Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 54

Thread: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

  1. #1
    HEXUS.admin
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    20,789
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    579 times in 287 posts

    News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Filesonic stays up for owner file retrieval and ceases all sharing services.
    Read more.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    211 times in 113 posts
    • roachcoach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6X58D Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 930 2.8G s1366. Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x 1TB WD Caviar Black, 4x 1 TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB XFX HD5850 BlackEd. 765MHz
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 950W CMPSU-950TXUK
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Operating System:
      • Win7
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS MW221u

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    A massively irritating development as I have a decent number of things backed up to dropbox. Who knows who will blink next.

    Guess I'd best look at the offerings from people too big to take on - google & apple.

    /sigh

  3. #3
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,453
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked
    3,258 times in 2,524 posts

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by roachcoach View Post
    A massively irritating development as I have a decent number of things backed up to dropbox. Who knows who will blink next.

    Guess I'd best look at the offerings from people too big to take on - google & apple.

    /sigh
    Dropbox is fine as you cannot search for content on the internet.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    211 times in 113 posts
    • roachcoach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6X58D Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 930 2.8G s1366. Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x 1TB WD Caviar Black, 4x 1 TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB XFX HD5850 BlackEd. 765MHz
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 950W CMPSU-950TXUK
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Operating System:
      • Win7
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS MW221u

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Filesonic didn't have a search function either, afaik. Link aggregation was by scraping forums etc as I understand it. Hell even megaupload didnt have a search function

  5. #5
    Admin Saracen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    14,136
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    2,270 times in 1,580 posts

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by roachcoach View Post
    Filesonic didn't have a search function either, afaik. Link aggregation was by scraping forums etc as I understand it. Hell even megaupload didnt have a search function
    That's one reason why HEXUS forums are careful about what we allow. Discussion of the nature of copyright, piracy, etc, is fine. How-to's or links to copyright materials, especially file downloads, are not. Even then, it's impossible to absolutely prevent any and all links to copyright material, as that could include people using a picture in a sig, or block-quoting an entire BBC (or whatever) article(s) rather than linking to it. In many, probably most, such examples, the person doing it probably doesn't even realise the copyright issues. And we're not experts either.
    Noli nothis permittere te terere.


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    3,825
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked
    145 times in 130 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Gen2
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II 1090T / Noctua NH-D14
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Crucial Vengenance DDR3-1600
      • Storage:
      • 120GB Samsung EVO SSD, 500GB Samsung EVO SSD, 1TB WD Caviar Black, 2TB WD Caviar Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX 7970 Double D Black
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 152Mb

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Maybe I'm being horribly naive here, but surely the DoJ should rightly be chasing the folks submitting/sharing the copyrighted materials rather than the method used to "carry" them?

    Also, what happened to the idea of clearly bunging a bit in the Terms Of Service that "storage and sharing of materials protected by copyright without the consent of the copyright holder is prohibited". My impression was that if Joe Public had to sign up to this when taking out the service from Big Slab O' Disk Corp, then BSOD Corp were regarded as another victim (since Joe Public had violated the ToS) and couldn't be prosecuted - or at least had the defence that they were merely an innocent carrier and it was the evil user that was to blame.

    Parting shot - can't see the point of a file sharing service that only allows you to share files to yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    Discussion of the nature of copyright, piracy, etc, is fine. How-to's or links to copyright materials, especially file downloads, are not (allowed). Even then, it's impossible to absolutely prevent any and all links to copyright material, as that could include people using a picture in a sig, or block-quoting an entire BBC (or whatever) article(s) rather than linking to it.
    Didn't realise that block-quoting was a no-no - thought it was okay to do "if you go to http://don't-click-this-its-a-dummy you'll see it says..." and then include a snippet. After all, the link is giving due attribution etc.
    Last edited by crossy; 23-01-2012 at 10:24 AM.

    Status: hating Rocksmith 2014 (PC version) with a passion - so frustrating!

  7. #7
    HEXUS Staff
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    102 times in 68 posts
    • Jonatron's system
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 - 2500
      • Memory:
      • 4GB
      • Storage:
      • Corsair F120, Samsung 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon 6870
      • PSU:
      • Antec TruePower Trio
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-8NB
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 22" LG
      • Internet:
      • Be

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    It was only a matter of time before Megaupload got shut down and the reaction happened. I'm sure more ways to share files will pop up to replace "cyberlocker" sites though.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    211 times in 113 posts
    • roachcoach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6X58D Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 930 2.8G s1366. Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x 1TB WD Caviar Black, 4x 1 TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB XFX HD5850 BlackEd. 765MHz
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 950W CMPSU-950TXUK
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Operating System:
      • Win7
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS MW221u

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    Maybe I'm being horribly naive here, but surely the DoJ should rightly be chasing the folks submitting/sharing the copyrighted materials rather than the method used to "carry" them?
    I don't think they can - copyright is, by and large, a civil matter - however if they can show profiting from it (a-la advert income or similar) then they can claim 'criminal' copyright infringement and bring enforcement to bear. Which is why the sites have been targeted.



