Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › David
@1984 379824 wrote:
Do you think information should not be a commodity or have value then? The digital rights bill seems fucked up to me but the intent to stop people stealing digital content seems hard to argue morally.
Yes I think ownership of information is a crazy concept forced on society by record labels etc. People play along with it in the majority but conceptually i think it’s bananas
Fair enough if you want to encourage people to give you money in exchange for a copy of your music, but to then say that person is not legally entitled to share that information with anyone else is as unworkable as it is crazy. It’s none of anyone’s business if I want to share a string of zeros and ones with my friends.
musicians should live off donations and live performance money. Movies should get money from cinema screenings, depsite pirating they make rediculous money from DVD sales and there is no need. Art should not be created for profit. Art belongs to society.. the original copy may belong to the creator but royalties for prints and reproductions should not exist
The only exception I can think of is software. As it is interactive I think it is an exception. You cannot take an analogue copy of software like you can with video/audio so I would say it does not count as art.
ps my record label encourages all artists to release their music for free, I spend a lot of time making my own music and releasing other peoples music and never make a profit so i put my money where my mouth is
@Iacchus 379830 wrote:
but thats a positive correlation not a negative correlation.. ie people in china are very poor and live in a very unliberal country
you were trying to argue that ‘liberal is all very well and good, but it wont make a society wealthy’
well the positive correlation is more obvious eg America, England and the west in general…
I think you mean (unless I am being dumb here) I haven’t established which is the cause and which is the effect…
In which case that is a good point, but the problem is the more you analyse a generalised statement the more foolish it gets. I mean we haven’t even defined what we mean by liberty so the whole argument cannot get too detailed, its obviously massively over simplistic.
But I take your point (assuming I am not misunderstanding it) that its hard to prove that liberty does not easily generate wealth for a nation and its people and that I am wrong about that premise.
Its an interesting debate though, one that’s on my mind a lot at the moment, but I am only 24, much still to learn!
@Iacchus 379832 wrote:
Yes I think ownership of information is a crazy concept forced on society by record labels etc. People play along with it in the majority but conceptually i think it’s bananas
Fair enough if you want to encourage people to give you money in exchange for a copy of your music, but to then say that person is not legally entitled to share that information with anyone else is as unworkable as it is crazy. It’s none of anyone’s business if I want to share a string of zeros and ones with my friends.
musicians should live off donations and live performance money. Movies should get money from cinema screenings, depsite pirating they make rediculous money from DVD sales and there is no need. Art should not be created for profit. Art belongs to society.. the original copy may belong to the creator but royalties for prints and reproductions should not exist
The only exception I can think of is software. As it is interactive I think it is an exception. You cannot take an analogue copy of software like you can with video/audio so I would say it does not count as art.
Cannot understand the old “but its just 0’s and 1’s” argument, its like saying a patented design is just a few lines on a page. Its not about the physical materials, or at least, if it is, why!?!?
Information has a value because people will pay a certain amount for it, you cannot just pretend that value doesn’t exist. If people produce music for money because they want to devote their lives to their art, what right do people have to say “no your not allowed you cannot make money making art (via selling it) it needs to be for the people”.
“musicians should live off donations and live performance money” what right have you got to tell other people how to live their lives? why should they have to do that?
“Movies should get money from cinema screenings, despite pirating they make ridiculous money from DVD sales and there is no need” do you have any idea how much a movie costs? how much cinema’s are losing in profits? why do you think you understand a complex financial model like that? do you understand all the profit margins, costs etc? why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?
I just dont understand why you haven’t (and no one ever seems to) explained why information stored in binary is fine to steal/should not be owned. The money in your bank account is just 0’s and 1’s on a computer system, a collection of tokens representing wealth (in much the same way 0′ and 1’s represent information), but you think you can own that I should think.
It reminds me of the old “property is theft” extream arguments, I certainly dont think you should suggest “People play along with it in the majority but conceptually i think it’s bananas”. I should think most people would think stealing is wrong as currently defined by law.
@1984 379837 wrote:
well the positive correlation is more obvious eg America, England and the west in general…
I think you mean (unless I am being dumb here) I haven’t established which is the cause and which is the effect…
In which case that is a good point, but the problem is the more you analyse a generalised statement the more foolish it gets. I mean we haven’t even defined what we mean by liberty so the whole argument cannot get too detailed, its obviously massively over simplistic.
