Have You Seen Our Wedding Training System?

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Insights & Thoughts

Adobe Files Suit Against Forever 21 For Piracy – Autodesk & Corel Become Co-Plaintiffs

By Kishore Sawh on January 30th 2015

adobe-photoshop-piracy-corel-aitodesk-forever21-sucks-photography-slrlounge-2

What does it mean when a multi-billion dollar company allegedly ignores legal boundaries of copyright of a software company and widely uses and distributes pirated software within their business? Well a lawsuit, for one, but more importantly what does the dismissal say about the photographic/creative industry on a whole? More on that later.

Thus far, Adobe Systems Inc, has accused the retail monster that is Forever 21 of unlawful reproduction and distribution of certain Adobe software products, and filed suit. Interestingly, it seems Adobe has claimed that they even warned Forever 21 on the matter; a warning, it seems, Forever 21 would’ve done well to heed. The programs in question seem to be limited to Photoshop, Acrobat, and Illustrator, but the suit isn’t limited to only Adobe – Autodesk and Corel have become co-plaintiffs claiming that Forever 21:

  1. copied and reproduced certain of the Adobe Products, Autodesk Products, and Corel Products;
  2. and circumvented technological measures that effectively control access to the Adobe Products, Autodesk Products, and Corel Products (collectively, the ‘Access Control Technology’).

(See full documentation here)

The companies filing suit have filed for the court to issue an injunction for compensation to cover lost revenue, court costs, and of course all manners of additional damages. It also appears Adobe has significant documentation on the violations, though it seems unclear as to how. It’s also not a stretch to believe that the suit will go in favor of Adobe, especially given the scale of revenue generation by Forever 21 which was just shy of $4 billion USD in 2014.

adobe-photoshop-piracy-corel-aitodesk-forever21-sucks-photography-slrlounge-1

With a bankroll like that, you’d think a few thousand dollars, even ten or twenty would be like trifle – not even enough to go over the books should the balance sheet not balance. They’d be able to pay that, set a good example, and avoid a lawsuit and bad faith, and still do the Scrooge McDuck swim through their vast amount of coin.

Thoughts For Photography…

While I personally can’t see anyone defending Forever 21 other than those hired to do so – what may be more interesting than the suit is what their utter dismissal of copyright indicates about views towards the creative industry.

Undervalued, is the term that comes to mind. And irrelevant. It’s so frustrating that these massive companies view the creative and photographic world and its members as non-essential and inconsequential in today’s world. The New York Times just posted images to their front page that they plucked from Instagram, without permission; my images are being used by a camera retailer to sell their gear without my permission, yours too probably; and the list of these stories goes on so long it would make War & Peace look like a Haiku. So when a huge company does something like this, it just seems to re-enforce the idea that this field is there to take advantage of.

When did photography and its creative associations become so insignificant? How can this be combated? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below.

About

A photographer and writer based in Miami, he can often be found at dog parks, and airports in London and Toronto. He is also a tremendous fan of flossing and the happiest guy around when the company’s good.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Graham Curran

    I wonder how Forever 21 would feel about people ripping off their designs?

    | |
  2. robert garfinkle

    Speaking of copyright / piracy – to which yes, Forever 21 did violate license agreements, but what is and what is not piracy? Like the new Katy Perry “Left Shark” scandal. Where someone created a 3D printable likeness of a costume (btw – you can google “left shark sosa”) to which you can download, and print?

    Now, that is a likeness, and not “the” costume – yet Katy Perry’s lawyers are barking intellectual property violations on shark costumes beach balls and palm trees. what gives? when is it legit…

    | |
    • John Sheehan

      Katy Perry and/or her company own the likeness of the Left Shark, and that means no one can make a copy of it without their permission. It’s not really hard to understand. DC Comics owns Batman, so you can’t make anything in the likeness of Batman and sell it (it happens, but it’s against the law). I don’t understand your point or your confusion on this.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      Here’s the deal. I get it, no argument here – but, let me refer to a similar case, Apple vs. Samsung, the S3 (or S4, can’t remember exactly which one)… There is no way the S3 (or S4) looks like or smells like an iPhone, none – and Apple going after Samsung because Apple took a hit in sales – in my opinion, too bad for Apple. And for Apple to sue Samsung, is ridiculous and infantile, it’s the nature of competition…

      Now, I’ll be clear, yes, the person who rifled off a likeness of the shark does have a problem, did he infringe, I suppose he did, right?

      point here – one in the form of a question, restated, when is it not infringement? People could come out with something similar, or a generic shark, and those lawyers would not have a leg to stand on – you can’t go after a concept. likeness, yes, but a generic / general concept NO!!