    One thing oddly absent from these recent events is the mention of if there is (or is not) significant non-infringing use. That saved the VCR from this nonsense 20-25 years ago. Of course, one must then work out what metric to apply...filesize? users? Still, it seems to be an untouched discussion - but one which may prove key as time moves on.

    If one 'profits' from piracy yet has significant legitimate uses....can one be charged? If so, that's a hell of a path to start down.

  9. #9
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,453
    Thanks
    2,241
    Thanked
    3,258 times in 2,524 posts

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by roachcoach View Post
    Filesonic didn't have a search function either, afaik. Link aggregation was by scraping forums etc as I understand it. Hell even megaupload didnt have a search function
    The search function is called Google!!

    Megeupload had sites such as megavideo and megaporn too.

    Serious,DropBox and Box.net are not like other sites. It is more orientated towards file backups and sharing files between friends.

  10. #10
    Admin Team peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,813
    Thanks
    1,311
    Thanked
    1,845 times in 1,487 posts
    • peterb's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Nascom 2
      • CPU:
      • Z80B
      • Memory:
      • 48K 8 bit memory on separate card
      • Storage:
      • Audio cassette tape - home built 5.25" floppy drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • text output (composite video)
      • PSU:
      • Home built
      • Case:
      • Home built
      • Operating System:
      • Nas-sys
      • Monitor(s):
      • 12" monocrome composite video input
      • Internet:
      • No networking capability on this machine

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    <---snip

    Parting shot - can't see the point of a file sharing service that only allows you to share files to yourself.
    There is no problem sharing files that are not subject to copyright. You can share files that contain work you created with who you like - you own the copyright.

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    Didn't realise that block-quoting was a no-no - thought it was okay to do "if you go to http://don't-click-this-its-a-dummy you'll see it says..." and then include a snippet. After all, the link is giving due attribution etc.
    Tricky one, quoting from an article or a book with attribution is probably OK - quoting a whole book or article may not be. The presumption is tht by publishing you are placing work in the public domain, but that does not give you the right to profit from that work, or deprive the author from profiting from that work.

    So if you quote from a work and attribute it to someone, I might see the quote and then buy the book - which rewards the author. If you quoted the whole book, I might just read that - so no reward for the author. And if you posted lots of works on a website that generated traffic and revenue from advertising, you would be profiting from the work of the authors.

    Academic work is treated slightly differently, and the copyright act in UK law addresses that explicitly.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  11. #11
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    7,906
    Thanks
    402
    Thanked
    561 times in 477 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i5 3570k @ 4.4GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 LP
      • Storage:
      • 3 RAID Arrays and 3 SATA Stand-alones
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX580 SLI
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64 / OSX Lion / Ubuntu 11 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • M247 40/10 FTTC

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    I am expecting them to go the same way though.

    Once Kim Dotcom has been found guilty, the precedence will be set and the heavy-handed approach of shutting down everyone that hasn't already stopped file sharing will begin.

    So many useful (and completely legal) links have gone dead and I am sure it's only the tip of the iceberg
    Main PC: Asus P8Z77 WS / 3570k @ 4.4GHz / 8GB Vengeance Black / GTX 780 (03G-P4-2783-KR) / Areca 1680 / HX 850 / 600T / K60 / M60 / 2x Dell 3007 / 2 x 256GB Samsung 830 (RAID0) / 2 x 240GB Corsair Force 3 (RAID0) / Windows 8.1
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / E3-1230v2 / 8GB XMS3 / 7970 (GV-R797OC-3GD) / Tevii S480 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / PS50C6900 / 128GB Kingston V200 SSD + 3 x 1.5TB + 1 x 3TB / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB DDR3 / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB RAM / GTS 450 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    Server Setup: HP DL160 G6 / 2 x E5620 / 64GB RAM / 2 x 300GB SAS (RAID1) / 6 NICs / ESX 5.5
    2 x ESX 5.5 Nodes: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 / AMD FX 6100 / 16GB XMS3 / 160GB SATA HDD / 5 NICs
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || NAS 2: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || Network: TL-WR1043ND w/DD-WRT + Dell PowerConnect 5224
    Laptop: Thinkpad T61 / 4GB RAM / Centrino 2230 Wifi / 240GB Corsair Force 3

