Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-rs - Re: CC Serbia Cc-rs Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8

cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Serbia

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tomislav Medak <to-me AT mi2.hr>
  • To: cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: CC Serbia Cc-rs Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8
  • Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:26:36 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ako mogu pomoci pomalo padobranski, jer nisam pratio cjelokupnu
diskusiju, u hrvatskoj lokalizaciji drzali smo se toga da su
funkcionalni pandan fair use doktrini sadrzajna ogranicenja autorskog
prava koja se nalaze propisana u Zakonu o autoskom pravu (cl. 80-98).

Osnovna ideja zasto se fair use nalazi u licenci je iskljucivo da se
naglasi da licenca nicime ne umanjuje slobode koje su vec zadane
zakonskim okvirom. Taj naglasak pravno gledajuci i nije potreban, buduci
da to pravo jamci zakon koji ima prioritet nad licencnim dopustenjem. On
je tu da se izbjegne izgovor.

Pozdrav,

Tom

cc-rs-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
> Send Cc-rs mailing list submissions to
> cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cc-rs-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cc-rs-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Cc-rs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence BYNCSA3.0
> 14 - 21.11.07. (Nena Antic)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:31:10 -0800 (PST)
> From: Nena Antic <advocat_studio AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence
> BYNCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
> To: Creative Commons Serbia <cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <791296.9481.qm AT web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Izvinjavam se zbog ove zabune. Predlozeni tekst Licence ne sadrzi fair
> use/fair dealing rights, vec odgovarajuci ekvivalent upravo zato sto nase
> pravo ne poznaje ovu doktrinu, sto je i objasnjeno u prevodu srpske Licence
> na engleski jezik, u clanu 2:
> http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/rs/english-license.pdf
>
> " "Limitations on Copyright". Nothing in this License is intended to
> restrict any uses freefrom copyright or rights arising from limitations or
> exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright
> protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.
>
> Fair Dealing Rights ? Limitations on Copyright
>
> Serbian Copyright Law does not recognize the Fair Dealing Rights, but there
> are some explicit limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright
> holder (Articles 40-55)".
>
> Pravni koncept "fair use" sam pomenula van konteksta nacrta Licence, kako
> se ne bi stvorio utisak da je to nedefinisana i proizvoljna kategorija, sto
> je tokom prethodne diskusije moglo da se dogodi. Pored Licence, prevode se
> i objasnjenja Creative Commons o Creative Commons licencama i njihovoj
> upotrebi, CC FAQ u kojima se pominju i instituti koje nase pravo ne
> poznaje, ali imaju pravno utemeljenje u americkom zakonodavstvu (fair use).
>
> Pozdrav,
> Nena
>
> apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu> wrote: Imam problem sa pitanjem svrhe prevoda
> i predlozene licence.
>
> Nesporno je da se fair use prevodi kao postena upotreba, ali se taj
> institut ne primenjuje u nasem pravu. Licenca se (prema tekstu uvoda)
> primenjuje u meri u kojoj je saglasna sa zakonom zemlje na ciji jezik se
> prevodi. Samom ovom cinjenicom (a i da nije eksplicitno receno, isti
> zakljucak proizilazi iz naseg prava) instituti koji ne postoje u nasem
> pravu nemaju mesta u prevodu licence. Nemaju funkciju.
> Zato je dobar (pravno) predlog koji nam je dostavljen- "ogranicenja
> autorskog prava" a ne bukvalni prevod naziva termina fair use. Sacuvan je
> smisao, znacenje je dobro preneto u srpski jezik i u srpsko pravo.
>
> Inace, koncepcija iz americkog zakona je dobila svoj sadrzaj tek kroz
> americku sudsku praksu i daleko je od jednostavne. Ima cetiri kriterijuma
> koja su relevantna pri oceni da li je rec o fair use ili povredi, ali ta
> cetiri kriterijuma za nase pravo nisu obavezujuca pri oceni da li postoji
> povreda, da li su predjene granice prava ili ne. Ni po jednom osnovu.
>
> Na sta se svodi problem? Ova licenca zaista treba da izrazava koncept CC
> i da taj koncept ucini prihvatljivim u nasem pravu. Cemu inace prevod?
