14 cents per unit, I think he said; if and only if it adds up to more than $25.
It's a printing service, not a publisher. It's ridiculous to see it as anything else, independent of how you feel about Mark's using the service. Sure, they make a profit -- again, so does Kinko's, so does a Xerox machine, etc.
If you honestly can't see the difference between this and a book from a publisher ... then I really don't have any interest in putting anything after the ellipsis.
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:44 (nineteen years ago) link
Jesus, Milo, you don't have to go to fucking law school to see the precedent: Milo's just republished, wholesale, in a different context, copyrighted works that people have not permitted him to take off of this server! If you allow that, you've just shattered whatever modicum of control the copyright is supposed to allow us!
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:47 (nineteen years ago) link
And if site-owners can be allowed, in milo's hypothetical, to use "I just didn't know any better" about their ignorance of image-link-blocking, we might as well say it's fair that site-posters can use "I just didn't know any better" about anything they post here. Obviously I'm not on the side of that.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:47 (nineteen years ago) link
Except it's up there on the page right next to a bunch of other unrelated stuff which seems like it might possibly draw a crowd. Sure, most people probably wouldn't buy it on spec just cause it's next to a Beth Orton calendar...but you know, maybe it might happen.
― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:48 (nineteen years ago) link
OTOH, I'd love to see people band together, like some of us did on a usenet group Im on, to contribute stories and poetry etc for a book we could work on and print up. Stuff written not here, not online at all - but FOR a book.
It seems there's people here with a talent for great ideas - we should use them constructively :)
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:51 (nineteen years ago) link
The odd superstitions touched upon were all prevalent among childrenand slaves in the West at the period of this story--that is to say,thirty or forty years ago.
Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys andgirls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account,for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of whatthey once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked,and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in.
THE AUTHOR.
HARTFORD, 1876.
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:53 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:54 (nineteen years ago) link
" I'd like to see you try it."
Those are my favorite parts.
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:54 (nineteen years ago) link
And Tep, I'm starting to wonder why you're even attached to this printing vs. publishing thing; what possible difference does it make, rights-wise? When the end result is a bound volume that costs $18 to buy, it makes very little difference whether it's got an ISBN on it; whether it's CafePress that does the inking or RR Donnelley, it's the same product.
I dunno, I care very little about this particular book, but I've typed a whole lot of text into this box and I very very strongly prefer that none of it goes anywhere else without my knowledge and permission.
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:56 (nineteen years ago) link
Precedent was set centuries ago (when was the first set of letters published? the first posthumous diary?) and precedent for overtly commercial ventures doesn't matter.
You really have to stretch to worry about ILX posts as "copyrighted works." Which screams "I want to be upset about this but don't really have a good reason" to me.
Except it's up there on the page right next to a bunch of other unrelated stuff which seems like it might possibly draw a crowd. Sure, most people probably wouldn't buy it on spec just cause it's next to a Beth Orton calendar...but you know, maybe it might happen.As with the hypothetical "selected conversations" book (if some ILM writers were smart they'd get together, edit a half-dozen threads and sell it together - I'd actually buy one of those), if it becomes a profitable, commercial enterprise
But it wasn't, and it was never going to be.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:57 (nineteen years ago) link
The printing v. publishing difference is key. As a publishing company, CafePress is liable for the content of the works. As a printer, it's not. They're charging Mark $17.96 per book, so they make the profit of a publisher, but legally avoid the troubles.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 02:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:01 (nineteen years ago) link
Liability of Duplicating Houses for Copyright Infringement
By Bruce E. Colfin
Any duplication or replication business can be a copyright infringer without intending to be one. It may not even know about it until it is too late! The following scenario may apply to any manufacturer, duplicator or replicator of publishing media, whether it is print, CD ROM, audio only, video, film, photos, or other media.
SALE, Inc., ("SALE") purportedly the owner of the rights in a master tape, delivers the master to DUPE, Ltd., ("DUPE") a duplication or replication business, and orders thousands of copies of compact discs and audio cassettes. Assuming that in the normal course of business SALE has obtained all of the required rights, the order is taken by DUPE, paid for, completed, and copies are then delivered to SALE for distribution.
Shortly thereafter DUPE and its principal owners are served with a lawsuit for copyright infringement in a United States District Court. It is alleged that SALE had not acquired all of the rights necessary to make copies from the master, and DUPE is a party to numerous acts of copyright infringement. The owners of DUPE protest, "We didn't know! We only duplicated the copies for our contracting client, SALE. We didn't intend to infringe anyone's copyright!"
