Aereo Creator Prepared for 'Great Fight' As New Alternative Basic Cable Service Takes on Industry Fox network founder Barry Diller recently unveiled a new service dubbed Aereo, which for $12 a month hopes to take over the air broadcasts from major networks and stream them to phones, tablets, and connected televisions. The service, to be launched first as a trial in New York City, is intended to supplement viewing options for users who have cut the cord in favor of Netflix, Hulu, (and/or piracy), replacing the basic cable connection. As expected, broadcasters quickly filed suit claiming the service violates copyright law. Diller isn't backing off however and over the weekend at SXSW had plenty to say about the industry's attempt to sue Aereo out of existence: "So long as you have an address, you have a right to public broadcasting," said Diller..."I said to the broadcasters, 'One thing that might happen is you'll get more audience,'" said Diller. "They said, 'That's fine. Now pay us retransmission money.' I said, 'When you get Radio Shack to pay you some slice of their profit when they sell an aerial, we'll pay you anything you like, but we're not transmitting anything.'" Diller insists it's "going to be a great fight."
|
 Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Going to be a great fight? That's a little different than saying "We are going to prevail."
As I did on the last story thread, I wonder if Barry Diller really has some other objective in mind. Given his background and understanding, he can't be so stupid as to believe he'll actually prevail in court. | |
|  | | | Re: Going to be a great fight? If you read the rest of his quotes you will see he is very confident he will win. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Going to be a great fight? said by Automate:If you read the rest of his quotes you will see he is very confident he will win.
hmmm I read all the quotes and I see nothing like that. He asserts that "we're not transmitting anything" (which is patently false), and that "anyone with an address has a right to public broadcasting" which actually has nothing to do with Aereo. I see nowhere where he even comments on his likelihood of, or confidence in, winning. | |
| | | | | | Re: Going to be a great fight? "We firmly believe that Aereo's technology is lawful. We are confident in the legal process, and we look forward to a prompt resolution of these meritless lawsuits," the company said in a statement.
»news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-573956···mncol;2n | |
| | | | | | | | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Going to be a great fight? said by AuraReturn:That's funny. If this passes, then piracy should be legal.
Piracy should NOT be legal. Free use should be legal. The rights of any public broadcast should end once that signal is in the air. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Going to be a great fight? said by wentlanc:Piracy should NOT be legal. Free use should be legal. The rights of any public broadcast should end once that signal is in the air.
That's like saying that the rights of any writer should end once their book hits the bookstores. Or a painter once their art is exhibited publicly. Or a musician once their record is played on the radio. Is that what you think?
You are denying the basic principle of copyright, which was designed to allow creators to own their works and decide how, when, under what terms, and for how much compensation those works can be performed. | |
| | | | | | | | wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Going to be a great fight? Can you honestly say that any of the content creators are getting paid by OTA broadcasts? Really? Lets put it in more realistic context.
If the writer allows their book to be in a public library, then it is already free for all to use.
If the artist puts their art in public view, then people are free to view and be inspired.
If the musician puts their song on the radio, then the public can recieve it for only the cost of a radio, and electricity.
None of these gains the creators a DIME directly, but could generate indirect sales as people see or hear their works. The content creators would be more than willing to get their works into more peoples hands to gain popularity. The hinderance is the distribution channel that currently exists, which makes money off of delivery, and not the content. Simplifying delivery only threatens the revenue streams of delivery companies, not content creators.
We are arguing symantics about how a person recieves something that they are legally entitled to recieve. We are talking about fair use of a signal to get it from the air to where I watch it. This has nothing to do with copyright. | |
| | | | | | | | |  markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
·Comcast
| Re: Going to be a great fight? It does have to do with copyright, because you have ignored "intended audience" from all of your examples. COPYright. If the intended audience is "people with antennas able to received the electronic signals from a tower located ____ ", then to take that signal and COPY it for a different audience falls under copyright law. It would require change/defeat of the copyright laws to win this. "Fair use" ends when you distribute outside of your own personal use. If I took a picture of that public displayed artwork and put it on my pay-to-see website, I am no longer under "fair use".
I personally hope Diller is victorious, but doubt he will pull this off without paying each affiliate delivered a retrans fee per subscriber and include zip code based IP address blackouts.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think you don't understand copyright. I think you also don't understand how and when content creators get paid. I think you need to educate yourself. Pretty much everything you said in your post is factually incorrect. I'm not going to waste time educating you. This is not an argument, it's just a "basic factual background" being lacking. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Automate:"We firmly believe that Aereo's technology is lawful. We are confident in the legal process, and we look forward to a prompt resolution of these meritless lawsuits," the company said in a statement.