      For example, if I came out with a shark costume or a beach ball costume – generic and just put it out on the web for sale – even two days after the event, with no reference to left shark, I would still expect those lawyers to send me a letter, and I’d tell them to stuff it… The closest a judge / jury could come to, maybe, was to say that the timing in which I brought out my product was coincidental to left shark etc, that’s it…

      I tried many years ago to patent an invention, I made a light that plugged into the gameboy (if we all remember that thing), as people could not play it in the dark, yet I could not receive a patent because it would effectively be like trying to patent a light bulb, and you could not do that…

      a few months later, a manufacturer, Nuby, came out with something similar to my product, yet I could not prove they stole it…

      | |
    • John Sheehan

      Apple vs Samsung was a case about Patents, not copyright infringement. The Samsung phone may not look like an iPhone, but it’s not a cosmetic issue, it’s an issue of the technology that is used under the hood, so to speak. My Canon 6D looks nothing like my wife’s point-and-shoot, but they both have similar technology inside. If I remember, Apple won the first round and it’s in appeal right now.

      As for the Left Shark, if you came out with a shark costume after the Super Bowl that was different in color and design, then Kay Perry couldn’t do anything. The issue with the guy that got him in hot water was he produced a nearly identical copy of the Left Shark, right down to the number of teeth. The shark in the Perry performance wasn’t generic, it had unique visual qualities that makes it protected under copyright. You’re hung up on that word “generic”. The Katy Perry shark may look generic to you, but it’s not.

      Now I don’t know anything about your Game Boy light case, so I can’t speak to that. I know at the time many people came out with lights for the Game Boy (Nyco, Nuby, Interact), and all used similar technology that had been around for years. The problem you had may have been there was nothing unique about the device you were trying to patent. A light bulb connected to a power source is not something I think you can patent. Nuby (and this is from memory) went for a patent not based on the light, but for their non-glare screen.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      Thanks for catching me up on all that.

      | |
  3. Scott Pacaldo

    my opinion on this is that, stealing is stealing no matter how you see it. also my main concern of why I commented is that, please slr lounge improve your commenting system xD we’ve been seeing spam(fortunately none on this article) also, it would be nice to see if who replied to who. like an automatic “@mention” when you click on reply and that you can reply on someone’s reply. thanks! just my opinion. Interesting views from everyone. now, my popcorn…

    | |
  4. Riley Johnson

    I’m lucky enough to say that although I am a student and probably couldn’t afford the suite of Adobe products, I’m able to because I work at my University. My university allows us to purchase a $10 voucher, with full creative rights, that we then submit through Adobe’s activation system. This gives us a years worth of Creative Cloud, Behance, and cloud storage.

    It’s pretty lucky in fact because if I weren’t a employee, I would have to pay the $240 per year that a student would normally pay.

    | |
  5. Jill Schindel

    Where’s that Michael Jackson with the bucket of popcorn meme when you need it? I find this conversation fascinating :). Not that it matters, but I’m siding with the anti-piracy folks on this one.

    As for the article, it amazes me that a successful corporation took pains to illegally access and distribute these products. I imagine this will not end well for F21.

    | |
  6. John Sheehan

    When I was a computer programmer, I got thrown into the role of network administrator (among others) when we had a mass exodus from the company. One of my jobs in the role I wasn’t trained for was to make sure all our software licenses were up to date for what we used. To my horror, and the horror of the owner, most of our licenses had lapsed and the person before me not only knew it (he deleted the emails from the companies on his computer, but not from our servers) he did nothing about it. We paid a hefty amount to get that mess cleared up.