  12. #12
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Maidenhead
    Posts
    8,830
    Thanks
    962
    Thanked
    653 times in 546 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 3570 (Corsair H100 with Akasa Piranha fans) @4.7Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Crucial DDR3 1866MHz
      • Storage:
      • 240GB Crucial M4, 2 x Seagate Momentus XT 320GB(RAID 0), 2 x Samsung F3 500GB (RAID 1)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2 x MSI GTX660 Ti Power Edition
      • PSU:
      • Antec Truepower 750W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 650D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2913WM & Philips E-line 234EL2SB
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Well the problem with megaupload is that the company wasnt exactly running a 'legitimate business' behind the scenes. The case was built against them over a number of years using intelligence gathering. They didnt attack the actual nature of file locker websites, they attacked them on the grounds they where using it to nefarious ends.
    I dont pretend to understand how much or what has happened behind closed doors with regards to the american courts and legal system in order to bring this case to trial, but given the size and wealth of the organisation im going to make the safe assumption there is enough evidence to win without too much backfire.

    Filesonic and most other similar sites are clearly scared, personally this tells me that they are aware their companies might be under similar kinds of observation as far as the law is concerned AND they are likely to be aware of some of the slightly less legitimate operations within the business itself. If their business model was genuinely legitimate, they would have nothing to be scared of.

    Rapidshare, as an example of a site who hasnt changed any of their operation, has won mulitple court cases of similar nature and has issues an official press release stating they are not worried in the slightest. This is probably not only because they are a European based company in a country with slightly better laws for this kind of thing, but also because they have taken steps to ensure that the company itself is squeeky clean with regards to their intentions for the site and their treatment of customers with regards to copyrighted material.

  13. #13
    Admin Saracen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    14,136
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    2,270 times in 1,580 posts

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    ....

    Didn't realise that block-quoting was a no-no - thought it was okay to do "if you go to http://don't-click-this-its-a-dummy you'll see it says..." and then include a snippet. After all, the link is giving due attribution etc.
    I was trying to avoid a detailed treatise on copyright, But I did say
    or block-quoting an entire BBC (or whatever) article
    Note the bold. I wasn't talking about a "snippet".

    But you're right, to a point. You can use small portions of a copyright work, depending on the use, and clearly, attributing it helps.

    There are a whole series of exemptions from the basic presumption that a copyright work is protected, of varying scope. For example, the Crown has some protections, such as in court cases. So does the academic world, and so do journalists for news reporting, review, etc.

    But copyright, essentially, says that protected works can't be copied, unless either the rights owner gives permission, or a statutory exemption covers it .... or the copyright has expired. The extent of a portion that can be used within a statutory exemption is a contentious point. Is it a few words? A few paragraphs? A few chapters of a book? What about music "sampled"? A bar? A minute?

    Personally, I don't see anything wrong with quoting a para or two, to make a point, especially if it's attributed. But what I was getting as was those posts that block quote an entire article, and then say "Found on the Daily Mail", or Telegraph, or wherever. Should that go before a court (which is, in my opinion, very unlikely) the argument would (or could) be that by quoting it, complete and verbatim, you remove the need to visit the originating site, which adversely affects their visitor stats, prevents any advertising they may have from being viewed, and denies the owner's site from benefiting from the value of that visit by not making it necessary.

    Of course, that is a civil issue not a criminal one, and the money involved is so small the chance of legal action is absolutely minuscule, but technically, it should be a small portion that's quoted, not an entire article.
    Noli nothis permittere te terere.


  14. Received thanks from:

    crossy (23-01-2012)

  15. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    211 times in 113 posts
    • roachcoach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P6X58D Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 930 2.8G s1366. Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 2x 1TB WD Caviar Black, 4x 1 TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1GB XFX HD5850 BlackEd. 765MHz
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 950W CMPSU-950TXUK
      • Case:
      • Antec 1200
      • Operating System:
      • Win7
      • Monitor(s):
      • ASUS MW221u

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    The search function is called Google!!

    Megeupload had sites such as megavideo and megaporn too.

    Serious,DropBox and Box.net are not like other sites. It is more orientated towards file backups and sharing files between friends.
    Maybe so, but maybe not. Ironically, its user dependant. If say, tomorrow, all the pirates flipped to a legit service (by all accounts filesonic seemed to have strong safeguards in place granting them safe harbour) then that service and its owners are at risk.