»news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-573956···mncol;2n
that's standard PR. What else are they going to say? I am trying to figure out Diller's game here. | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by MyDogHsFleas:That's a little different than saying "We are going to prevail."
As I did on the last story thread, I wonder if Barry Diller really has some other objective in mind. Given his background and understanding, he can't be so stupid as to believe he'll actually prevail in court.
Maybe he thinks that just fighting it out in court would get the politicians in Washington to pass some law making what he wants legal even if he loses in court. Could just be a lobbying tactic.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Going to be a great fight? said by Linklist:said by MyDogHsFleas:That's a little different than saying "We are going to prevail."
As I did on the last story thread, I wonder if Barry Diller really has some other objective in mind. Given his background and understanding, he can't be so stupid as to believe he'll actually prevail in court.
Maybe he thinks that just fighting it out in court would get the politicians in Washington to pass some law making what he wants legal even if he loses in court. Could just be a lobbying tactic. Yeah, that's entirely plausible. Maybe he just wants to make the broadcasters look like bad guys who stifle him, the innovator, the bringer-of-shows-to-your-phone. And thus entice politicians to line up behind him so they, too, can bask in the glow of goodness and get voters' attention.
Another theory is that Diller is just trying to show that he won't roll over so easily in a negotiation. Maybe he really intends to license the transmissions, but wants to beat down the fees. | |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo There is no law or copyright law that says a company cannot lease an antenna with a long cord to someone.
Aereo is not "broadcast" or even "rebroadcasting". They just lease equipment so the end user can watch OTA TV.
It is 1 antenna leased to 1 customer.
Cable TV has to pay for "rebroadcasting" since they have only 1 antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers, they also get to inject advertisements on the OTA channels. | |
| | | | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo I wonder why the broadcasters don't want anyone to see their shows? Don't they depend a lot on a viewing audience? It sounds like he's doing them a favor getting the shows out, they should thank him. | |
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Oh_No:There is no law or copyright law that says a company cannot lease an antenna with a long cord to someone.
Aereo is not "broadcast" or even "rebroadcasting". They just lease equipment so the end user can watch OTA TV.
It is 1 antenna leased to 1 customer.
Cable TV has to pay for "rebroadcasting" since they have only 1 antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers, they also get to inject advertisements on the OTA channels.
You have no idea about the law involved and are wrong, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. And Aereo is a fraud with their phony so-called tiny antennas with one for each customer. It would never work that way and is merely some joke of a legal tactic to try and beat settled copyright law.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo said by Rambo76098:And you're no lawyer either. Just because you don't like it or think it's a legitimate business, does not mean you are correct. You can say you are right as many times as you want, but that does not change the validity of your statements.
PS - If you were a lawyer, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be spending so much time commenting on DSLR. 
I'm retired and have been for 12 yrs. And I am not a lawyer, but did lead a software development team for my company in collaboration with West Virginia Univ graduate students to manage an IBM Mainframe based network. The tools we developed were to be used to plug-in to IBM's Netview net mgt suite. As part of that effort I spent way too much time with our legal staff on copyright & patent issues - much more than I liked. So, while no expert, I am very familiar with the area.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo If you were a lawyer you would be agreeing with me.
There are 3 specific things going on here and only one of them has to be deemed illegal for you to be right.
1. An end user watching OTA broadcasts on their TV
2. An end users leasing an antenna and equipment from a company to connect to their TV
3. An end user connecting their leased antenna to a device like another tv, computer, or phone over a long cord for their for private personal viewing only.
Please tell me how any of those are illegal????
Oh, wait you cant.
1. Is legal or no one can watch OTA tv
2. Is legal or you could not rent or lease anything that shows anything copyrighted, you would have to buy it out right.
3. Copyright law would have to set a limit on the distance you can be from your antenna to make this illegal. Right now this does not exist.
For Aereo to be illegal they have to change the law, this change would also then make slingboxes illegal | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo Don't argue with this Oh_No guy, no matter how much fact and reality you bring to the table, and hold up in front of him, he will keep repeating his contentions over and over. I went through this on the last Aereo thread. He is like the song from the Music Man about Iowans. "And we're so by God stubborn / We could stand touchin' noses / For a week at a time / And never see eye-to-eye"
But... despite my warning to you.... here goes.