Under the American copyright laws of the United States, DUPE may be a copyright infringer. Generally, neither knowledge nor intent is required for one to be liable for copying someone else's work without permission. Being an "innocent infringer" has little bearing on liability, although it is important in determining the dollar amount of damages. A duplication business may also be liable if the contracting party (SALE) has a duty to obtain the owner's authorization and fails to do so.
In 1993, a federal court in Chicago decided that a printer of advertising brochures was liable for infringing the copyright of certain photographs its contracting client used in the brochures. In that case, the printer was unaware that its contracting client, who created the brochures, had failed to pay a licensing fee for the use of the photos. Nonetheless, the court found that the absence of knowledge or intent was not a defense.
DUPE's liability arises because it is an agent of the primary infringer (in our case, SALE), or it has the right and ability to supervise infringing activities, and has a direct financial interest in those activities. Copyright infringement does not require knowledge or intent of the illegal act.
Although DUPE may have performed the actual duplication, it is not solely liable for the infringement. SALE, Inc., is the primary infringer, and thus is jointly liable. SALE has the ability to supervise the duplicating house's activities and has a direct financial interest in the duplication of the product. DUPE, as the duplicating house, may be considered an agent of SALE, and would thereby be a vicarious infringer. Courts have imposed vicarious liability upon printers because a printer may be in a position to police the primary infringer's conduct.
Despite the apparent liability imposed on duplication businesses, a 1970 New York case, decided otherwise. In Leo Feist v. Apollo Records, the court decided that a company which had recorded, edited and prepared master tapes for its contracting client was not liable to the copyright owner. In fact, the court attributed sole responsibility to the primary infringer, the record manufacturer. The New York court cited an earlier case, in which the court dismissed a musical copyright owner's complaint against a record pressing company "on the grounds that the record presser was not a `manufacturer' within the meaning of" the U.S. Copyright Act. In the New York cases, the courts decided that the general manufacturer did not act "jointly" or "in concert" with the presser simply because it hired the presser for the duplication. The contracting party, and primary infringer, was the general manufacturer in fact as well as name and thus was solely liable for the infringements.
The New York cases appear to protect duplicating or replicating business from unintentional infringement liability. However, these cases may be limited to their particular facts and can be interpreted by courts very narrowly. In other cases, the courts still find a duplicating house jointly liable for infringement along with the general manufacturer.
The Copyright Act prescribes the minimum amount of damages an infringer will pay. In an average case, the minimum a party would pay would be $500 per infringement or the lost profits. In a case of innocent infringement the court may reduce the amount to $200 for each infringement. In order to deter future infringements, courts have the discretion to increase the damages in cases of willful infringement. Public policy dictates that willful and intentional infringers should be punished more harshly than innocent infringers who had no prior knowledge or intent, although the burden of proving innocence is on the infringer. The Copyright Act states that the infringer must prove that he "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright."
Although the law establishes a minimum amount, there is no reduced ceiling for an innocent infringer. Thus, based upon the specific facts of a case, an innocent infringer could be required to pay up to the maximum statutory damages for all the infringements, although many courts would probably be reluctant to do so. There is very little deterrent effect if the infringer had no actual knowledge or intent. Nonetheless, even only a minimum amount could be costly. In addition, a court may award profits, actual damages, court costs, and attorneys fees when warranted by the circumstances of the case. The payments to defense counsel alone, even if found blameless and without liability, could be staggering to a small business.
There really is no legal standard for how thorough an investigation is needed prior to accepting a prospective duplication. By law, whether or not DUPE searched to see if SALE had procured the rights, or how reasonable the search was, is immaterial to DUPE's basic liability because of the strict liability standard.
It would have been in DUPE's best interest to secure copies of the "valid" licenses entitling SALE to duplicate. The review of SALE's licenses is relevant to DUPE's potential damages. Other businesses in similar circumstances should insist on reviewing copies of the contracting party's licenses.
DUPE, may have legal recourse against SALE, if DUPE, included an indemnification clause in its contract with SALE. An example of an indemnification clause would include the language similar to the following:
SALE warrants that it has procured all rights to duplicate the master and agrees to fully indemnify DUPE, and hold DUPE harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including all legal fees arising out of or by reason of a breach by SALE of the representations, warranties, or agreements made under this contract.
