The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch 153
HughPickens.com writes: Victoria Shannon reports in the NY Times that fifty years ago was a good year for music, with the Beatles appearing on Billboard's charts for the first time, the Rolling Stones releasing their first album, the Supremes with five No. 1 hits, and Simon and Garfunkel releasing their debut album. The 50-year milestone is significant, because music published within the first half-century of its recording gets another 20 years of copyright protection under changes in European law. So every year since 2012, studios go through their tape vaults to find unpublished music to get it on the market before the deadline.
The first year, Motown released a series of albums packed with outtakes by some of its major acts, and Sony released a limited-edition collection of 1962 outtakes by Bob Dylan, with the surprisingly frank title, "The Copyright Extension Collection, Vol. I." In 2013, Sony released a second Dylan set, devoted to previously unreleased 1963 recordings. Similar recordings by the Beatles and the Beach Boys followed. This year, Sony is releasing a limited-edition nine-LP set of 1964 recordings by Dylan, including a 46-second try at "Mr. Tambourine Man," which he would not complete until 1965. The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets of outtakes last week. And while there's no official word on a Beatles release, last year around this time, "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" turned up unannounced on iTunes.
The first year, Motown released a series of albums packed with outtakes by some of its major acts, and Sony released a limited-edition collection of 1962 outtakes by Bob Dylan, with the surprisingly frank title, "The Copyright Extension Collection, Vol. I." In 2013, Sony released a second Dylan set, devoted to previously unreleased 1963 recordings. Similar recordings by the Beatles and the Beach Boys followed. This year, Sony is releasing a limited-edition nine-LP set of 1964 recordings by Dylan, including a 46-second try at "Mr. Tambourine Man," which he would not complete until 1965. The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets of outtakes last week. And while there's no official word on a Beatles release, last year around this time, "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" turned up unannounced on iTunes.
Re: Separate Marginal Tax Rates for IP (Score:2)
So this includes those born between 1960 and 1970 who, by accident of birth, were on a universe where the opportunity for a college education was excluded, possibly by imperial fiat?
Re: (Score:1)
Let's see...are you a patent attorney? Data Storage engineer? Writer of children's books? Manager of a payroll processing company?
So, you're the SmartAss®, eh? In this case, economic and other circumstances work just as well as the Imperial Fiat® as posited. These people were born at a time in which college aid was cut and organized labor was being destroyed such that having to "put the nose to the grindstone" was the only choice. Now if you're in the demographic I described AND have managed to ma
Re: Separate Marginal Tax Rates for IP (Score:2)
Well. I was born in the 50s, and only witnessed the birth and growth of those born 10-20 years after me.
And they had substantial opportunity for college. The GI Bill still afforded veterans great opportunities. College enrollment rays among high school graduates grew steadily between 1978-1988, which doesn't make lot of sense if opportunity
diminished.
BTW, being anonymous leaves you with less credibility than if you had a name. But you're probably either too lazy to register, or too afraid of losing karma
Re: Separate Marginal Tax Rates for IP (Score:2)
Yeah, I enlisted rather than risk draft. But i didn't get a chance to vote for anything until later, and it's hard to discern which party could take credit for what. I'm suspecting no choice was good.
Overall, however, I've tried to vote for less federal government. Plenty of ways to blame everyone else for what you perceive as harming you and your future.
Go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen here SmartAss®, It is for...
Er, yeah, I think we all know what you meant. You yourself understand that the guy was being a "SmartAss®" (i.e. he knew what you meant but deliberately misinterpreted it), so not sure why you bothered re-explaining the bit in bold!
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd had any sort of education that had stuck with you, then you might know what a dangling modifier is, and then you might know how to express yourself without ambiguity.
Re: (Score:2)
KGFY, ignoramus.
How soon? (Score:5, Informative)
After all, don't J.S. Bach's descendants get to make profit on something they never had anything to do with? Shouldn''t that be only fair?
Copyright was conceived to protect musicians rights, not their great great great great grandchildren's.
Re: (Score:1)
Paul McCartney is still alive, along with Ringo Star, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkle, and the Beach Boys. Not sure you have a valid point yet. If you wanted to make a comment about how long do they need a copyright your point would be more valid. However, the Beatles are very overrated so I think by the time their stuff becomes public domain no one will care anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the bricklayer that built my house. I can't remember paying him a dime in the last 20 or so years, though.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the bricklayer that built my house. I can't remember paying him a dime in the last 20 or so years, though.