But I take your point (assuming I am not misunderstanding it) that its hard to prove that liberty does not easily generate wealth for a nation and its people and that I am wrong about that premise.
Its an interesting debate though, one that’s on my mind a lot at the moment, but I am only 24, much still to learn!
well its true correlation doesnt imply causation – ie prosperity could have come first and liberalism later. I’m more making the point that your society isnt guaranteed to have ecomonic failure if you get too liberal – although I could be wrong on this, it might be the case, there just isnt any evidence at the moment as far as i know
And yes agree liberalism comes in many shapes and forms – sexual/religious liberty is less likely to impact the economy than liberalism associated with drugs and food, eg should we let people eat/drink/drug themselves to death. This is far more likely to impact the economy. Time will tell really but as always I’m optimistic that education is the solution instead of prohibition :love:
@1984 379838 wrote:
Cannot understand the old “but its just 0’s and 1’s” argument, its like saying a patented design is just a few lines on a page. Its not about the physical materials, or at least, if it is, why!?!?
Information has a value because people will pay a certain amount for it, you cannot just pretend that value doesn’t exist. If people produce music for money because they want to devote their lives to their art, what right do people have to say “no your not allowed you cannot make money making art (via selling it) it needs to be for the people”.
“musicians should live off donations and live performance money” what right have you got to tell other people how to live their lives? why should they have to do that?
“Movies should get money from cinema screenings, depsite pirating they make rediculous money from DVD sales and there is no need” do you have any idea how much a movie costs? how much cinema’s are loseing in profits? why do you think you understand a complex financial model like that? why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?
When liberalism starts sounding this right wing I cannot help but be put off, hell the conservatives sound more considered and liberal than this.
The value people pay for information does exist – but it only exists because the concept is forced on society. It’s not ‘natural’. If I tell someone something I have no right to stop them telling someone else. If I want to restrict the information I should keep it to myself in the first place
And yes patents are just lines on a page – your company should succeed by making the best quality product, not just being the first to think about it and put it on paper. Look at the injustices in the world over pharmaceutical patents etc, millions are dying due to greed. You could argue that without these patents drug companies wouldnt do the research, but in my opinion that research should be funded by society through the government not through selling expensive drugs to dying people
‘do you have any idea how much a movie costs? how much cinema’s are loseing in profits? why do you think you understand a complex financial model like that? why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?’
Cinemas and movie producers are still making tens of millions of pounds on movies. Sure they are whining that they could make more but they wouldnt exist if they werent running at a profit.
‘why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?’
‘what right do people have to say “no your not allowed you cannot make money making art (via selling it) it needs to be for the people”.’
I’m not trying to dictate what people can do with their films/music, ok I think artists shouldnt be in it for the money but if they want to thats fiine. I’m just trying to stop THEM dictating what I can do with information I have. They can sell a film or a song if they want to, whatever its not my business, but they shouldnt be able to dictate what I do with my information just because it resembles their information, it’s none of their business. Sure it sucks for them they only become millionaires instead of multimillionaires but tough shit, there’s just no need for such rediculous amounts of money to be associated with a product that has no physical existence. Do you think it should be possible to copyright a joke and get royalties any time anyone tells it? If not why is it ok to copy a joke and not a melody? The only difference is the latter has a higher content of information.
The problem is society needs a shift in attitude where people contribute to art they enjoy. I download shit loads of video and music but I will always go and buy my favourite albums and movies because I want that artist to keep producing. Even better if I can find a ‘donate’ button on their myspace or whatever I’ll do that so the artist gets the money and not the record label / distributors, which are just uneccessary leeches.
Patents and copyright have set a dangerous precedent. Companies have already started trying to patent DNA sequences, which is really scary, if it continues in this way then compaines will be able to confiscate crops from farmers that have not paid royalties because genetically modified pollen has drifted into their farms.
To answer your other point about money:
Banking is a closed system. If you copy the entire contents of a banks accounts and sit with that on your computer at home and fiddle with it, nothing happens. You cant buy anything with that information, it’s not money, it’s just a copy of banking information.