Some courts, however, may find that a "hold harmless" clause does not represent a good faith effort to avoid copyright infringement, but is actually an attempt to circumvent the copyright law. This notion was alleged in a recent St. Louis case in which a federal appeals court strongly affirmed the law that "hold harmless" clauses do not protect duplication and replication houses from copyright infringement liability. The St. Louis court further stated that a copyright owner does not give consent even if the "employer" is actually the investigator hired by the copyright owner, so long as the investigator "approached the [duplicator] in a conventional manner."
Although a warranty and indemnification clause may be irrelevant for the purposes of determining basic infringement liability, it is important for the assessment of damages.
Although an indemnification clause would not have protected DUPE from being sued by a legitimate copyright owner, it would have given DUPE the right to seek full compensation from the intentional infringer, SALE. If DUPE, were forced to defend itself in an infringement suit, SALE would have to compensate it for all expenses and attorney's fees paid, plus the amount of damages for which DUPE is held liable. In reality, indemnification, or reimbursement is not easy. It may require further litigation and the likelihood of repayment is questionable. Indeed, DUPE's judgment against SALE may be worthless and uncollectible. Duplicating or replicating firms are in a tight spot. It is not cost effective to do a background search on all contracting parties. Irregardless, a firm may be somewhat liable with the contracting party for copyright infringement. The importance of indemnification clauses, and more so, the prior review of all the relevant licenses, cannot be underestimated.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Laura Schneider, University of Miami School of Law.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:02 (nineteen years ago) link
And I totally agree and understand and support that opinion Nabisco, except we none of us can control where what we say in public ends up on the innerweb.
Ive found usenet posts of mine end up in all kinds of odd places I'd not been asked permission to copy to there. Like the time I made guesswork of the lyrics to a Throwing Muses ep and later found out a large 4AD fansite had pasted it verbatim as some kind of canon of what the words were, even tho I got some of them wrong and most certainly didnt get permission from the 'muses myself. It made me look like I claimed some expertise on the subject. I was very suprised, but let it be.
Google yr online names, and be very aphraid =)
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:05 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:06 (nineteen years ago) link
As for letters, you might be interested to know that letters were long understood to be the given property of the recipient. And ILX posts are not letters: if anything, they're already-published works!
And I find this poo-pooing of those who care about their copyright to scream something closer to "I get so much joy out of acting more casual than others that I just can't keep my nose out of their business and personal decisions." I can think of a dozen good reasons I wouldn't want things I wrote here to be reprinted or paraded out of their original context.
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:06 (nineteen years ago) link
ISPs buckle under copyright casesMatt LoneyZDNet UKDecember 10, 2002, 11:37 BST
ISPs buckle under copyright cases
Internet service providers (ISPs) are reporting rapidly increasing incidences of take-down notices for copyright infringement material, in contrast to a diminishing number of requests to remove defamatory material from sites they host.
As the burden on ISPs increases, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to fairly deal with cases where people or companies feel their copyright has been infringed, or where they feel they have been defamed. While ISPs have a duty to remove offending material, they say that because they also have a duty to their customers, the current situation in which they have to act as judge and jury is untenable.
Complaints related to copyright infringement now account for 54 percent of take-down notices issued to ISPs based in the UK, according to a preliminary survey by the UK's ISP Association (ISPA), which is being conducted as part of a bid to rationalise the process of removing possibly illegal material. Twenty-seven percent of take-down notices are related to defamation complaints.
ISPA is gathering the data to illustrate the growing problem with take-down notices in a bid to persuade the government to publish a code of practice that, it says, should effectively remove liability from ISPs. The work is being done by ISPA's sub-group on content liability. The sub-group spokesman Mark Gracey, who is also legal liaison manager at ISP Thus, said take-down notices are a huge burden, with each case costing between £50 and £1,000 to deal with.
"Anybody can put us on notice of take-down," said Gracey. "There is no standardisation of processes -- a ten-year-old child can do this by writing the notice on the back of a cigarette packet." At Thus, said Gracey, the number of take-down notices for alleged copyright infringement is "going through the roof."
But removing content -- whether because it is said to infringe copyright, defame somebody, be criminally racist or break laws such as the Obscene Publications Act, is not a simple process and can lay ISPs open to legal action.
"ISPs are rarely aware of the full facts of the case and could easily make a wrong decision," said Gracey. "ISPs are at risk of liability from the person giving notice and from their customers. Do we take down the content when asked by a complainant and if so, should we put it back when our customer who posted the content in the first place tells us to? We are the piggy in the middle. We are playing judge and jury."
ISPA is trying to encourage complainants to make contact with the person or organisation who posted the material in question, rather than the ISP. But there is an urgent need for a code of practice that would create a standard form for take-down notices and dictate who can issue them, sad Gracey. It should also address the issue of how and when content should be put back on the Internet if the ISP's customer is able to prove that it does not infringe any laws. "Rights holders do have rights, but we also have to consider the rights of our customers. Infringements are not always what they appear to be."
"There is also the notion of a safe harbour for ISPs, to provide freedom from liability," said Gracey. "That's what we need the government for." However, he said, any code of practice would take some drafting. "It has to be fair to ISPs, to their customers and to the complainants."
Gracey said the DTI does appear to be receptive to the idea, "but the government is still saying it is no convinced there is sufficient reason to go ahead." ISPA hopes to use the results of its survey to get across the fact that there is a big problem, and ISPs interested in filling out the survey or contributing their own horror stories should contact ISPA.
Gracey knows the problems as well as anybody. Thus owns ISP Demon, which in 1999 lost a defamation case brought by scientist Laurence Godfrey over comments posted on a Usenet conference hosted by Demon.
In that case the judge ruled that Demon's defence of innocent distribution was untenable because the ISP had been informed about defamatory messages.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:08 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:09 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:11 (nineteen years ago) link
(Stuff not really related to the thread matter:
God, if they can't print a book on demand for less than $18 raw cost, they're using the wrong machines.
But there's no minimum order; I haven't looked at the specifics of what Mark set up, but when I've used CafePress in the past (or have been involved with its use, etc), it's been comparable to or better than its competitors. Their binding is sturdier than most POD I've seen, especially in mass market or TPB-sized books under 400 pages. (Over that, and you get the spine going a little weird on some of them.)
It's not great, granted. And there's no option for color printing except on the outside covers. But when you don't have any startup capital, or need to spend it on other things ...
)
Rights-wise, nothing particularly (except that making copies of something via Cafepress and distributing it without making money still lets you sell first rights to it -- that has nothing to do with this, though); and the ISBN number is just a concrete thing to point at to say "this is a book." Like I said -- I don't think the legality and rights are very important here. I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be okay with it if it were legal: so likewise, it isn't enough for me to say "it's wrong because it's illegal."
But I think glossing over the fact that Mark essentially arranged an agreement to make photocopies of threads -- with better and more efficient technology access than if he'd done it on a dot matrix printer 15 years ago -- rather than submit it to a publisher who would make it available to, and promote it towards, the general public ... leaps up the ladder of magnitude. I'm not saying it's okay he did it: only that it's not as bad, and Dan may find that a semantic argument, but so it goes. These threads always begin with agreement and descend into details. Towards the beginning of the thread, especially, it sounds a lot like people thought Mark was publishing this. I can't imagine getting livid over it otherwise, when it's so easily preventable, and he was asking for objections. Beth Orton fans notwithstanding, it's galactically unlikely anyone but an ILXor would even know to buy this, much less actually do so -- and I can't think of any objections made on more than principle that wouldn't be affected by the scale of what's under discussion. "Book" vs "chapbook" is an issue of scale, among other things.
I think I've covered all the ground I know how to cover on this topic; I think it's unwise to participate in public forums if you're bothered by the idea that what you type escapes your control when you stop typing it, because I know lots of it ends up elsewhere. Your Buffy post is probably in some sophomore's paper; I've seen less cogent stuff end up in students' papers before, with and without attribution, quoted or whole-cloth. I don't know if that bothers you more or less than the idea of someone you know collecting your post along with others in a printed volume. (xpost, as predicted; your response to Trayce pretty much answers that; I guess my approach to it is simply to not put anything in places like this if I care about its fate.)
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:15 (nineteen years ago) link
In our opinion, the Congress did not intend to create such a situation when it enacted the 1976 changes to federal copyright law and abolished the traditional non-profit exemption from infringement liability afforded to public agencies. On the contrary, Section 110(4) was drawn to address the perceived abuses by public non-profit state universities in conducting large and perhaps very lucrative "rock concerts" featuring paid live performers which were then exempt from licensing fees under the non-profit exemption. In our view, the Congress did not intend the course now pursued by the major music licensing groups which seeks commercial rate fees for each and every public park and recreation facility using recorded background music in any manner and for any activity.
Specified exemptions are provided under Section 110 for annual agricultural or horticultural fairs. In 1982, fraternal organizations also received an exemption in so far as they also provide a community service. This community service rationale would arguably apply with even greater force to support a more specific exemption for public park and recreation programs under Section 110. Further, an argument could be made that the exemption extended to governmental entities for annual agricultural and horticultural fairs should be extended to similar community services programs, in particular public park and recreation programs. Otherwise, what is the legislative rationale for limiting non-educational governmental exemptions to fairs?