Your first three cases are all legal to do without obtaining a separate license in that they have not been ruled illegal. Case 1 is basic reception of a broadcast signal by a TV. Case 2 is CATV, where there's one big antenna and everyone connects to it. Case 3 is SlingBox, where an end user place-shifts the feed over the Internet.
Important to note that case 2 is NOT today's Cable TV, which DOES have to license the stream. Why? Because they capture and rebroadcast the stream in a different form for the end user, as a paid service. It's not just a straight delivery of the received signal to the TV.
Important to note that case 3 is NOT Aereo. Why? Because Aereo captures and rebroadcasts the stream in a different form for the end user, as a paid service. Why is this not Slingbox? Those magic words: "paid service". SlingBox is NOT a paid service, it is a hardware device that the end user purchases and owns and operates ON HIS/HER OWN.
So get this straight Oh_No: an end user can placeshift (SlingBox) or timeshift (DVR) a broadcast, on their own, using their own hardware. That's legal and allowed under the standard license. But if a COMPANY offers a PAID SERVICE doing placeshifting or timeshifting FOR THE END USER, that is NOT legal and is a copyright violation, unless of course they've acquired the required licenses from the owners.
Hey, this may change sometime, but that's the way it is, and has been held by the courts for many moons now. | |
| | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo Case 3 is Aereo.
'broadcasting' is to multiple people which aereo does not do.
They lease you the antenna and tuner and dvr that you connect your viewing device to with a long cord for private viewing only. Aereo 'broadcasts' nothing.
If you want to call it 'retransmission' then a OTA tuner box I connect to my TV does the exact same 'retransmission' when I connect it to my analog tv - it even changes the format of the digital video signal and sends it over a cord to my analog tv.
So you are saying it is illegal to lease a antenna, tuner, dvr, or any other media equipment to a customer for their singular private only viewing??
No court has upheld this. I went over this in another topic and linked to the zediva dvd service injuction. Companies run out of money and settle. There has been no court ruling saying leasing equipment with a long cord is illegal yet.
This is why Aereo is doing what they are doing. It is not illegal by ANY court ruling or any current law. | |
| | | | | | | | | said by MyDogHsFleas:Don't argue with this Oh_No guy, no matter how much fact and reality you bring to the table, and hold up in front of him, he will keep repeating his contentions over and over.
So, in other words, he's just like you? | |
| | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by MyDogHsFleas:Don't argue with this Oh_No guy, no matter how much fact and reality you bring to the table, and hold up in front of him, he will keep repeating his contentions over and over. I went through this on the last Aereo thread. He is like the song from the Music Man about Iowans. "And we're so by God stubborn / We could stand touchin' noses / For a week at a time / And never see eye-to-eye"
But... despite my warning to you.... here goes.
Funny you admit I am right, but then try to say what Aereo is doing is different than what I am talking about.
Its like you are just trying to find ways to argue.
said by MyDogHsFleas:Your first three cases are all legal to do without obtaining a separate license in that they have not been ruled illegal. Case 1 is basic reception of a broadcast signal by a TV. Case 2 is CATV, where there's one big antenna and everyone connects to it. Case 3 is SlingBox, where an end user place-shifts the feed over the Internet.
If all of those are legal then Aereo is legal except case 2 you have that wrong. Aereo leases individual antennas/no broadcasting.
Leasing one antenna to multiple people 'could' be viewed/argued as rebroadcasting but again there is no law for this yet. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by Linklist:said by Rambo76098:And you're no lawyer either. Just because you don't like it or think it's a legitimate business, does not mean you are correct. You can say you are right as many times as you want, but that does not change the validity of your statements.
PS - If you were a lawyer, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be spending so much time commenting on DSLR.
I'm retired and have been for 12 yrs. And I am not a lawyer, but did lead a software development team for my company in collaboration with West Virginia Univ graduate students to manage an IBM Mainframe based network. The tools we developed were to be used to plug-in to IBM's Netview net mgt suite. As part of that effort I spent way too much time with our legal staff on copyright & patent issues - much more than I liked. So, while no expert, I am very familiar with the area. Now I get it. You are like a retired 80 year old that does not understand technology to be able to make sense when trying to discuss something.
You are out of your element here. I cant really blame you for not understanding new technology, but you should not post about what you dont understand. | |
| | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo said by Oh_No:Now I get it. You are like a retired 80 year old that does not understand technology to be able to make sense when trying to discuss something.
You are out of your element here. I cant really blame you for not understanding new technology, but you should not post about what you dont understand.
Always with the insults, huh? And I am not 80. I retired at age 50 & with tons of money. And I learned more about technology while programming in machine language; developing network products well in to the router and switch age; managing data & telecom departments; than you will ever learn no matter how old you get.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | | | Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo I did not insult you. I just understand that you are pre 2000 in your working technology and did not grow up with the technology we use today.
You thinking about aereo in antiquated terms that do not apply today. I broke down the 3 issues here and neither of them are against the law.
If you really know the industry you would know there has never been a ruling deeming the leasing setup aereo doing illegal. No copyright law limits the lenght of your cord or how you lease equipment from someone. | |
| | | | | | | |
| |  TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | I think you didn't look into much detail of how infrastructure is build.
Each customer get's their OWN antenna. and they are individually fed to servers which individually process the streams. I seen their datacenter, it is HUGE. To do what you say they would require them to have 1/10 of the hardware as they would "share" among subscribers.
I seen similar method used in different countries, where international re-broadcasing was illegal. So that company set up on-site receivers either via coax or satellite and then had converters to IPTV. So customer was paying for subscription in foreign country plus delivery mechanism.
--
Semper Fi | |
| | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | Cable companies DON'T inject ads on OTA channels, only cable channels said by Oh_No:There is no law or copyright law that says a company cannot lease an antenna with a long cord to someone.
Aereo is not "broadcast" or even "rebroadcasting". They just lease equipment so the end user can watch OTA TV.
It is 1 antenna leased to 1 customer.
Cable TV has to pay for "rebroadcasting" since they have only 1 antenna and rebroadcast it to multiple customers, they also get to inject advertisements on the OTA channels.
| |
| | |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: It will be an easy, but expensive win for Aereo sure they don't. | |
| | | | | said by CableCoTek :Cable companies DON'T inject ads on OTA channels, only cable channels.
I did not know that! Thanks for the info. | |
|
 Jim_in_VA
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
 ·Northern Neck Wi..
| I still don't get why broadcasters object to this. Their paying advertisers get a broader audience. Their programming gets a broader audience. Their revenue increases via more connections. What is the objection?
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/ | |
| | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I still don't get said by Jim_in_VA:why broadcasters object to this. Their paying advertisers get a broader audience. Their programming gets a broader audience. Their revenue increases via more connections. What is the objection?
Very good question. I think from their POV that they have their little empire that they manage and control, namely the rights to broadcast their national network in their local area for OTA, and to sell the rights to carry their network to local redistributors (cable, satellite). They believe this is their empire by law and by right. And, BTW, this has been held up in courts over and over again. This is how the Congress and the FTC set up local broadcasting.
When they see an Aereo come along, who is taking THEIR FEED and using it in ways they have NOT LICENSED, they view it as a violation and sue. They do not see it as an opportunity, they see it as a threat.
For one thing, part of their rights includes the right to sell the local affiliate commercial slots. This is big bucks in a large market like NYC. They can sell the slots directly to companies who want to advertise (or politicians in an election year), and they can also sell the rights to the slots to the non-OTA carriers of their feed, who can then resell them. Somebody like Aereo messes up this scheme, because they have now lost control of the audience demographics, which is key to setting ad buy rates.
(Of course, you will argue that DVRs have ALREADY messed up the scheme, and you would be partially correct. Nonetheless... the broadcasters have already made their grudging peace with timeshifting.) | |
| | | | | | | | I wont contribute to the argument being that there are way to many unknown variables but I will point out that when online games started becoming popular many of the game companies thought it was their right to be paid by companies that made it possible to play online against others for a fee. Their argument was that since those companies made money using their game as an attraction they are entitled to payment.
I hope today we all see how clearly flawed their logic was at that time. My main point in this reminder is to state just because they THINK they are entitled and do things pushing towards that entitlement, in no way whatsoever makes it correct. Whether or not what this company does will be seen as rebroadcast or not will be determined by the courts assessment of the technology. | |
| | | | |
For one thing, part of their rights includes the right to sell the local affiliate commercial slots. This is big bucks in a large market like NYC. They can sell the slots directly to companies who want to advertise (or politicians in an election year), and they can also sell the rights to the slots to the non-OTA carriers of their feed, who can then resell them. Somebody like Aereo messes up this scheme, because they have now lost control of the audience demographics, which is key to setting ad buy rates.