    Best to have multiple redundant layers if the backups matter to you I guess (Yes, this is obvious, but using a cloud storage company is an attempt to mitigate a lot of that up front)

  16. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    3,825
    Thanks
    272
    Thanked
    145 times in 130 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Gen2
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II 1090T / Noctua NH-D14
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Crucial Vengenance DDR3-1600
      • Storage:
      • 120GB Samsung EVO SSD, 500GB Samsung EVO SSD, 1TB WD Caviar Black, 2TB WD Caviar Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX 7970 Double D Black
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 152Mb

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    There is no problem sharing files that are not subject to copyright. You can share files that contain work you created with who you like - you own the copyright.
    My comment about filesharing sites that don't allow you to share your files to anyone but yourself being useless came about because of the comment in the article that says: "Filesonic, ..., with currently only existing users able to access their own uploads for retrieval" - which I took to mean that Filesonic now operates in a similar manner to DropBox, i.e. merely as a way of storing your files offsite, rather than a means to provide group access to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    I was trying to avoid a detailed treatise on copyright, But I did say Note the bold. I wasn't talking about a "snippet". [snipped]
    Nice explanation. Not that I'd want to reproduce an article - much easier just to put in the URL, although I forsee problems perhaps in reproducing content which is normally subscription only - like the Murdoch empire's infamous "paywall".

    Status: hating Rocksmith 2014 (PC version) with a passion - so frustrating!

  17. #16
    Admin Saracen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    14,136
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    2,270 times in 1,580 posts

    Re: News - File-sharing firms clamp down in fear

    Quote Originally Posted by roachcoach View Post
    ....

    One thing oddly absent from these recent events is the mention of if there is (or is not) significant non-infringing use. That saved the VCR from this nonsense 20-25 years ago. Of course, one must then work out what metric to apply...filesize? users? Still, it seems to be an untouched discussion - but one which may prove key as time moves on.

    If one 'profits' from piracy yet has significant legitimate uses....can one be charged? If so, that's a hell of a path to start down.
    It wasn't just the significant proportion of non-infringing use that saved VCR manufacturers, or indeed, audio cassette manufacturers in, what, the 60s?

    The cassette and VCR situation is somewhat different in that, and take this as a whole, not piecemeal, there is a genuine, non-infringing and legitimate use, and the manufacturers have NO WAY to know what users do with equipment, once bought. So they have no way to even assess the extent of infringing versus non-infringing use, let alone any control over what buyers do.

    For example, the primary purpose for a lot of people, for many years, of a VCR was time-shifting and that is a legal exemption in the copyright laws, at least, for personal, domestic purposes. In the early days, VCRs were expensive enough to buy if you bought one, let alone if you bought two, and you needed two to make copies other than a single recording off-air.

    The same argument applied to CD writers. The first CD burner I had cost about £4000. IIRC, the burner itself was about £2500, and the software (DOS-based Personal Scribe, IIRC) was another £1500. If you had one, you either had a business use (as I did) or were wealthy, or both. In my case, it was on loan. But there were people that bought them to copy, and sell, pirate discs. Usually, it was small scale, but some did it on an industrial scale.

    Now, however, it's hard to buy a PC without a DVD writer built-in to the spec. And they have numerous non-infringing uses, including back-up. But still, the seller has no idea what I use my DVD burner for, and no way to find out.

    On Megaupload, though, they do have a way to find out, and the accusation is that they not only knew that vast amounts of the uses were for infringing copyright, but were actively complicit in encouraging it, from everything from site design and the entire business model, to personal actions on the part of the accused.

    The (70+ page) indictment goes over this. Under the DCMA, there are "safe harbor" provisions for civil copyright infringement, which, it alleges, were not met because ....

    - the defendants were wilfully infringing copyright themselves
    - have actual knowledge that the materials were infringing (or know facts or circumstances that make it apparent)
    - receive financial benefit directly attributable to infringement where they control the provision
    - have not removed, or disabled access to, known infringing material on servers they control.

    The emphasis is mine, and the above is a paraphrase, not a quote.

    The actual indictment makes interesting reading as to the actions the authorities allege, and the basis of their actions. Of course, it's allegations at this point, and the trial is still to come. But if they can make their claims stand up, then it;'s clearly differentiated from things like VCRs, or even DVD/Bluray burner sales.
    Noli nothis permittere te terere.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •