Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Music sales not affected by piracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-03-2013, 19:03
ashtray88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,286

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

This is what I thought! I swear all the complaining was just a way for the evil record executives to take more money and give less to the artists and everyone else involved...
ashtray88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-03-2013, 21:44
TheBigBoy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Cragg Vale, West Yorkshire
Posts: 98
Online piracy has affected music sales, there is so many websites that offer free music, I have always paid for my music, I don't see why everybody else can't pay for music as well.

When music get's leaked all the time that will not help sales at all.
TheBigBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2013, 21:48
DRAGON LANCE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 848
Well that pretty much looks like clear conclusive proof then. Glad the BBC have chosen to report the findings of this report, up to the high standards I have come to expect from their website journalism these days. I think you can conclusively say from just 16,000 Europeans that is a big enough sample size to show how everybody in the world behaves. I'm sure all the former employees of various defunct record shops that have had to close since internet piracy started, ranging from small indie shops to Virgin, to (possibly) HMV will also agree with report.

It is really just a HUGE coincidence that record sales have gone down, down, deeper and down since internet piracy started, and that albums sell a fraction now compared to what they used to do.

Did I see that report was "sponsored by Pirate Bay?" Oh no my mistake!
DRAGON LANCE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2013, 22:34
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 943
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720

This is what I thought! I swear all the complaining was just a way for the evil record executives to take more money and give less to the artists and everyone else involved...

Do you expect to be taken seriously using phrases like "evil record executives" and not taking any notice of the more detailed response to those flawed findings which was also linked on the BBC page:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/..._March2013.pdf



Maybe you should add the words ""Report alleges that" to the start of the thread title.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2013, 23:36
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Avoiding Labour Law lecturers
Posts: 49,636
Online piracy has affected music sales, there is so many websites that offer free music, I have always paid for my music, I don't see why everybody else can't pay for music as well.

When music get's leaked all the time that will not help sales at all.
I always pay for mine as well unless there's a song I can't find anywhere on iTunes. I've had to rip songs from Youtube a few times but I'll never use any *ahem* websites that IT Law lecturers won't approve of If my lecturer found out he wouldn't be too pleased.
cnbcwatcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-2013, 23:58
rfonzo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,802
Perhaps, piracy does not impact upon sales so much now, as the industry has adjusted itself to the digital era through iTunes but in the early days it has certainly affected the music industry.
rfonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 00:48
Harper_Milne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,329
dude millions of songs are being illegally downloaded every month... just look at how much a number 1 has to sell now compared to 15 years ago. coincidence?
Harper_Milne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 01:34
ashtray88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,286
Well that pretty much looks like clear conclusive proof then. Glad the BBC have chosen to report the findings of this report, up to the high standards I have come to expect from their website journalism these days. I think you can conclusively say from just 16,000 Europeans that is a big enough sample size to show how everybody in the world behaves. I'm sure all the former employees of various defunct record shops that have had to close since internet piracy started, ranging from small indie shops to Virgin, to (possibly) HMV will also agree with report.

It is really just a HUGE coincidence that record sales have gone down, down, deeper and down since internet piracy started, and that albums sell a fraction now compared to what they used to do.

Did I see that report was "sponsored by Pirate Bay?" Oh no my mistake!
1. 16, 000 is a pretty big sample size

2. Those shops have been out competed by LEGAL online music sites like iTunes Amazon and supermarkets

3. A fraction is an exaggeration. The music industry is actually doing very well considering the economic climate.
ashtray88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 01:41
ashtray88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,286
Do you expect to be taken seriously using phrases like "evil record executives" and not taking any notice of the more detailed response to those flawed findings which was also linked on the BBC page:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/..._March2013.pdf
Well they are evil. All they care about is money and they will do anything and use anyone is anyway they want to get it.

It;s probably not accurate to say illegal file sharing has no effect on sales but the effect is clearly not as disastrous as certain people want it to be believed. The music industry itself still makes a lot of money. The effect is worse on independent stores and HMV but that is not wholly piracies fault either as I already mentioned.



Maybe you should add the words ""Report alleges that" to the start of the thread title.
Yeah, probably. I just copied the BBC title.
ashtray88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 01:58
ashtray88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,286
Did I see that report was "sponsored by Pirate Bay?" Oh no my mistake!
Where does it say that? It doesn't mention that in the report, so if that's true then I can accept there is a huge conflict of interest and the study is very likely to be biased.
ashtray88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 06:41
StratusSphere
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,189
I would say illegal downloading just makes you get more music as opposed to replacing.

Say, instead of saving up for that one single, youll buy that one single and an additional 5 older songs that you heard on the radio lately and want to add to your collection.

People didnt ALWAYS buy all of their music either. Ever hear of recording off the radio? My dad and aunt used to get ALL of their music that way on tapes. Illegal downloading is just similar to that in my view.
StratusSphere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 06:44
darkjedimaster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Deathstar
Posts: 12,697
Imho the music industry are equally to blame for the lack of sales, They keep on allowing little girls like Bieber, and autotuned idiots like 1D, to release records, not to mention the hideous dubstep. Yes I could well be classed as being a music snob, as I have only bought three top 20 albums & one top 10 single in the last couple of years, due to the amount of sh!t that is being released. The majority of the albums I purchase are bought from rock specialist stores as they are cheaper than the likes of HMV. If shops like HMV promoted new CD's from Rock genres like they do with 1D, then perhaps they may get a few more customers, as sticking a Rock CD in an import section & charging double sometimes almost triple when compared to a Top 20 release, is just not excusable.

Seriously tho, the top 40 music has gotten so bad over the years, that the Now Collections, died for me at the end of the 90's. If I listen to an album on Spotify & like it, then I will buy it & then rip it or download it, so that I can listen to it on my Phone / Tablet, PS3 or media center PC. But imho the majority of stuff released is that bad, that not only would I refuse to pay for it, I wouldn't even waste Hard Drive space on it.
darkjedimaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 08:05
my name is joe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In England
Posts: 4,010
Imho the music industry are equally to blame for the lack of sales, They keep on allowing little girls like Bieber, and autotuned idiots like 1D, to release records, not to mention the hideous dubstep. Yes I could well be classed as being a music snob, as I have only bought three top 20 albums & one top 10 single in the last couple of years, due to the amount of sh!t that is being released. The majority of the albums I purchase are bought from rock specialist stores as they are cheaper than the likes of HMV. If shops like HMV promoted new CD's from Rock genres like they do with 1D, then perhaps they may get a few more customers, as sticking a Rock CD in an import section & charging double sometimes almost triple when compared to a Top 20 release, is just not excusable.

Seriously tho, the top 40 music has gotten so bad over the years, that the Now Collections, died for me at the end of the 90's. If I listen to an album on Spotify & like it, then I will buy it & then rip it or download it, so that I can listen to it on my Phone / Tablet, PS3 or media center PC. But imho the majority of stuff released is that bad, that not only would I refuse to pay for it, I wouldn't even waste Hard Drive space on it.
mostly agree with you. What this research is saying is that the people who illegally download music are mostly those wouldn't have bought it otherwise...seems a reasonable conclusion to make. Just like someone who nicks a car wasn't likely to have bought it otherwise

There's a good reason why most older people think popular music has gone to the dogs, and it's not nostalgia, old fartism, or being out of touch, it's just straight up staring us in the face true!

If people want music enough, they'll still buy it. The industry needs to look at it's product before any other factors.
my name is joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 08:42
soullover
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,427
Of course it affects sales, never heard anything so stupid in all my life.
People that download don't buy, end of. Are to assume that all these downloaders would not have ever bought any music???
soullover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 09:01
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,000
dude millions of songs are being illegally downloaded every month... just look at how much a number 1 has to sell now compared to 15 years ago. coincidence?
Sales are higher now than 15 years ago (not necessarily for the #1s, but for the chart overall they're the highest EVER).

I do think music piracy has affected sales though. I don't know anybody that legally downloads music. I can't even think of one person. My age group in general don't have the money really. And with the money they do have, they'd prefer to spend it on things such as video games, partying, etc. Every week I'm discovering dozens of new songs which I like, I can't pay for that. My friends that have 30,000 songs on their phone or whatever, how could they ever possibly afford that? They'd struggle to even pay for 1% of their music.

But, of course, there's many legal ways to listen to music without paying 79p per song to download. I listen to a lot of music on Spotify, and pay 4.99 a month. Now, that is something I CAN afford. If I was legally downloading every song I wanted to listen to, I'd be spending that much a DAY.