I'm not sure Aereo changes this at all, the commerial spots are still being sold, Aereo is not changing the commericals by putting in their own. The advertisers would be getting a bigger audience.
This issue that would or may come up is out-of-area viewing of the stations,
Someone in Seattle paying and viewing for the OTA stations in New York.
I know here in Canada, the cable companies do not pay to pass along the local OTA stations, and are required to by law to provide them as basic cable.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I still don't get Yes, I see your points, and the thing I'm trying to get across is that generically "making the audience bigger" actually does little or nothing to increase advertising revenue for the broadcaster, unless it can be quantified and qualified.
Put yourself in the shoes of a media buyer, who is negotiating with a local station for ad buy rates on a particular slot. The local station says to you, "Hey! These Aereo guys are increasing your audience, so you should pay more for your ad placements." Your obvious response is, "Why? Can you tell me how many more people are watching? And what their demographics are?" The station has no answer for this.
Another piece of information for you: in the USA we also have "must carry" laws for local stations on cable franchises. The difference is that local stations can EITHER invoke "must carry" and get no retransmission fee, OR can negotiate with the cable service for a retransmission fee. | |
|
Reviews:
·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Change in signal format by Aereo. If Aereo takes in a USA ATSC OTA signal using a giant OTA antenna and sends that same signal along a big coaxial cable to a person's ATSC tuner equipped television, they would need permission from the OTA station owner to do that if they charge anything for that service.
If Aereo takes in a USA ATSC OTA signal using a giant OTA antenna, changes the form of that signal to ISDB-C and sent that ISDB-C signal along a big coaxial cable to a person's ISDB-C to ATSC tuner set top box which then converted it to an ATSC television signal, and that signal went to the ATSC tuner equipped television , they would need permission from the OTA station owner to do that if they charge anything for that service. | |
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Change in signal format by Aereo. They don't charge for the content. they charge to let you lease the equipment. nothing more. You are essentially renting an antenna with a long cord. Incumbents will try to twist it out of proportion, but you can't call it something that it is not. | |
| | | | said by davidhoffman:If Aereo takes in a USA ATSC OTA signal using a giant OTA antenna and sends that same signal along a big coaxial cable to a person's ATSC tuner equipped television, they would need permission from the OTA station owner to do that if they charge anything for that service. Many condos and apartment buildings have a "master antenna" system, with antenna, amplifiers and splitters, delivering OTA TV signals to outlets in each unit. Although it's not a separate line item on the bill, it's clear that a portion of your HOA fees or rent is paying for that system. Are these systems all illegal? Have developers or landlords been sued for implementing them? | |
| | | Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Change in signal format by Aereo. Very interesting point. I forgot about those. Shame on me, I was raised in Chicago, where high rise buildings used those antenna systems. But that was in the days before Chicago had cable television. The local broadcast stations did not care how much money you put into getting their signal. They did not care if you spent $250 dollars on a portable television set to get their signals in the city parks or along the beach. The more viewers the better. So if a high rise building owner added several dollars per month to the rent to maintain the common antenna access system, the broadcast station owners did not view it as taking profit that belonged to them. They viewed it as more viewers and more advertiser dollars per advertisement spot. | |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Money money money... In a rich mans' world. Why is it that when an innovator comes along, and brings a product that could be revolutionary to our world, people who cannot get enough money stand in the way? There used to be a time that a business, such as a farm, would be run to make enough of a profit to be worthwhile. Farmers still left some crops near the roads for passers-by who were truly in need as a courtesy. People cared about other people. Now all that some people and industries care about is milking every last penny that they can out of the rest of the world. Am I the only one who sees that the kind of greed that most companies run under has led to the decline of every great civilization in the history of our world? | |
| | | | Re: Money money money... Greed and pride has brought down every great man, every great company and every great nation and will continue to so until the earth ends. | |
| | markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| No, you are not alone. So goes the plague that the past is different and we are more important/greater than those poor chumps that failed. No cure yet, humanity is doomed to repetition of failure. At this point, we are exceedingly more proficient at mitigation: push the failure point out to the next generation.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix | |
|
| |
|
|
·