Bricklayers get paid an hourly wage for the work they do when they do it, and can work productively for forty plus hours a week all through the year. Also, bricklayers are more or less fungible.
You can't really compare bricklayers and musicians.
The whole idea of copyright may be untenable nowadays, but in principle it is just a way of paying artists for their work. If you got rid of copyright, you'd need to find another way of rewarding them, as the idea of just having amateur artists is deeply problema
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just explain to me why an artist should be entitled to live off one single creation for the rest of his life while everyone else has to keep working to earn money.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different than someone who builds a house and rents it out forever? Or me, after 27 years I'm retired and no longer have to work.
That said, I agree copyrights are WAY too long.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just explain to me why an artist should be entitled to live off one single creation for the rest of his life while everyone else has to keep working to earn money.
If you work as a secretary, mechanic or shop assistant, you (generally) get paid according to the time you spend at work.
There is no current mechanism for paying artists who are sitting at home and writing/practising/thinking. You could go back to a system of aristocratic patronage, or have Soviet style "official artists" paid by the State, of course.
In the meantime, copyright provides money to artists in proportion to how many people buy their work, so it's better than nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is to encourage the public release of creative works for the betterment of society. The temporary monopoly on profits from those works is the incentive, not the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'noble' intentions of copyright are irrelevant. The law is being used as very effective weapon of censorship. That is its intention.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'noble' intentions of copyright are irrelevant. The law is being used as very effective weapon of censorship. That is its intention.
Yes, if your definition of "censorship" is "having to pay a small amount of money to access a piece of popular culture".
If everyone who disapproved of copyright was a believer in pure communism, with everything shared equally, I would be quite happy to agree with them.
As it is, in a capitalist society, what exactly do you expect artists to live on? Oh, I forgot, live performances, because it's so easy to go to a gig whenever I want to listen to some music or hear some poetry, that it makes you wonder w
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, you should have been there when they tried printing the first books! A whole industry of writers guild were up in arms and tried to have the press destroyed. Nope, screw the rent seekers. Enough of the special privileges. Time for them to come down to earth with the rest of us schlubs.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, where is my incentive to ever create again if I can milk what I already created forever?
Let's say you are someone not unlike Mozart. A once-a-century, if not once-a-millennium, prodigy whose music has the ability to enchant and entertain people for centuries to come. Mozart was, when you read his bio, a lazy, hedonistic bum. Essentially he was writing music when he had to pay his bills.
Just imagine how much we'd have from him if the royalties from his "Magic Flute" would've paid for his life
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest, no matter how much you love your work, would you do it without getting paid for it? I mean, I love IT security, but I would probably rather spend my time tinkering with exploits than wading through ISO guidelines and getting on everyone's nerve with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest, no matter how much you love your work, would you do it without getting paid for it?
No, but an artist would. That is why it is meaningless to compare Mozart with an IT drone.
Re: (Score:2)
That was perhaps the Statute of Anne take. But the version we have now globally is that merged with the French "rights of the author". This is where the whole life+X comes from, as the French worried about the authors social rights. That is, the right to control in what context ones creation is used. Don't want your play or similar be associated with a certain dictator, deny anyone that want to use it in his honor. Never mind that those laws came into being when you were lucky to live past 40 with your heal
Re: How soon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is to encourage the public release of creative works for the betterment of society. The temporary monopoly on profits from those works is the incentive, not the purpose.
ANd how does the trend toward perpetual coyright encourage this?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it does not - the system has been corrupted by Disney and other copyright holders. And by repeating their lies about the purpose of copyright you make yourself a voluntary foot soldier in their war against culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people might be motivated to make provision for their descendants. If I leave them stocks or property they can get dividends and rent forever. It's an asset that gives a future income stream.
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
And people on slashdot wonder why nobody around here has any respect for copyright anymore... It's because the original deal was broken. They kept extending to the advantage of the copyright holders, with absolutely zero concessions for the public. How is that fair? Why should I respect that?
Re: (Score:2)
But on slashdot capitalism's wonderful because it lets a few code monkeys become billionaires.
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the public should be allowed to profit from the work of others.
That's exactly true, and in fact that's the reason that the US Constitution plainly states that copyrights are to be granted only for limited times. The founders of this country clearly wanted the public to profit from the works of others, after as little as 14 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the public should be allowed to profit from the work of others.
That's exactly true, and in fact that's the reason that the US Constitution plainly states that copyrights are to be granted only for limited times. The founders of this country clearly wanted the public to profit from the works of others, after as little as 14 years.
Well, yes, but when the constitution was written, 14 years after publication, the creator of the work was likely dead of the scurvy, or gout.
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes, but when the constitution was written, 14 years after publication, the creator of the work was likely dead of the scurvy, or gout.
Glad you brought that up.
J.R.R. Tolkien has been dead since 1972. Middle Earth Enterprises goes after anything Do not have the nerve to mention H****t, lest ye be sued. The Tolkien family and Middle Earth Enterprises, asre even busy suing each other. So THIS is what the perpetual copyright system is heading toward, Lawsuits and pecuniary extraction
It's a real hoot of a read , The legal travails of a man dead since 1972. And it's the direction we are moving in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if made it past childhood, life expectancy back then wasn't dramatically less than it is now. It certainly wasn't 5X less, like the copyright terms were.
I can also never figure out why anybody gives a damn about the lifetime of the author. The crew that mudjacked my driveway 20 years ago are probably still alive. None of them are showing up here demanding tips when people park on my driveway.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People like you can't seem to wrap your heads around the difference between the physical product of some unit of manual labor, and the creation of an idea. Compare the value of all the tea in crates on docks in Boston harbor in 1776 against the intangible ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and tell me which was more valuable.
We could hav
Re:How soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you can't seem to wrap your heads around the difference between the physical product of some unit of manual labor, and the creation of an idea.
I know that they're completely different. Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
And the differences don't apply to my point: You do some work. You get paid for it. Then you should move on and do more work. Your grandchildren should not be able to charge rents a century down the road based on artificially created scarcity without having to do work themselves. That makes no economic sense.
Compare the value of all the tea in crates on docks in Boston harbor in 1776 against the intangible ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and tell me which was more valuable.
Indeed those documents were very valuable. Somehow they even got created without the benefit of copyright protection or ownership rights by their authors. How could that be? Maybe it's because copyright is highly overrated in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What "actual issue"? I just soundly disproved everything you stated.
There must be some kind of vague concept in your head that you can't seem to actually express, but you're just sure that I "don't get it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.
All scarcity is artificial. There is no logical reason why all physical and non physical things should not be shared equally.
"Ownership" is an entirely man-made concept: it's just human beings deciding how to organise themselves, not a law of nature or God.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the tea was just as valuable... once it was thrown overboard. Before that act, it was just worth some money.
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good job sir, bravo.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The public should not be permitted to benefit from anybody's creativity unless they pay through the nose for it, forever. Screw culture.
Re: (Score:1)
Screwing the public is the very essence of our culture. Fairness and justice? And mercy?? Perish the thought! Pleasure must be carefully regulated and rationed. That's how you create a market and high demand.
Re: (Score:2)
The public should not be permitted to benefit from anybody's creativity unless they pay through the nose for it, forever. Screw culture.
Where by "pay through the nose" you mean "pay".
If culture should be free, so should everything else. Otherwise, it's just artists who have to work for nothing, and not computer programmers or burger flippers.
Re: (Score:2)
Skatteverket and I are on pretty good terms, thanks. Meanwhile, I suggest you check to see whether your sarcasm detector is plugged in.
Re: (Score:3)
Screw creating your own things.
Even if I create my own things, how can I be sure that I haven't accidentally re-created someone else's things?
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody does profit from the works of others. We all share profit. Copyright is a public liability, not an asset. It impedes communication and knowledge for the advantage of a few, because ignorance is power!
Re: (Score:1)
I create my own things. My boss then steals them, gives me nothing for it, and makes money off it, then claims the ideas as his own.
No, I don't work in music, I work in television. In fact, at our Christmas party, we were told that if we have any ideas to help make money for the station we're welcome to put them forward.
I don't think anybody will - I'm not creating $100,000 for the owner while I get minimum wage, and before you suggest I might get extra hours and a pay increase, the only thing I'd get wou
Re: (Score:2)
Before we get copyright in perpetuity?
It’s already here. You just haven’t realised it yet.
Re: How soon? (Score:3)
I've often thought that copyright was introduced by The most corrupt Pope Alexander the 6th. He did it as a means to squash the Protestants and their bible printing business. Their bible printing business was undermining the power of Catholic Rome.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rephrase Ol Olsoc's question: How much of a royalty does the Bach family deserve from Claudio Arrau and his label?
Re: (Score:2)
already figured out. Bach's music is played by an artist who gets to copyright that recording.
I discovered this trying to put a Claudio Arrau recording of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata as music for one of my videos on youtube.
Copyright protected. Bullshit.
Fuck Sony.
You are perfectly free to learn to play the piano as well as Claudio Arrau and record your own version of the Moonlight Sonata, you know.
I could train to be an automotive engineer, design and build my own car, and not have to pay Ford ten grand, but guess what's easier?
Copyright clause preamble is a dead letter (Score:2)
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts" [...] so copyright is constitutional to the extent (and only to the extent) it is designed to satisfy that goal.
The US Supreme Court has consistently deferred to Congress on the question of whether "it is designed to satisfy that goal."
Re: (Score:1)
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
Re: (Score:2)
The evils of copyright law are well documented and understood. It has destroyed whatever good intentions there may have been in the original concept. And now it is obvious what will always come of it, censorship and sanction. Why should anything contrary to the facts ever be modded up?
The following are all self-evident facts to the slashdot hive mind: all software should be free as in beer as well as free in freedom; communism and socialism are evil; the US is the best place to live in the world; any form of space exploration is automatically a Good Thing, no matter the cost; NASA is evil; The Government is evil; Microsoft is evil; there is no such thing as racism in the US any longer; all Cops are psychopathic murderers; anyone in the Military is a hero; all Muslims are basically
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, I am just saying copyright is censorship. The rent seekers can find another model to work with. They are the ones getting everything for free. And another thing, if intellect is going to be regarded as property, then I want to collect a tax on it, like real property.
Re: (Score:1)
Every animal affects its environment, and that has nothing to do with this, which is a man made environment to begin with. And it is being ruthlessly contaminated by powerful people. Unlike the climate this one is easy to fix.
Stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to fight back. Write a computer program that produces music automatically using some algorithm. Allow some trivial amount of control so that the user can claim it is a musical instrument, like a synthesiser. Release over 9,000,000 limited edition (1 copy) albums, and then sue every artist working for Sony for copyright infringement on every new work they release. One of your millions of tracks is bound to sound like theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
So who was the target, and why?
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and read the comment I was responding to. Then read my response. Then ask yourself, "How did I manage so completely to fail to answer Zontar's question?"
The day the music and freedom died. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sums up the mickey mouse laws that Sony, Disney and their ilk have created in the industry. It has nothing to do with copyrights it has everything to do with control of content. If I want to include an RCMP [www.cbc.ca] officer in full dress uniform in a stage play even in the country where they come from then I have to get permission from Disney to use the image.
It is time for someone to challenge this nonsense and expose the practices of these charlatans for what they really are. Then perhaps the public will wake up to the real damage to freedom of expression in the entertainment industry that these corporate thieves and their myrmidons in government have foisted upon the audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Sums up the mickey mouse laws that Sony, Disney and their ilk have created in the industry. It has nothing to do with copyrights it has everything to do with control of content.
I don't see a problem with Disney still retaining full rights to Mickey. The company still exists and actively uses the character in their works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The day the music and freedom died. (Score:5, Informative)
Mickey Mouse is a trademark.
That's a different kettle of fish. That's the problem with everything getting thrown together as "intellectual property". It muddles together things with very different requirements and considerations.
Abuses and backlash will be inappriately applied.
Dastar v. Fox (Score:3)
Mickey Mouse is a trademark.
Perpetual exclusive rights in a trademark cannot be used to extend the theoretically limited term of any of the exclusive rights under a U.S. copyright. Dastar v. Fox.
Re: (Score:1)
Sums up the mickey mouse laws that Sony, Disney and their ilk have created in the industry. It has nothing to do with copyrights it has everything to do with control of content.
I don't see a problem with Disney still retaining full rights to Mickey. The company still exists and actively uses the character in their works.
What would you do if your kid decided to get creative then you were sued by Disney? All because he or she did a doll based cartoon using Mickey and Mini and then posted the results online?
It will take something like this happening to expose these crooks for what they really are. I am sorry I have no respect for Sony or Disney as they more than any other corporations have stifled creativity and have become anti-creative and destructive to the arts in many ways. Youtube and other sites scare the shit out of t
Almost true from 1995-2000 (Score:2)
> If I want to include an RCMP officer in full dress uniform in a stage play even in the country where they come from then I have to get permission from Disney to use the image.
That was almost true for a few years, from 1995-2000. The RCMP had a merchandising contract wherein Disney Canada would manage whatever rights RCMP had to the mountie image. They figured Disney is pretty good at managing the branding of a character, so they contracted with Disney to manage the Mountie character.
Does the RCMP h
Re: (Score:1)
> If I want to include an RCMP officer in full dress uniform in a stage play even in the country where they come from then I have to get permission from Disney to use the image.
That was almost true for a few years, from 1995-2000. The RCMP had a merchandising contract wherein Disney Canada would manage whatever rights RCMP had to the mountie image. They figured Disney is pretty good at managing the branding of a character, so they contracted with Disney to manage the Mountie character.
Does the RCMP have the right to control whether or not you have an RCMP officer in a play? Probably not. The image wasn't a registered trademark, and you're allowed to use other people's trademarks in certain ways. Therefore, they couldn't have Disney manage that right for them.
To the extent they did have Disney managing their licensing for merchandising, that deal ended fourteen years ago.
Thank you for informing me that the deal is over. However it would not at all surprise me if there are deals that are not public knowledge currently in force. Our conservative government does this sort of thing all the time and the management decisions of the Mounties are under their direct control, unlike in the US where the FBI was a distorted organization run by a Tzar that was appointed essentially for life because he had dirt on all the political parties.
What is really disgusting is that Corbis [ssrn.com] has ess
Meh, I don't really care that much (Score:2)
Surprisingly frank? (Score:2)
Surprisingly frank? Sony is just not that good at covering things up these days....
Re: (Score:3)
Spite and Contempt for our Customers Collection, Vol I
Including tracks such as the ever popular tune; "We don't want this, but you can't have it [Feat. Bwaa Haaa ha ha...]"
Summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The Beach Boys released two copyright-extension sets...
That's not true. "The Beach Boys" didn't release anything. The rights to their work were stolen in the 1960s by their manager and sold to A&M records:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
A&M is owned by UMG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
The largest Music publishing company in the world who's owned by Vivendi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]
Who's worth nearly $50 billion, and has profits in the $3 billion/yr range...
and you wonder why copyright laws get changed in their favor... lol
When arguing about copyright law, always keep in mind... the people that "own" these copyrights are almost never the artists or their families. Business own then and the attempts to extend copyright into perpetuity has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the creator of the music. It has to do with extending what was usually a theft from an artist, into a theft from mankind as a whole.
Watch the following movie for more details on that side of the business:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
I don't like 30 seconds to mars, but that movie matches what many of the musicians/bands I've met have said about the industry.
And here's an article written by Courtney Love 15yrs ago... and it's also pretty much dead on:
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/1... [salon.com]
The real pirates are the music labels.
Re: (Score:2)
When arguing about copyright law, always keep in mind... the people that "own" these copyrights are almost never the artists or their families. Business own then and the attempts to extend copyright into perpetuity has absolutely nothing to do with rewarding the creator of the music. It has to do with extending what was usually a theft from an artist, into a theft from mankind as a whole.
That would be an incredibly easy thing to solve by not allowing the transfer of copyrights at all, either to corporations or your own children.
Although to be fair, most arts aren't run by such blatant crooks as the music industry.
Dear Hackers: (Score:2)
Dear Hackers:
Please have Sony remove all the copyrights on all of their music.
Thank you,
vortex2.71
It's crap anyway. (Score:3)
Seriously, if they're out-takes, they weren't considered good enough to release. Releasing them goes against both the original musicians' wishes and foists crap on the general public because "otherwise you don't have the complete set."
Consider the out-takes as crappy code you would never release. You release the cleaned-up code and build a reputation - which is tarnished when someone releases your crappy code. Or maybe there's a politically incorrect comment in the crappy version that was there to remind you to fix something ... like "Duh! This code is crap! I must be having a blonde day!"
Do you really want YOUR out-takes published for someone else's financial benefit?
Re: (Score:2)
"The true scholar prizes all drafts, early and late."
--Mr Spock
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if they're out-takes, they weren't considered good enough to release. Releasing them goes against both the original musicians' wishes and foists crap on the general public because "otherwise you don't have the complete set."
No one's forcing you to buy the out-takes are they?
If people find them interesting enough, good luck to them.
It's like reading the original manuscript of a poem or novel, and seeing what was changed before publication. Unless you're a really dedicated fan, it probably wouldn't be of much interest, but for scholars it can be fascinating.
Having said that, you'd only normally do this after the artist was dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole fucking point is the every single one of these recordings has been 'liberated' from the vaults at some time in the last 50 years.
And whose fault is that?
Why can't copyright holders... (Score:3)
What's next? (Score:1)
Dylan? Beatles? Stones? (Score:2)
Forget it - I'm waiting for the copyright extension set of previously unheard works by The Electric Prunes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool. Personally, I am a fan, and I've been waiting a long time to hear Carnival of Light. The good news is, I might only have to wait another couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on completely missing the point.