People used to pay thousands a year on music in the past I assume, but it's not like that anymore. Singles used to cost 5.99 or whatever sometimes, but nobody is going to pay that anymore, except maybe the 40+ years olds that are well off.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 09:08
Elphie_Lives
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 4,176
Sales are higher now than 15 years ago (not necessarily for the #1s, but for the chart overall they're the highest EVER).

I do think music piracy has affected sales though. I don't know anybody that legally downloads music. I can't even think of one person. My age group in general don't have the money really. And with the money they do have, they'd prefer to spend it on things such as video games, partying, etc. Every week I'm discovering dozens of new songs which I like, I can't pay for that. My friends that have 30,000 songs on their phone or whatever, how could they ever possibly afford that? They'd struggle to even pay for 1% of their music.

But, of course, there's many legal ways to listen to music without paying 79p per song to download. I listen to a lot of music on Spotify, and pay 4.99 a month. Now, that is something I CAN afford. If I was legally downloading every song I wanted to listen to, I'd be spending that much a DAY.

People used to pay thousands a year on music in the past I assume, but it's not like that anymore. Singles used to cost 5.99 or whatever sometimes, but nobody is going to pay that anymore, except maybe the 40+ years olds that are well off.
In contrast to that I can't think of anyone that illegally downloads music.

I don't doubt that people are downloading illegally but of the people I know they all use iTunes/Amazon or buy actual CDs/Vinyl depending on what they listen to.
Elphie_Lives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 11:01
toanythingtaboo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,905
I feel "not affected" is a pretty bold claim that I just can't imagine is true.

However, this;

"It seems that the majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them," wrote the researchers in their report"

Is a valid point for the most part. Our disposable culture means people download music that they only sort of like, are testing out, is a guilty pleasure or may just fancy having on iTunes for whatever reason despite not listening it. You wouldn't be doing that so carelessly if you had to pay, so a lot of downloads probably aren't replacing legit sales.
toanythingtaboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 12:22
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 716
Imho the music industry are equally to blame for the lack of sales, They keep on allowing little girls like Bieber, and autotuned idiots like 1D to release records, not to mention the hideous dubstep. Yes I could well be classed as being a music snob, as I have only bought three top 20 albums & one top 10 single in the last couple of years, due to the amount of sh!t that is being released. The majority of the albums I purchase are bought from rock specialist stores as they are cheaper than the likes of HMV.
The music business is primarily there to make money. If the kids want to throw their dosh at Bieber, 1D and the like it's their prerogative.In the last 20 years the music scene has become a lot more ephemeral.The undelying problem is that most kids just aren't that interested in musical worth any longer The stuff they 'listen to' is used more for background noise rather than something to be genuinely appreciated like what was on offer 30/40 years ago..It's like having the tv switched on in the background, but nobody's really watching it or taking in what's being viewed.

If the musical taste iof the masses mproved then the record companies would be happy to put out albums to reflect that as they still do to a certain extent..So not exactly the music industry's fault.
FrankBT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 12:28
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 943
Well they are evil. All they care about is money and they will do anything and use anyone is anyway they want to get it.

It;s probably not accurate to say illegal file sharing has no effect on sales but the effect is clearly not as disastrous as certain people want it to be believed. The music industry itself still makes a lot of money. The effect is worse on independent stores and HMV but that is not wholly piracies fault either as I already mentioned.

You could flip that around and say that all the illegal downloaders care about is getting something for nothing. That's pure self-interest just as much as the major label guys who only care about the money and are thus 'evil'.

Now I say ''major label guys'' for a reason. Don't forget there are small (and tiny) players as well as huge ones in this collectively termed 'industry' - but the file uploaders don't discriminate, liking to see themselves as Robin Hoods, simply liberating music for da people and sticking it to the man.

This is bullshit of course because they don't only upload out-of-print music that is languishing in labels' vaults when it could have been re-released; they upload promos of new material BEFORE it is released. That's not going to damage sales?! Also, those file hosts they often use have affilate programs where uploaders can earn money from their files being downloaded ie. 'their' files which actually comprise of someone else's intellectual property rights. So the owner of the music earns nothing but the robber gets paid.

Some of those who help themselves to these illicit uploads leave comments about the "evils of the music industry" and how music should be free and for everyone. These people are idiots, collectively trying to feel good about destroying something they supposedly enjoy and even care about. Music recording and production can cost anything from very little to huge amounts and it is how those involved earn their wages. The end product is sold to people for their entertainment. They may hear it on the radio or in a club (promotion) but a personal copy for access at any time is a product that is for sale just like any other product.