To fraudulently create money you could use you would have to fiddle with the closed system of the bank, and this involves fiddling with hardware you do not own, ie hacking into that closed system. As this is changing a real physical item that belongs to someone else and not just copying their information then this is a crime
The value people pay for information does exist – but it only exists because the concept is forced on society. It’s not ‘natural’. If I tell someone something I have no right to stop them telling someone else. If I want to restrict the information I should keep it to myself in the first place
natural? you think digital information is natural in anyway, what on earth has “natural” got to do with anything. A price exists because it is what people are willing to pay for it not because of some kind of control. Why cant people sell information on a licence basis? or in the many other ways we sell information.
And yes patents are just lines on a page – your company should succeed by making the best quality product, not just being the first to think about it and put it on paper. Look at the injustices in the world over pharmaceutical patents etc, millions are dying due to greed. You could argue that without these patents drug companies wouldnt do the research, but in my opinion that research should be funded by society through the government not through selling expensive drugs to dying people
but do you have any idea how much drug research costs? it would make some country’s budgets look tiny. You just could not do that financially. And if the drug company’s stop being able to sell their drugs they wont invent them in the first place. Your liberal plan will probably kill millions. great.
‘do you have any idea how much a movie costs? how much cinema’s are loseing in profits? why do you think you understand a complex financial model like that? why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?’
Cinemas and movie producers are still making tens of millions of pounds on movies. Sure they are whining that they could make more but they wouldnt exist if they werent running at a profit.
yes but they make this profit under the current system, your the one saying they can make money without selling their own products. And if profits are on the decline and that trend continues obviously they will stop making film’s and go out of business, you cant just say “but there still making cash so its fine” that’s a massive over-simplification
‘why do you think you should dictate what people can do with their own films?’
‘what right do people have to say “no your not allowed you cannot make money making art (via selling it) it needs to be for the people”.’
I’m not trying to dictate what people can do with their films/music, ok I think artists shouldnt be in it for the money but if they want to thats fiine. I’m just trying to stop THEM dictating what I can do with information I have. They can sell a film or a song if they want to, whatever its not my business, but they shouldnt be able to dictate what I do with my information just because it resembles their information, it’s none of their business. Sure it sucks for them they only become millionaires instead of multimillionaires all musicians that sell music are millionaires? and you reckon you understand the industry enough to tell them how to run it…but tough shit, there’s just no need for such rediculous amounts of money to be associated with a product that has no physical existence. Do you think it should be possible to copyright a joke and get royalties any time anyone tells it? how much investment does a joke need? not a fair comparison is it. what if someone steals someone’s whole stand up routine though…If not why is it ok to copy a joke and not a melody? The only difference is the latter has a higher content of information. no there are a lot of difference its only similarity is its a form of information
The problem is society needs a shift in attitude where people contribute to art they enjoy. I download shit loads of video and music but I will always go and buy my favourite albums and movies because I want that artist to keep producing. Even better if I can find a ‘donate’ button on their myspace or whatever I’ll do that so the artist gets the money and not the record label / distributors, which are just uneccessary leeches.
that sounds all very lovely but you have no proof what so ever it works as a financial model, no idea how much they could make from doing this etc etc its a nice idea but I would suggest it would take someone who knows a hell of a lot more than both of us to cost it out and really know. Doesn’t seem likely from my perspective though, if you cannot be sure you will sell X records you wont get the funding to make it in the first place (no matter how many damn donate buttons u put on the myspace page!)
Also, if people are stealing music online because they dont want to pay for it, you cannot really argue they would love to donate lots of money to their artists. They would love to keep nicking the music and not paying for it, maybe pay for the odd gig but not much more on average I would bet.
Patents and copyright have set a dangerous precedent. Companies have already started trying to patent DNA sequences, which is really scary, if it continues in this way then compaines will be able to confiscate crops from farmers that have not paid royalties because genetically modified pollen has drifted into their farms.
your totally right about the DNA thing that is mad, but then they didn’t invite it not can they own it really, so thats quite different. Cannot agree more though the idea of copyrighting DNA is insain
@Iacchus 379850 wrote:
To answer your other point about money:
Banking is a closed system. If you copy the entire contents of a banks accounts and sit with that on your computer at home and fiddle with it, nothing happens. You cant buy anything with that information, it’s not money, it’s just a copy of banking information.
To fraudulently create money you could use you would have to fiddle with the closed system of the bank, and this involves fiddling with hardware you do not own, ie hacking into that closed system. As this is changing a real physical item that belongs to someone else and not just copying their information then this is a crime
Well that’s true it wasn’t a very good comparison. But I still have no idea why you think only physical things have value, I see no logical argument just desire to have things and not pay for them.
I disagree with the Digital Economy Act most because its unworkable and beating a dead horse..
the economic value lost from the “free for all download/blag culture” is already permanently gone and no amount of surveillance and feds will bring it back – I think govts and some companies have other reasons for supporting it but more to do with security issues and potential resource scarcity than copyright infringement – so this law isn’t the right tool to use anyway!
I do accept that information is much freer and readily available but it has had an impact on the creative industries, working in them has increasingly become a temporary
lifestyle as opposed to a long term career because the revenue has already dropped.
Every creative artist I know is now finding they have to subsidise their art with a normal day job (which often makes more and more demands on their time).
Yes, the bosses are very good at ensuring the money gets to them rather than artists, but a lot of the profits of art/media go towards paying for infrastructure. Cinemas and TV transmitters need resources to fund them and keep them running!
what is going on its a actually a case of derailling the gravy train or the “free for all ” people attaching ordnance to their persons and exploding the lot! In either case, innocent passengers also get hurt – there are casualties other than the money men Loads of big media and entertainment companies have merged and shed boatloads of staff – some have closed altogether.
And of course once the money leaks out of a industry it won’t attract capital investment.
Some dude round my way has made an excellent film about social problems up North where he is originally from. 20 or even 10 years ago, Yorkshire or Anglia TV would have paid for him to make that film. Today him and his missus he had to remortgage his house to make the film, and it was a modest single-camera documentary. I might even buy the DVD for it, there is no fucking way I would pirate it..
The problem is once something is given for free it is extremely hard to convince people to pay for it. Consider how donations on a London “free” party are enforced, and also that lots of people complain the same tunes are being rinsed at all parties despite the MP3 culture ending the monopoly that superstar DJ’s once had on the distribution and production of vinyl…
@General Lighting 379853 wrote:
I disagree with the Digital Economy Act most because its unworkable and beating a dead horse..
the economic value lost from the “free for all download/blag culture” is already permanently gone and no amount of surveillance and feds will bring it back – I think govts and some companies have other reasons for supporting it but more to do with security issues and potential resource scarcity than copyright infringement – so this law isn’t the right tool to use anyway!
I do accept that information is much freer and readily available but it has had an impact on the creative industries, working in them has increasingly become a temporary
lifestyle as opposed to a long term career because the revenue has already dropped.Every creative artist I know is now finding they have to subsidise their art with a normal day job (which often makes more and more demands on their time).
Yes, the bosses are very good at ensuring the money gets to them rather than artists, but a lot of the profits of art/media go towards paying for infrastructure. Cinemas and TV transmitters need resources to fund them and keep them running!
what is going on its a actually a case of derailling the gravy train or the “free for all ” people attaching ordnance to their persons and exploding the lot! In either case, innocent passengers also get hurt – there are casualties other than the money men Loads of big media and entertainment companies have merged and shed boatloads of staff – some have closed altogether.
And of course once the money leaks out of a industry it won’t attract capital investment.
Some dude round my way has made an excellent film about social problems up North where he is originally from. 20 or even 10 years ago, Yorkshire or Anglia TV would have paid for him to make that film. Today him and his missus he had to remortgage his house to make the film, and it was a modest single-camera documentary. I might even buy the DVD for it, there is no fucking way I would pirate it..
The problem is once something is given for free it is extremely hard to convince people to pay for it. Consider how donations on a London “free” party are enforced, and also that lots of people complain the same tunes are being rinsed at all parties despite the MP3 culture ending the monopoly that superstar DJ’s once had on the distribution and production of vinyl…
I think it can be turned around (possibly) though if it is priced right, they will have make more money in others ways (look at how live music has taken off again over the last few years, massive commercial festivals.
I know in some study’s a surprisingly high % of people said they would pay for music if it was cheaper, has no DRM etc
The digital rights bill annoys me because of the way it was rush through and the clause they put in allowing certain websites to be blocked nationally and how that could end up being used in 10 years time. China here we come?