> Koncept je sigurno bolje poznat Neni i nekim ljudima koji su se ukljucili
> u diskusiju nego meni. Ali, ako u tom tekstu ostanu izrazi (i smisao) koji
> ne postoje u srpskom pravu pa su neprimenljivi, onda to nema smisla.
>
> To nije samo problem ove grupe. Tzv. "forum shopping" odnosno odabir suda
> pred kojim ce se postupak u slucaju povrede autorskog ili srodnog prava
> voditi - je rezultat cinjenice da ne postoji medjunarodno autorsko pravo,
> da su razlike takve da jedna ista situacija u razlicitim zemljama moze da
> bude razlicito presudjena. Neki zajednicki minimum izrazen kroz
> medjunarodne ugovore nije funkcionalan za konkretne situacije. Nema sanse
> da mi taj problem resimo ovim prevodom.
>
> Ili radimo bukvalni prevod zanemarujuci pitanje primenljivosti takvog
> prevoda u Srbiji, ili radimo prevod koji je primeren srpskom pravu.
>
> Tako bi tzv. "public domain" (ne znam ko je postavio to pitanje, ne secam
> se) u nasem pravu bilo "slobodno delo" (delo u slobodnoj upotrebi, po
> isteku roka zastite). Tako fair use postaje "ogranicenje autorskog prava".
>
> Verica
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nena Antic
> To: Creative Commons Serbia
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:50 PM
> Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC licence
> BYNCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
>
>
> Koncepcija "fair use" je opisana i definisana americkim zakonom o
> autorskom pravu i odnosi se na ogranicenja iskljucivih prava
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 . Kod nas se prevodi
> terminom Postena upotreba.
>
> Nena
>
> apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu> wrote: ??? Super komentar.
> Narocito deo and to maintain the CC "brand-recognition" for the
> movement behind the licenses
> Ono sto se danas najcesce zove brand, kod nas u pravu zig, definise se
> kao : pravno priznanje psiholoske funkcije simbola. Neko ime, neka
> slika- automatski podseca na nesto ili se vezuje (tacno ili pogresno)
> za nesto, aktivira predstavu koju imamo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vlidi @slobodnakultura.org
> To: Creative Commons Serbia
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC
> licence BY NCSA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
>
>
> Pozdrav svima, i mnogo hvala na ucescu u debati...
>
> Verice, slazem se, "fair use" je prilican problem, jer se cesto
> ljudi pozivaju na instituciju tog termina, koji ni u USA nije
> "stabilan" i nije precizno definisan unapred, nesto sto podseca na to kako
> funkcionise cenzura u Kini - otprilike znamo sta je OK a sta ne, ali
> je u svakom trenutku moguce da se nesto dokazuje ili izvodi pred
> sudom, i da se interperetira... U mnogo tekstova, cak i u CC FAQ
> koji treba da prevedemo, "fair use" se navodi kao nesto sto ima
> podrazumevano znacenje...
>
> A sto se tice upotrebnog i govornog imena za licence, ne znam, mnogo
> sam o tome razmisljao, svi predlozi koje sam cuo su i dalje
> konstrukti i prilicno su "rogobatni", u meri u kojoj ne opavdavaju
> konfuziju koja bi nastala ako zamenimo dovoljno nezgodan, za nase
> jezicko podrucije, izraz "Creative Commons". Pitali smo i ljude iz
> CC boarda sta misle i kakva su njihova iskustva u vezi toga:
>
>
> Rolado Lemos:
>
> Q: Discussing the licenses, is there maybe a semantical problem in
> penetration of CC licenses into, let's say, public service? I don't
> know how it works in Portuguese, but for an average Slavic language
> user, who would be maybe a 55 years old civil servant, it's very
> hard just because of the language barrier to imagine licensing this
> civil servant's work on "Creative Commons 3.0", not to mention
> bigger problems in understanding the concept. Is it possible to
> maybe rethink the names of licenses and to maintain the CC
> "brand-recognition" for the movement behind the licenses, and to
> invent some neutral phrases, without much meaning but easy to
> recognize things like flickr, google, etc...?
>
> A: This is a great question, and we had this problem in Brazil as
> well. The term Creative Commons in Portuguese is very difficult,
> even how to pronounce it. This is a problem that we had from the
> beginning. But when we started the project, Creative Commons Brazil
> launched a challenge, because Brazilians have this capacity of
> reincorporating other cultures, transforming them and giving them
> back in a completely different way. So we launched this challenge of
> who would be the person who would reincorporate Creative Commons in
> Portuguese and come up with something that is meaningful. I called
> it "the challenge of the utererizacao" - I know this term is very
> weird, I will explain where it comes from. There is a famous hip hop
> song, where they say: "whoomp there it is, whoomp, there it is."
> Everybody knows it and it's very popular in Brazil. But we don't
> know as Portuguese speakers how to
> pronounce "whoomp, there it is." So Brazilians transformed it into
> "uuu-te-re-re", that sounds similar.
>
> Q: Does it mean anything?
>
> Nothing. It doesn't mean anything. And then I launched the challenge
> that said "we are not going to translate the license - if someone
> wants, please go ahead, find nicknames, find other words to refer to
> this license". Then the minister of culture Gilberto Gil came with a
> definition that is called licen??a creativa, which means "creative
> license" - it was OK, but not that good... And then a guy from
> Salvador said: oh, in Portuguese Creative Commons phonetically
> sounds like "criei tive como" - "I created because I had how", and
> sometimes we adopt that. Because it's plain Portuguese and it has a
> similar meaning as the original license. So what I would suggest,
> I'm not sure, different cultures have different solutions, but take up
> this challenge, let people tell you how you should call it, invent
> nicknames - it makes people closer to the idea and they can reinvent the
> whole thing for
> you and can cooperate with you and become re-appropriating, which
> is for me the most important thing, how people can re-appropriate
> these ideas and recreate them. That happened in Brazil and it's
> really nice.
>
>
> Lawrence Lessig:
>
> Q: Talking about licences, the very name of the Creative Commons
> licenses is something that derived from, and is inherent to English
> language. It's hardly translatable because of the several layers of
> its meaning, especially the word common, but the very semantic
> value, or the spoken word value differs between the different
> languages. For example, in this region of Slavic languages, it's
> pretty hard to be pronounced and it is pretty hard for me to imagine
> fifty-something civil servant issuing a statement and saying that
> they would licence public announcements on Creative Commons
> Attribution version 3.01. So, have you ever considered keeping
> Creative Commons movement branded as Creative Commons, but giving licenses
> some catchy 2.0 name, like flickr, google, digg ??? something which
> doesn't mean anything, but is easy to be pronnounced in different
> languages and easy to be remembered,
> and not in need of any translation at all?
>
> We think about this all the time. We thought about it when we
> launched the licences for the first time, giving the licences
> particular brand names. And so that continues to be something we think
> about. The particular issue of how to translate the commons is both an
> opportunity and a problem. It's a problem because there's not going to
> be any good translation and you shouldn't imagine that even within
> English people understand what it means. I mean, it's an obscure
> idea, especially in the United States, so we have always thought
> from the very beginning, it was an education process, and that is an
> opportunity with it. As you try to get people focus on what it is
> this means, they think more clearly about the world that's around
> them, they begin to recognize important assets in their culture that
> are in the commons technically ??? parks and roads, and culture and
> holidays, those are components
> of the commons and that everybody experiences whether they have a
> word for it or not. Now, we are open to finding simpler ways to
> express the ideas, what's happened is not really by our intention.
> But what's happened is that the icons have become a kind of
> universal expressions. So BY-NC, of course you have to know
> something to know what that means, but as a tag that goes with
> certain licences it is understandable. Where we see government
> institutions beginning to adopt the licences, they are very precise about
> what kind of licence they are trying to adopt.
>
>
>
> pozdrav,
> vlidi.
>
>
>
> On 11/21/07, Bon Edi <edibon AT eunet.yu> wrote:
> Sad jedan predlog... U duh naseg jezika je da se imena ne prevode.
> Dakle, kao
> sto se ne prevodi ime grada New York, tako ne treba prevoditi
> imena licenci
> "Creative Commons" ili "Share Alike"... Prosto, prevode se
> objasnjenja koja se
> odnose na ovaj naziv, pa i nema potrebe da se prave zabune
> unosenjema ovih
> prevoda.