    This isn’t to defend Forever 21 (a company I never heard of until today), but I can see how this could get lost in the shuffle. If the company is as big as the article says, there should (stress “SHOULD”) be oversight to prevent what happened at my company. Still, it doesn’t absolve the company of it’s legal obligation and it’s not a defense in a court of law.

    | |
  7. Brandon Silvera

    Im somewhere in that line to get sued

    | |
  8. Dave Smith

    Well Peter, Who else is up there with Adobe photoshop with a like product? Um, NO ONE that makes them a monopoly or close to it. Therefore they charge what they want for the software, that’s an anti trust problem to gouge customers. Because of their pricing scheme, you seem to think all photographers can afford their never ending pricing cycle, it is the #1 pirated soft by some accounts. I feel nothing for Adobe who hammers people because there really is no place else to go, if there were people would flee Adobe in a heart beat.

    | |
    • Peter McWade

      Then I say let them come build a better product. Its not the only product available. But its the best one available. So your justified because it happens to be expensive and you don’t like that?

      Its not an ANTITRUST issue. Sorry. And yes in an open free market they can and do charge what they want. So what. Its their product.

      So don’t buy the product. I guess you can go steal it like Forever 21. I guess your justified.

      The only reason people and myself would flee Adobe is if someone made a better product. If someone did I guarantee it would cost more than Adobe.

      End

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      I happen to very much side with Peter here… in the neighborhood of 200%

      I will make the assumption that we are all artists here in this forum, in one aspect or another… Adding a bit of joke to the seriousness for a moment, I am not sure that I can call any of my images “art” per se :)

      But, let that not distract from the point. I am a web developer too… and that is “code”, and in that sense I am an artist; hence, a “creator”, to which both art forms (application development and photography) can be spoken about under one umbrella. both yield products which are copyrightable and usually contain a contract of some form or another to which describe usage (i.e. licensing), as well as a price tag. btw – licensing and terms of usage accompany a copyright or patent as an added layer of protection; protecting “you” – the artist.

      What I’m trying to say is, as artists, you’d think we’d fully understand out of our own experiences and respect the contexts and deliverance of terms, as well as price, because we participate in those activities.

      to further that; sequestering hypocrisy, we’d not be guilty of licensure violations ourselves (using other’s products) when we have to enforce that upon others to one degree or another with our products (images / code)…

      Trust me when I say to David S, I completely understand, as a code developer “knowing” what goes on behind the 1’s and 0’s and could very much justify every byte of disdain for some people who “overcharge” for their products. I could land that “rule” of mine onto Microsoft windows too, in which Microsoft usually takes 3 attempts to “get it right”, at our expense that’s an out of pocket, let’s see (at full retail) $199.00 times 3, oh, that’s a hair under $600.00 not including tax… that’s in the same rough neighborhood of Adobe’s 699.00 for Photoshop…

      But to not distract my thought process and point here, to look at the sole physical or intellectual output “the product itself” (the 1’s and 0’s) and pass judgment on those who create / sell it, would be rather narrow minded without the blinders on, as we are not taking into account the other factors of the product.

      Let’s see, I’m gonna take a weak stab here, but say that Adobe, probably employs close to 20,000 creative mouths to feed, has offices around the world, serves up it’s product in a multitude of languages – not just seen in the product but has to provide web / phone support in those same languages, support their cloud architecture, has to ensure their product works on computing platforms that date back at least 10 years and has to think about it working on computers not even built / designed yet… And keep their lights on! Dang, they are probably selling it for too little, are they losing money? Oh, yeah, they gotta have some legal counsel handy for protection from people who steal it… had to mention that..

      But to pepper my commentary with some of Peter’s thoughts, what if we found out, that Photoshop was dished out by one person, who had only his / her small family to feed; would he or she be less deserved to ask $699.00 for it because in someone else’s mind it was too much money for them to pay that price… What kind of thinking is that…

      and Peter throws in – you always have the right to not buy it, not agree to terms… btw – those are Adobe’s terms, I am more than sure you have terms which protect you, just like I do, and you enforce those. What would you tell the person who just does not like your terms or price?

      – last point, then I’ll go.

      My jaw dropped on the ground when I found out my sister in law charged $350.00 / hour for her photography. Gosh, I thought my $125.00 / hour for IT consulting was a bit elevated yet fair… But who was I to be the judge of that. How could I compare those apples and oranges…

      Oh, shoot, that was not my point but had to throw it in anyway…

      I do charge $125.00 / hour for setting up servers, workstations, fixing printers, deciding where network cables go, setting up internet past the router, and in 99% of the cases I walk in to an office with jeans, sneakers, and just my brain – education backed mind you, gotta pay for that, right? but usually, my tool, is just my brain.

      As a matter of fact, the $125.00 / hour is a low-end-of-the-scale rate. I have seen consultant’s walk in to an office with Armani suits charging $500.00 / hour, yet at the end of the day the same job is done. Are they thieves, with brains?

      But, am I a thief because I walk in with my brain as a tool? Or do I have to carry around $15,000.00 worth of photographic equipment to justify my rate….

      and maybe after all that – this is my point. Should I complain about your services as a photographer, because if I think about it, why would I want to pay a photographer all that money because my image lands on a CF or SD card which is used over and over again, I mean by gosh, it’s not film…

      Or, do I just accept your price (or not…) and trust that you and I have a fairly traded transaction which has taken place, without questioning as to why or how you came to the rates you charge…

      seller beware…

      | |
    • John Cavan

      You justify your thievery because you can’t afford their price? You’re still a thief.

      | |
    • John Cavan

      I’ll add to that… Any photographer who thinks their rights to their images should be respected while pirating Adobe’s software is an utter hypocrite. This is completely black and white, there’s no grey are on this one.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      I agree w / John –

      I mean think of it this way. Would you like if someone took your software or images without paying? – I will put one constraint to your answer, you cannot reply with “I would never think of charging what Adobe does…”, because it does not answer the question.

      | |
    • Ralph Hightower

      21 can download Adobe Photoshop V1.0. I think Adobe published the source code for Photoshop 1.0 to the web.

      | |
    • Dave Smith

      Well Peter please explain why, when Walmart wanted to drastically lower their fuel prices , make it their loss leader to draw in customers did the government come in and stomp on them with antitrust threats? Clearly under your thinking they can charge what they want, they are not the only player in the fuel field by a long shot. So yes Adobe hammering customers because they are really the only player in the field is Antitrust. Yes it’s a free market, but no you can’t monopolize it and then charge what you want. If you could really charge what you wanted then people wouldn’t be fined for price gouging during bad storms. After all it is the stores product, there is a need for it and people will pay the gouging prices. For the bashers No I don’t have a pirated version of PS. My Job supplies us with it because the employees can’t afford it.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      Adobe has subscriptions now, which is an affordable option. Though I am not a fan of software-as-a-service, for many reasons, other’s do think it’s the way to go..

      for $9.99 / month / person you can have Lightroom and Photoshop (the photographer’s package)

      Having said that, the discussion ends more or less, as to the high price of their software. Yes, buying it outright still exists, and at the same price. But, a $9.99 subscription not only distributes that cost, consider it an open ended rental deal, with two very nice features about it – as long as you pay. 1. No such thing as an upgrade anymore – as long as you pay the monthly rental fee, you are eligible for all upgrades in which others, who pay full price, have to pay the upgrade fee, and 2. it’s good because companies can easily add / remove users, at will pretty much, without a big out-of-pocket expense…

      So, regardless of Adobe’s tactics, which really should have never been brought up for discussion – as it is not relevant here, Forever 21 could easily afford the $9.99, right? And if litigation were done right, maybe a fairly traded “fine” for the license violation should be equivalent to the number of months, times the number of users, times the monthly subscription price + Adobe’s legal expenses – that’s fair don’t you think; to a limit, where the fine for each violation cannot exceed the price of one full copy of PhotoShop etc…

      So, for example, if Forever 21 had 100 users use photoshop for 12 months, and photoshop month to month price was $9.99 then they’d be responsible to pay 100 x 9.99 x 12 months = roughly $12,000 etc (not including legal expenses ) – that would be a fairly traded “fine” meeting one type of Adobe’s license agreement for use…

      | |
    • Peter McWade

      Dave,

      Walmart has nothing to do with Adobe.

      “United States[edit]
      Predatory pricing practices may result in antitrust claims of monopolization or attempts to monopolize. Businesses with dominant or substantial market shares are more vulnerable to antitrust claims. However, because the antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.[3] If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. In addition, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller’s cost.”

      “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.”

      | |
    • Stephen Jennings

      There are numerous other products out there like Photoshop. Photoshop is just the best (in some cases) and the industry standard. There are many programs that do very specific tasks that are done in Photoshop much better than Photoshop, but no one packages everything together quite like Adobe.

      Given the expenses of photography (hell I just dropped $2k on a BACKUP lens..) software like Photoshop should be the least of your worries. And frankly, if you cannot even afford editing software like PS or LR .. perhaps it’s time to find a new hobby. You can’t possibly expect people to take you seriously and respect your artwork when you have no regard for the rights of the software you use to perfect your own images.

      | |
    • Dave Smith

      You’re subscription for $9.99 a month can only be had if you have previously been mugged by Adobe for PS at full price. Which leaves everyone else but the previous victims of Adobe. If I could get the $9.99 I’d pay that so I could do work at home and not have to share PS at work.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      From what I’m seeing, without logging into Adobe, the photographer’s package is $9.99 – which tells me you don’t have to be a former customer, if I’m reading it right. However, and this is a big however, whether you pick the $9.99 (Month to Month) or 119.00 / year option, it’s still the same thing, whereas they reserve the right, upon cancellation to bill you 50% of the remaining contract, like a fine / penalty…

      1. It means I stand corrected on the assumption that you can bail out of a month to month at any time – effectively stopping your rental and not have to pay the remaining months… I mean you can, but they are choosing to collect from you anyway even if you don’t use the product… it’s not a clean deal…

      2. Don’t get me wrong Dave, for other reasons, I do not like cloud, not specifically Adobe per se, however not liking their bail out early approach, that’s “excrement!” but from a financial aspect, still doable in small chunks.

      Look, there are many things I could complain about, and have quite frankly, for example the cell phone carriers. I could go down that road – if you want to talk about Monopoly tethered to legalized criminal activities. Problem is with the carriers, they all do it – the only difference is how you want to parse down the bill and what “services” are rendered etc.. that’s a whole different story… for later… I was trying to point out an example where we are left with no choice more or less. I mean, one can opt to not get the software, build our own, or be somewhere in between, right? But when people ethically / criminally do the wrong thing and try to justify it, it’s still wrong / stealing regardless of who they are stealing from… a little robinhood-ish I suppose, yet still wrong.

      But for the most part, yeah, I’m in the same boat with you regarding companies who do take advantage of the consumer, and I try to do without if I can. I would assume, if your in business, you can write it off; it’s not the perfect solution, yet helps absorb something.

      | |
  9. Basit Zargar

    great

    | |
    • John Cavan

      What’s the “great” here that you’re reacting to? Great that Adobe filed suit or that Corel and Autodesk joined? Maybe both?

      | |
  10. Dave Smith

    It’s all Adobe’s fault for charging outrageous prices for their products. They pretty much have a monopoly on the industry. The should be hit with an antitrust suit. If Adobe was priced in accordance with with other products in the industry people would stop pirating and buy it. If it was $150 people would buy it and upgrades there after. An operating system is cheaper then ONE computer program and an OS has zillions more lines of code. Adobe is a pack of thieves and more power to the people who pirate it.

    | |
    • Peter McWade

      They are the leader. No one is better. They have outstanding products. No, they don’t have a monopoly. Don’t complain about the prices. If you need it you will buy it. If its for a business then the tool will pay for its self in short order. If its for a hobby and you want the product you will pay for it. No one is entitled to these products.

      I challenge anyone to build a better product.

      You feel the same about InDesign?

      These are built as business tools. Not hobby tools.

      | |
    • Michael Old

      What came first?
      People pirating software because companies charge too much?
      Or companies charging lots to cover costs because people are pirating their software.

      | |
    • John Cavan

      Adobe is free to charge whatever price they want to charge and you, as a consumer, are free to decide if you’re willing to pay that price or not. What you are NOT free to do is steal it. Don’ t like it? Use something else. Hmm, something else not as good? Well, maybe then the price means something.

      Frankly, I find you pathetic.

      | |
    • Peter McWade

      Dave,

      So if Adobe’s prices are too high you can go download GIMP. Its free and it works. Not so nicely as Photoshop but it works and free.

      | |
  11. Peter McWade

    No clue about forever 21. I own my copy of Photoshop. If this mega billion company thinks they need pirated copies then they should not be slapped but just flat out shut down. If I can pay so can they.

    | |
  12. Arnold Ziffel

    Damn I feel old. I had to Google Forever 21 to find out who they were.

    | |
  13. Michael Burnham

    It would be interesting to know how many photographers have pirated/unlicensed copies of Photoshop. It was a few years back that I was talking it an Adobe representative but at that time he said that the company estimated that, by the numbers, ever sold copy of Photoshop was pirated 10 times over. Trust me I am not crying for a billion dollar corporation and Forever 21 and any other company that is using pirated software should have the book ( or the court) thrown at them.

    But also what does it say of a photographer, any photographer, to be using pirated software and then complain about mis-use or mis-appropration of their’s or anyone else’s images?

    | |
  14. robert garfinkle

    To Brandon and Gareth – You know it’s worse than that, right?

    It’s not just companies, it’s media and government too…

    This may be a stretch, BUT. I never gave the government permission to take my images. Please note, if your images travel across the net, to a service provider or even back to your local area network (home or office) the government, thanks to the NSA, has a copy of your content, stored on their systems. In my eyes, they stole it, does not even matter if they will do anything with it malicious, they did not get my permission… Or did they. I will find it for you, a law that basically circumvents the 4th amendment and copyright laws, which clearly states if you transmit any data across the net / wires / airwaves – a.k.a. If it leaves your person by electronic means, it is considered the equivalent of YOU throwing it away, meaning the government has the right to search / seize it. In the contemptuous name of national security… I say our images are not trash but that legislation is…

    and you might scoff at my less than virtuous peck at the government here, but to me, it’s the same thing as what a company does, they just trample on us… they trample on everyone… thinking they are above the law…

    at any rate. Copyright Infringement is, well, copyright infringement no matter who does it – that’s my whole point…

    Both government and corporations no matter how big or small should be held accountable / responsible just as if they are a person doing it… wait a minute… corporations don’t make decisions, people do…

    | |
    • robert garfinkle

      Oh, forgot one thing…

      This post is monitored by the NSA for quality, training, and security purposes!

      | |
    • Michael Burnham

      You don’t even need to go as far is the NSA. Most people would be stunned to know what exactly what they agreed to just by using internet access from whatever ISP they chose. All those pages of legalese that we all just click “I Agree” to because you can’t get online without it. It’s not what the NSA could do, but its what mostly unregulated ISPs and social media companies actually DO with your information without our knowledge.

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      Yep, and guess what I call that Michael? “Big Other.” Big Brother is the government, and “Big Other” are the corporations.

      It’s interesting how this connected world operates; that in order to participate, you have to abandon your rights. It’s a constitutional mess.

      Imagine a world where corporations, if they were to engage with people on ANY level – whether you are an employee or customer of… – has to respect the constitution and the laws. Oh, and the government too – imagine that, I said it.. again..

      | |
    • robert garfinkle

      it’s also nice to know that if you ever lose all of your images / data the NSA does have copies of it… :)

      | |
  15. Gareth Roughley

    Unbelievable! As you say it’s not like Forever 21 are planting quarters in the hopes of growing a money tree as many creatives have to do, they already own a forest of them. It’s a shame these big companies can’t set an example. We shouldn’t be surprised, even large press associations are laying off photographers in preference of iPhones and stealing images from the likes of Instagram.

    | |
  16. Orlin Nikolov

    Let’s wait and see :)

    | |
  17. Brandon Dewey

    What is the world coming to? If it’s not yours ask if you can use it. Companies are starting to think they are above the copy right laws, until the day someone uses their copy righted material.

    | |