@1984 379854 wrote:
I think it can be turned around (possibly) though if it is priced right, they will have make more money in others ways (look at how live music has taken off again over the last few years, massive commercial festivals.
I know in some study’s a surprisingly high % of people said they would pay for music if it was cheaper, has no DRM etc
from what I’ve looked into (albeit briefly) dance music is already cheap as chips from places like Juno etc? not sure if its got DRM..
We’re already there, the 21st century Internet equipment in a British or Chinese Telephone Exchange is wholly identical anyway as Huawei got a big contract from BT.. the dude in charge of Huawei is a retired general of the Peoples Liberation Army who encouraged the PLA to move away from old style messengers and semaphore to modern fixed and wireless telecoms in the late 20th century..
Ironically whilst the Chinese internet is heavily censored and monitoried, the govt and feds there don’t bother one bit with locking down MP3 or media downloads of pop music, they use this to devalue the music industry so it is less powerful than manufacturing or office / IT work.. this is commonplace across all hi tech Asian nations and is why the “you want DVD?” dude is usually South Chinese or SE Asian.. :laugh_at:
natural? you think digital information is natural in anyway, what on earth has “natural” got to do with anything. A price exists because it is what people are willing to pay for it not because of some kind of control. Why cant people sell information on a licence basis? or in the many other ways we sell information.
A price exists because record companies bullied the government into making duplicating certain information illegal. It has been a logical fallacy from the start.
but do you have any idea how much drug research costs? it would make some country’s budgets look tiny. You just could not do that financially. And if the drug company’s stop being able to sell their drugs they wont invent them in the first place. Your liberal plan will probably kill millions. great.
Yes I have read into the subject in great detail. Conterfiet medicines are an even bigger market than illegal drugs, all because of the fallicical concept that a certain company owns the right to the medicine. If the governemnt took over drugs research the tax burden to the population would be identical to the amount people pay for overpriced medicine – no extra burden financially, and the cost is spread between healthy people and ill people.
yes but they make this profit under the current system, your the one saying they can make money without selling their own products. And if profits are on the decline and that trend continues obviously they will stop making film’s and go out of business, you cant just say “but there still making cash so its fine” that’s a massive over-simplification
They make a profit because people will always buy movies, even if it’s not illegal to copy them. People want their directors cut DVD in the nice box to go next to their plasma screens. People will always want to take their kids to the cinema. I’m not saying you shuoldnt be able to buy/sell movies, I’m just saying you shoulndt be able to prosecute people for copying the information in them
all musicians that sell music are millionaires? and you reckon you understand the industry enough to tell them how to run it…
Hell yes I do, and I dont think the industry should involve the majority of the money going to distributors and labels, the money should go direct to the artist and should not be extracted from people voluntarily not through fear of prosecution. The majority of musicians have a day job and make music for fun. The really really famous people can make enough money from gigs to be quite comfortable without a job. there’s no need for people to get super rich from creating art.
no there are a lot of difference its only similarity is its a form of information
both are expressible as a series of ones and zeroes.. information doesnt really have a ‘form’ other than the form you chose to express it in at the time
that sounds all very lovely but you have no proof what so ever it works as a financial model, no idea how much they could make from doing this etc etc its a nice idea but I would suggest it would take someone who knows a hell of a lot more than both of us to cost it out and really know. Doesn’t seem likely from my perspective though, if you cannot be sure you will sell X records you wont get the funding to make it in the first place (no matter how many damn donate buttons u put on the myspace page!)
you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not suggesting an improved financial model, I’m saying art should not exist within the same financial framework as other industries AT ALL.
Also, if people are stealing music online because they dont want to pay for it, you cannot really argue they would love to donate lots of money to their artists. They would love to keep nicking the music and not paying for it, maybe pay for the odd gig but not much more on average I would bet.
These people obviously dont buy the music anyway so what’s the difference?
your totally right about the DNA thing that is mad, but then they didn’t invite it not can they own it really, so thats quite different. Cannot agree more though the idea of copyrighting DNA is insain
Why is the information of genetic code any different to the information of a melody or an image? Again both are expressible in the same format
natural? you think digital information is natural in anyway, what on earth has “natural” got to do with anything. A price exists because it is what people are willing to pay for it not because of some kind of control. Why cant people sell information on a licence basis? or in the many other ways we sell information.
