otherwise, it did likely detect something
> > >> indicate that it belongs to you? Maybe you have to turn that off in
> > >> in
> > >> your film (borrowed music perhaps?) that it didn't like.A You should
> > >> quit Facebook in protest...only old people use it, anyway.
> > >>
> > > Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
> >
> > > since he's an old fogey.
> > >
> >
> > Is that official now?
>
> It's not the years, it's the means.
It's the mileage.
> > >>
> > > Well, that means Anim is required by law to use it
> >
> > > since he's an old fogey.
> > >
> >
> > Is that official now?
>
> It's not the years, it's the means.
anim8rfsk
Dec 1, 2017, 8:21:02 PM12/1/17
to
suzeeq
Dec 1, 2017, 9:50:49 PM12/1/17
to
0 new messages