We believe the Congress must address the perceived ambiguity and abuses under existing federal copyright law, particularly the scope and applicability of Section 110(4). Thus, we call on your Subcommittee to conduct hearings to review this situation, and to determine whether remedial legislation is warranted to restore the public exemption contained in the earlier copyright law for programs like parks and recreation which clearly provide community services without private gain. As a minimum, Congress should clarify the scope of exemptions presently available to public park and recreation agencies under Section 110(4) by defining such unclear and ambiguous terms in the existing statute as applied to governmental entities, i.e., "commercial advantage", "not for private gain", "educational/charitable purposes."..
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:16 (nineteen years ago) link
Once it gets outside of ILX - ie Cafe Press, Da Capo - ILX's wishes and precedents are worth nada.
There is no precedent set with this book. There is no effective defense that Da Capo and the "selected conversations" editor could make, based on the Excelsior book's publication. You don't lose your right to assert a copyright - say, for music criticism - because you didn't vigorously assert a separate copyright (say, for laughing at buttsex hijinks). And you certainly don't lose your copyright because another person posting at the same place didn't assert theirs.
(also, just to be clear, worrying about copyrights to something said on an Internet forum boggles my mind)
Also, hstencil, I suspect that cafepress has worked it out so that they fall under the duping guidelines referenced by New York up there, by having the shop owner submit an 'original' and then duplicating that exact original on different formats. They have to have some kind of protection, given their business.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:17 (nineteen years ago) link
Interesting FAQ, deals with libraries, but it contains these salient points:
Are there different types of infringers? It seems unfair to lump libraries with for-profit entities.In addition to the garden variety infringement situation, there are two special categories of infringement. If the infringement was unintentional or the person infringing can show a good faith belief that he or she acted within the parameters of copyright law, he or she could be termed an "innocent infringer." On the other hand, if the infringement is done deliberately, and particularly if substantial profits were involved, the infringement could be termed "willful." It is important to know all three categories of infringement, since they have a significant impact on the damages available to the plaintiff in a case. More than likely, but certainly not always, a library would fall into the "innocent infringer" category.
Our library is part of a non-profit organization and our budget is small. Why should we be worried about liability for copyright infringement?It is important to know that liability for copyright violation attaches whether or not the organization is for-profit or non-profit and in spite of the size of the operation or its budget. The ability to pay a judgment rarely factors into a decision on the merits in many civil cases. Although it may be the library which infringes, usually the parent institution will be held liable. And while many library budgets may be small, such as a hospital library, the hospital's overall assets may make the copyright action attractive enough to pursue. Bad publicity and a tarnished reputation may be just as costly for your institution as the money it would pay in damages.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― hexxyDancer, Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:20 (nineteen years ago) link
You are right there of course. I dont mean to sound flippant or casual about this - IP is important to me also.
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:20 (nineteen years ago) link
Tep so OTM it makes my eyes bleed.
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:24 (nineteen years ago) link
And sure, Tep, if all you mean is that this particular thing isn't so bad at all, I'm completely 100% with you. I mean, I don't think I even posted to any of the threads in question, so clearly I'm here because of the bigger, principle-oriented picture.
The main reason I like having that copyright in place is because it makes it more likely that someone who actually does intend to profit off of the material -- and thus, more importantly, to put it someplace where anyone other than interweb mentalists are likely to see it -- will ask for permission first. I mean, at least DaCapo was nice enough to have us sign permissions for that Strokes thread before not-ever-paying us. Which may have something to do with my vehemence here: I've actually been making it an ongoing project to annoy them about my fifty bucks.
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:34 (nineteen years ago) link
Anyway, here's my system: any person who'd bother looking over an ILX thread is a person I'm perfectly comfortable having read stuff I wrote here. If the material gets copied to other websites, well, in some cases I'm annoyed, but I expect it and don't care that much. But when material posted here moves in any direction toward appearing in an offline publication, especially one with a price tag on it, and of course at the extreme a widely-read one --- that's when I'd be likely to get uncomfortable. Because there's a significant change in context happening.
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:35 (nineteen years ago) link
yeah, they probably wear trucker hats too.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:39 (nineteen years ago) link
Obvious answer: it ain't.
x-post, sue me.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:40 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian c=====8 (orion), Thursday, 24 June 2004 03:40 (nineteen years ago) link