A price exists because record companies bullied the government into making duplicating certain information illegal. It has been a logical fallacy from the start.
No, the price exists because people will pay it, it they wont, they wont buy it, so they cannot sell it, so its not worth it.
but do you have any idea how much drug research costs? it would make some country’s budgets look tiny. You just could not do that financially. And if the drug company’s stop being able to sell their drugs they wont invent them in the first place. Your liberal plan will probably kill millions. great.
Yes I have read into the subject in great detail. Conterfiet medicines are an even bigger market than illegal drugs, all because of the fallicical concept that a certain company owns the right to the medicine. If the governemnt took over drugs research the tax burden to the population would be identical to the amount people pay for overpriced medicine – no extra burden financially, and the cost is spread between healthy people and ill people.
Counter-fitting will always happen due to the development cost of drugs. I think drugs company’s could be made to have cheaper prices in developing countries but at the end of the day they are the ones inventing them and they wouldn’t do so if it wasn’t for the massive profits.
yes but they make this profit under the current system, your the one saying they can make money without selling their own products. And if profits are on the decline and that trend continues obviously they will stop making film’s and go out of business, you cant just say “but there still making cash so its fine” that’s a massive over-simplification
They make a profit because people will always buy movies, even if it’s not illegal to copy them. People want their directors cut DVD in the nice box to go next to their plasma screens. People will always want to take their kids to the cinema. I’m not saying you shuoldnt be able to buy/sell movies, I’m just saying you shoulndt be able to prosecute people for copying the information in them
I dont think people will always buy these things in enough numbers, or at least thats a possibility. Everything is going digital, wont be long before DVD’s will be an outdated concept and everything will be streamed or downloaded.
all musicians that sell music are millionaires? and you reckon you understand the industry enough to tell them how to run it…
Hell yes I do, and I dont think the industry should involve the majority of the money going to distributors and labels, the money should go direct to the artist and should not be extracted from people voluntarily not through fear of prosecution. The majority of musicians have a day job and make music for fun. The really really famous people can make enough money from gigs to be quite comfortable without a job. there’s no need for people to get super rich from creating art.
but there are a lot of people who dont get super rich that’s my point, its a tiny number who have the masses of wealth. A lot of artists do not have this and to take away a further revenue stream would make the situation even worse (or it could do anyway).
no there are a lot of difference its only similarity is its a form of information
both are expressible as a series of ones and zeroes.. information doesnt really have a ‘form’ other than the form you chose to express it in at the time
Still dont see what why because it cant be expressed in binary it suddenly has no value.
that sounds all very lovely but you have no proof what so ever it works as a financial model, no idea how much they could make from doing this etc etc its a nice idea but I would suggest it would take someone who knows a hell of a lot more than both of us to cost it out and really know. Doesn’t seem likely from my perspective though, if you cannot be sure you will sell X records you wont get the funding to make it in the first place (no matter how many damn donate buttons u put on the myspace page!)
you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not suggesting an improved financial model, I’m saying art should not exist within the same financial framework as other industries AT ALL.
but you didn’t say some artists you said people should not be alowd to do X not some can some cannot.
Also, if people are stealing music online because they dont want to pay for it, you cannot really argue they would love to donate lots of money to their artists. They would love to keep nicking the music and not paying for it, maybe pay for the odd gig but not much more on average I would bet.
These people obviously dont buy the music anyway so what’s the difference?
because if you stopped them being able to steal it they might well pay for it.
your totally right about the DNA thing that is mad, but then they didn’t invite it not can they own it really, so thats quite different. Cannot agree more though the idea of copyrighting DNA is insain
Why is the information of genetic code any different to the information of a melody or an image? Again both are expressible in the same format
because no one invented DNA, no one owns it in the sense we all have it. its not the same as creating art and stating it has no value reproduction wise.
i would compromise in practice by saying the original producer of art has the right to profit from it and nobody else does
So you wouldnt get counterfiet DVDs and russian websites selling mp3s for 50p, but if I put an mp3 on my mates iPod I’m not committing a crime
0
Voices
63
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › David