If a person created some PC software, or a mobile phone app or some engineering blueprints I'm sure most people would not think it was ok for another person to lift this work and exploit it for their profit, yet, on the internet people 'lift' whatever they want because they can, with no regard to the rights or wrongs of the situation. It's not that much different from walking though a caved in shop window and lifting any gadgets you fancy from the premises, saying to yourself that their insurance will cover it.

Major labels have huge stars who make a fortune despite piracy but they also have the more mediocre selling artists as well as their smaller subsidiary imprints devoted to more specialist activity, such as reissuing their historical recordings. Indie labels can be anything from a one-man operation upwards. Some labels do pressing runs as small as a few hundred copies. These faceless internet "heroes" upload ALL music indiscriminately and directly impact the little guys in exactly the same way as the multi-national corporations and it's these 'little guys' who are far more likely to go out of business as a result of ever-shrinking sales and no big selling pop stars to offset it.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 13:24
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 943
I do think music piracy has affected sales though. I don't know anybody that legally downloads music. I can't even think of one person. My age group in general don't have the money really. And with the money they do have, they'd prefer to spend it on things such as video games, partying, etc. Every week I'm discovering dozens of new songs which I like, I can't pay for that. My friends that have 30,000 songs on their phone or whatever, how could they ever possibly afford that? They'd struggle to even pay for 1% of their music.
Let me challenge some of that. It's not necessarily that your age group prefer to spend the limited money they have on video games, partying etc., it's likely to be that way for a different reason and I'll get to that later after some personal rambling. Is music really so unimportant to the youth that they would do without it completely?

It was the most important thing to me as a teenager in the 80's trying to stretch a little money by walking instead of using the bus so that I could buy an extra 7" single from the shop that had what I wanted at the best price. There was so much music I would have loved to have been able to buy and loads of stuff that I didn't know anything about at all but looking at it in the shop aroused my curiosity but what can you do? You're not working; you haven't a chance of building a big collection in a little time.
I'd have some cassettes of The John Peel Show and some of The Ranking Miss P's reggae show (my illegal downloads ) and I'd try to buy the tracks I wanted the most on vinyl when I had the cash.

Now, I'm still the same. Still buying music, on CD as well as vinyl and despite what I wrote in a previous post, I've copies of music on CD-R and things that have been downloaded that can't be bought now on vinyl or CD, or at least, can only be bought secondhand, often for big money, which benefits the record dealer but not the artist or label. So, as a teenager I had to buy records unless I was content with tapes of radio shows. I wasn't; I've always loved the physical product ...

Now for the young who maybe have no attachment to the physical product because they never had the experience of collecting it - back to this:

Is music really so unimportant to the youth that they would do without it completely? I don't think so.

Most of us have limited funds for recreational purchases and have to make choices. You can't download some new jeans or dress or a pint of lager, or a free pass into a club, or a nice set of alloy wheels for your car, or some grooming products or make-up but with the leaps in technology since the 90's, music, film and printed work are property that is very hard to protect so I don't think it's the case that people PREFER to buy other things; many are happy to be able to take (appropriate) whole libraries of music for nothing.

With downloading being the norm, I've no idea how people can be persuaded to BUY an mp3 file if they are in the habit of acquiring them for nothing! Like I said I have a love of the physical product and the only think that stops me is funds; an mp3 rip of an album wouldn't take it off my 'wants list'.

I don't expect that people who acquire music illicitly are going to stop but all I could urge is this:

If you respect an artist or band's musical integrity, if you love what a particular label (probably a specialist one) issues or if you acquire a lot of music by artists who are not "getting rich" at least urge your friends to show a least some financial support to people who's work they love and who may not be earning what they deserve.

Of course there are many barely talented multi-millionaires in the charts who don't need our money and the music biz would hate me for saying that - but there are people who deserve our support as well.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 13:36
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 32,878
Sales are higher now than 15 years ago (not necessarily for the #1s, but for the chart overall they're the highest EVER).

I do think music piracy has affected sales though. I don't know anybody that legally downloads music. I can't even think of one person. My age group in general don't have the money really. And with the money they do have, they'd prefer to spend it on things such as video games, partying, etc. Every week I'm discovering dozens of new songs which I like, I can't pay for that. My friends that have 30,000 songs on their phone or whatever, how could they ever possibly afford that? They'd struggle to even pay for 1% of their music.

But, of course, there's many legal ways to listen to music without paying 79p per song to download. I listen to a lot of music on Spotify, and pay 4.99 a month. Now, that is something I CAN afford. If I was legally downloading every song I wanted to listen to, I'd be spending that much a DAY.

People used to pay thousands a year on music in the past I assume, but it's not like that anymore. Singles used to cost 5.99 or whatever sometimes, but nobody is going to pay that anymore, except maybe the 40+ years olds that are well off.
So you are actually paying for some of your music, just paying for streaming rather than downloads, though Spotify let you have downloads too on some of their tiers.

I didn't buy that many CDs (or tapes) when I was younger either. I just recorded stuff off the radio. I also didn't have a lot of money, being a student and all.

Things really haven't changed as much as the music industry tries to make out.
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 14:15
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Avoiding Labour Law lecturers
Posts: 49,636
People didnt ALWAYS buy all of their music either. Ever hear of recording off the radio? My dad and aunt used to get ALL of their music that way on tapes. Illegal downloading is just similar to that in my view.
I probably shouldn't admit to this but I used to copy music from CDs to tapes. I once copied some songs from a friend's Now CD to a tape. I still know how to do it
cnbcwatcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 14:31
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 6,995
I think as always with these things the real truth lies somewhere in the middle!

There is no doubt that for some genres of music illegal file sharing does affect sales. for example we are constantly told how hugely popular urban music and dance music is, but their CD sales would beg to differ!

However for a genre like Rock music it seems sales have held up pretty well in terms of physical sales and any drop in physical sales is more than compensated by digital sales.

As for the demise of the high street record shops, much of that was of their own making, For someone who listens to non-mainstream music like me the likes of HMV is the last place I would ever consider going as the likelihood of them having what I want if I were to go in would be roughly zero and if they did have it it is likely to be called an "import" and priced accordingly! Give me online any time..
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 18:22
maninthequeue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,292
To the OP:

You are factually talking complete and utter rubbish.

In pure financial figures not adjusted for inflation, Global Music Sales in 1999 was $38.0 billion. Between 2000 & 2011 total sales declined year on year until 2012 saw sales have their first rise in 13 years up to $16.5 billion.

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...ase-since-1999
http://www.businessinsider.com/these...ndustry-2011-2
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...usic_industry/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...sic-sales-2010


Hence in 2012 the global sales revenue (CDs; legal downloads; legal streaming sites) of the music industry was 43.4% what it was in 1999. (Not accounting for the fact the G8 countries inflation rate rose by 65.8% between 1999-2012 further significantly eroding the financial worth of the music industry. Hence in Real terms accounting for inflation, music sales generated a third to what they did in 1999!

Are you seriously telling me that illegal internet downloads and file sharing sites were not responsible for this monumental collapse in music sales over this period?
maninthequeue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2013, 18:58
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 32,878
To the OP:

You are factually talking complete and utter rubbish.

In pure financial figures not adjusted for inflation, Global Music Sales in 1999 was $38.0 billion. Between 2000 & 2011 total sales declined year on year until 2012 saw sales have their first rise in 13 years up to $16.5 billion.

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/st...ase-since-1999
http://www.businessinsider.com/these...ndustry-2011-2
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...usic_industry/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...sic-sales-2010


Hence in 2012 the global sales revenue (CDs; legal downloads; legal streaming sites) of the music industry was 43.4% what it was in 1999. (Not accounting for the fact the G8 countries inflation rate rose by 65.8% between 1999-2012 further significantly eroding the financial worth of the music industry. Hence in Real terms accounting for inflation, music sales generated a third to what they did in 1999!

Are you seriously telling me that illegal internet downloads and file sharing sites were not responsible for this monumental collapse in music sales over this period?
The report shows that those of us who attacked the music (and you can include TV and film in there too) industry for its slow adoption of the internet were totally justified in saying that this was the main reason that piracy did the damage it did. It wasn't that stuff was free, it was that people had no other option than free if they wanted music downloads for far too many years.

Now that paid for music services are far more common, this study shows that people are using them and piracy is now mostly limited to those who wouldn't have paid for the stuff anyway.

Apparently, Game of Thrones is the most pirated series around the world. Why is that? Could it perhaps be that your only option to watch it in most countries is to wait for the box sets? Make paid for downloads available around the world and most of that piracy would vanish.
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:04.