> Ja bi pre da vise raspravimo o stvarima tipa "attribution", sto u
> stvari treba
> da se odnosi ne na "autorstvo", vec na "navodjenje ili
> naznacavanje autorstva"
> sto u sustini i nije ba ista stvar... Zato predlazem da se nekako
> uvedu
> definicije stvari na pocetku same licence, pa ako se dogovorimo
> oko nekog
> naziva
> koji i nije bas u potpunosti precizan, da ga onda definisemo negde
> u okviru
> licence, i posle se pozivanjem na to zna tacno na sta se misli...
>
> Edi
>
> Quoting apascg <apascg AT EUnet.yu>:
>
>> Pozdrav,
>>
>> Izvinjavam se sto komentar stize poslednji dan.
>>
>> Komentar je pre svega dat sa aspekta pravnog znacenja pojedinih
>> izraza.
>>
>> 1. U uvodnom delu u prvom pasusu umesto reci raspolaganje vise
>> odgovara izraz
>> koriscenje. Raspolaganje je pre sinonim za prenos vlasnistva, a u
>> ovom
>> slucaju se ne radi o tome.
>>
>> 2. komentar definicije pod 1.c. Distribucija. Predlog:
>> Distribucija je
>> cinjenje javnosti dostupnim primeraka originala ili kopija Dela
>> ili
>> Adaptacije na odgovarajuci nacin, prodajom ili drugim oblikom
>> prenosa svojine
>> na primerku. (razlog je cinjenica da se distribucija uvek odnosi
>> na tzv.
>> robne primerke tipa: knjiga, DVD i da se neki izuzeci primenjuju
>> iskljucivo u
>> slucaju kada se delo stavlja u promet kao roba a ne kao usluga.
>> Zato bi ovo
>> trebalo pojasniti. )
>>
>> 3. Definicija 1d ima najvise veze i sa komentarom prevoda CC,
>> odnosno
>> potrebom prevodjenja. Cini mi se da je sustina izraza
>> Autorstvo
>> (Attribution) u stvari stvaralacki doprinos (na) Delu ili
>> Adaptaciji
>> (mogucnost da se stvaralastvo ne ogranici monopolom, vec da se
>> ostavi
>> otvorenom za dalje stvaralastvo. ) Predlog: Elementi licence
>> su.... i koje su
>> sadrzane u nazivu licence: doprinos stvaralstvu, nekomercijalna
>> upotreba i
>> dozvola daljeg koriscenja pod istim uslovima. Znam da deluje malo
>> duze, i
>> jeste, ali cini mi se da odrazava smisao. Za ShareAlike bih i
>> sama volela da
>> nadjem bolji predlog, ali trenutno ga nemam. Ne radi se o podeli
>> sa jednom
>> osobom, radi se o mogucnosti da se delo dalje prosledjuje ne radi
>> zaradjivanja, vec radi nesputanog stvaralastva. Volela bih da
>> cujem srecniji
>> predlog za ShareAlike. Nemam ga trenutno.
>>
>> 4. Prevod definicije 1f je jedini moguci u nasem pravu. Samo
>> fizicko lice
>> moze da bude autor, jer samo fizicko lice (covek, ne firma ) ima
>> mogucnost
>> duhovnog stvaralastva. Ovaj prevod koji nam je dostavljen je uzi
>> od
>> originala, ali doslovan prevod na nas jezik bio bi netacan.
>>
>>
>> 5. Definicija dela je malo suzena u odnosu na engleski tekst, a
>> nema razloga
>> za oprez kao kod definicije originalnog autora pod 1. f. Predlog:
>> Delo znaci
>> literarno i/ili umetnicko delo koje se nudi pod uslovima ove
>> licence, bez
>> obzira na formu (oblik) u kojoj je delo izrazeno, ukljucujuci i
>> digitalnu
>> fomru dela kao sto su:knjiga, pamflet i druga pisana dela-
>> predavanja, ..
>>
>> Sve sto je navedeno u engleskom jeziku je ukljuceno i u nas
>> zakon. Medjutim,
>> bitno je naglasniti i digitalni oblik.
>>
>> Sto se tice izvodjenja i fonograma (interpretacija u
>> nasem pravu), ono je
>> u nasem pravu (i u kontinentalnom odnosno pravu EU) srodno pravo
>> (prava
>> posebnih korisnika autorskih dela, cija je privredna ili
>> profesionalna
>> delatnost zasnovana na koriscenju autorskih dela). Autorsko delo
>> i predmet
>> srodnog prava (interpretacija, fonogram, emisija, baza podataka,
>> videogram)
>> su dve razlicite kategorije. (nisu nikako copyrightable work,
>> potpuno je
>> druga pravna kategorija)
>>
>> Da bi se prevod ucinio prihvaljivim u nasem pravu, predlog kraja
>> definicije
>> dela je sledeci:
>> U smislu ove licence upodobljavaju se autorskom delu i
>> interpretacija ,
>> fonogram i baza podataka- kao prava srodna autorskom a priznata
>> u domacem
>> pravu:
>>
>> 6. I kod definicije javnog saopstavanja treba imati u vidu
>> razliku izmedju
>> americkog i naseg (preuzetog iz prava Evropske unije) sistema. I
>> cinjenicu da
>> nase pravo razlikuje kao dva oblika izvodjenje i predstavljanje
>> dela
>> (kriterijum razlike je da li je u pitanju scensko delo ili ne).
>> Predlog: Javno saopstavati znaci izvoditi delo neposredno pred
>> publikom ili
>> komunicirati delom sa publikom na bilo koji nacin, uklju;ujuci i
>> zicni i
>> bezicni prenos ili javni digitalni prenos; ciniti dostupnim delo
>> publici na
>> nacin da pojedinci mogu pristupiti delu u vreme i sa mesta koje
>> sami izaberu;
>> predstavljati delo publici na bilo koji nacin i bilo kojim
>> procesom i
>> saopstavati predstavu dela publici ukljucujuci i digitalno
>> izvodjenje,
>> emitovanje i reemitovanje dela bilo kojim znacima, zvucima ili
>> slikom.
>>
>> Javno saopstavanje mora da ukljucuje u definiciji dva oblika:
>> saopstavanje
>> ili komunikaciju (tzv. communication right), kao posebno pravo
>> sire od drugog
>> prava cinjenja dostupnim (making available). Ovo su dva oblika i
>> kod nas u
>> pravu. Ako se saopstavanje definise samo iinteraktivnim cinjenjem
>> ova dva
>> oblika (posebna u Direktivi o autorskom pravu u informativnom
>> drustvu koja je
>> iz 2000. i implementirana je, doduse sa problemima u Francuskoj,
>> u celoj
>> Evropi) se nece razlikovati. A morala bi.
>>
>> 7. Prevod clana dva je uspesan primer onoga sto sam ja pokusala
>> prethodnim
>> predlozima. Fair use je insistitut koji ne postoji u nasem pravu.
>> Tipicno
>> americki institut koji ima svoje uslove, ogranicenja.... Kod nas
>> se to svodi
>> na izraz koji je upotrebljen "ogranicenja autorskog prava" i u
>> skladu je sa
>> tekstom kojim se definise.
>>
>> Pozdrav
>> Verica Vukovic
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Nena Antic
>> To: Creative Commons Serbia
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: CC Serbia Debata o drugom nacrtu nacionalne CC
>> licence BY NC
>> SA3.0 14 - 21.11.07.
>>
>>
>> Naravno!
>>
>> Nena
>>
>> Milos Rancic < millosh AT lingvistika.org> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2007 3:55 AM, Nena Antic wrote:
>> > Skracenice BY, NC, SA...se prevode punim nazivom:
>> > BY - Autorstvo, NC - Nekomercijalno, SA - Deliti pod istim
>> uslovima
>>
>> Neno, koristi mala slova prilikom tipskih opisa licenci (ako
>> gde
>> treba). Znaci, BY-NC (ako gde treba to napisati tipski)
>> "autorstvo -
>> nekomercijalno".
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cc-rs mailing list
>> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cc-rs mailing list
>> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> it now.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-rs/attachments/20071122/a60f3c8d/attachment.htm
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-rs mailing list
> Cc-rs AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-rs
>
>
> End of Cc-rs Digest, Vol 6, Issue 8
> ***********************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHRixMkbN024ZV0z0RAgBiAKC2qXCE1fxGpPs6P6mEq9rd0Wbr4gCcDZVy
qT1qnmYuRsAEH8HlMj9QDUA=
=Ts9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page