How to Save the Classics

All the 'sphere's a twitter about some libraries dumping little-read classics in favor of more high-demand contemporary bestsellers. Julian's post on this, however, inspired me to remark that far and away the most important thing for the preservation of the classics has nothing to do with library policies and everything to do with intellectual property policy.

In a world where classic works enter the public domain, people will get them one way or another. They'll be available for free download on the internet. E-book technology will improve. Print copies will cheaply available to people who want to buy them. Whether or not these things are in local libraries sort of won't be a huge deal one way or another. Now, traditionally, copyrights have had limited durations and "classic" books, being old by definition, tend to be in the public domain and hence widely available. In a digital era, they'll be super-available. But the emerging trend of the digital era is for retroactive extensions of copyright terms meaning that nothing new will ever enter the public domain. Ever.

1/4/07 5:14PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

This pseudo-scandal has one objective --- the creation of a seemingly valid argument to dismantle the public library system by Ayn Randians. Now that the argument has been concocted, the dismantling is on the agenda.

Posted by: goethean on January 4, 2007 05:36 PM

a few years back, slate ran an article in which someone aggregated the sales of classics, which, as matthew notes, since they are public domain, are produced by a variety of publishers, and waddya know?

if you take a look at the totals, shakespeare, and jane austen, and a host of others are still selling extremely well, so well that barnes and noble decided to get into the business and publishes its own line of the classics....

Posted by: howard on January 4, 2007 05:50 PM

I think the scandal that the library is "pulling the classics" is somewhat overblown. As quoted in the story most of them are moved to other libraries and can be requested and are available at any other library in the system within a week.

Also as Matt notes most of them are in public domain, there is a surprisingly large number of books available for free download at the Guttenburg project.

Posted by: Eric on January 4, 2007 06:12 PM

I think there's a way to refine intellectual property law to both protect legitimate business interests while ensuring a large public domain. Disney was right to demand extended copyright protection for Mickey Mouse because the corporation has invested heavily over the years, and continues to invest, in Mickey Mouse. So, it wouldn't make sense for free riders to profit from Disney's recent investments in burnishing the appeal of Mickey Mouse.

In contrast, to take another piece of intellectual property originating in 1928, Hemingway's "Farewell to Arms," there has been no subsequent investment in it by Hemingway or his family, so it would be appropriate for it now to enter the public domain.

Drawing a bright line in gray area cases would be difficult, but the principle seems fairly clear.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on January 4, 2007 06:45 PM

Google has a bunch of "classics" available for download (PDF) in full:
http://books.google.com

Here's the news release about it:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/download-classics.html

Posted by: Fred F. on January 4, 2007 07:04 PM

Damn and fuck Mickey Mouse: he grows fat eating the grapes of wrath. The rat bastard is responsible for the suppression of truth and meaning. He is the public face of Scrooge McDuck, who swims through a sea of gold, buried under which are Faulkner, Orwell, Steinbeck, Auden, Maugham, Howl, and On the Road, not to mention Casablanca, Citizen Kane, and Seven Samurai. These, but for the rat, would belong to the public, yet he hoards them like so many shiny baubles in his squalid hole.

Posted by: foolishmortal on January 4, 2007 07:12 PM

I really think that the copyright extensions should be opt-in, which would be trivial for such works as those owned by Disney, who can afford to employ staff for such a task. Hemingway is a good example, as mentioned by Steve Sailer, but there are plenty of other works that do not have broad appeal but mean a lot to a small group of devoted fans. Besides, it seems like an unnecessarily large amount of collateral damage to the public domain to retroactively extend the copyright on all copyrighted works from the era, even when nobody effectively controls the copyright anymore.

It also seems that some commenters aren't too worried about the classics because they are in the public domain, which is exactly Matt's point - by making it far more difficult for works to enter the public domain, we risk doing a grave disservice to future generations.

Posted by: Shane on January 4, 2007 07:15 PM

Apples and oranges. This wasn't a survival-of-the-classics question, it was a dumbing-down-of-library-service question. What kind of service should libraries provide? Apparently neither you nor Sanchez gave even a moment's thought to what was actually in question.

You've been hanging around libertarians far too much. They're fun to party with, and the non-hawks among them aren't necessarily complete drooling idiots, but they're always saying dumb shit.

Posted by: John Emerson on January 4, 2007 07:29 PM

Then there's my obviously correct take of the copyright extension issue. The purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the production of new works, balancing this against the advantages to the public of having existing works freely available, both for use and to build future work on. Believe it or not, enriching copyright holders is not one of its objectives; such enrichment is only a means of generating new creation.

Since it is obvious that is impossible to encourage the production of works that already exist, the copyright expiration date of all existing work should revert to that in force when they were first produced. This would greatly expand the public domain without removing incentives to produce new work. Indeed, it would increase these incentives; with their old cash cows no longer protected, e.g. movie studios would need to get off the dime and do new ones.

Posted by: Grouch on January 4, 2007 08:12 PM

Steve Sailer's idea of making copyright term somehow dependent on continued popularity or marketing and maintenance effort is interesting, but problematical for two reasons. First, the devil is in the details, and practically it would be another imposition on the courts to have to decide what constituted effort to maintain copyright, since money spent wouldn't serve.

More importantly, such a plan would bias copyright to, not the creators, but big corporations that could afford to satisfy the arcane laws that would be needed to effectuate such a system.

The inherited dollar is a stinking fish, and all copyrights should end with the death of the creator. I agree with the Constitution of the United States that:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Indeed. Limited times to authors cannot possibly mean longer than their lives. The limitless takeoffs on Mickey Mouse that the community is deprived of is only worth it if the drawing of Mickey was encouraged. But no artist needs to think he may make the billions of dollars that Disney has to be encouraged to draw a mouse. The reward has been laughably disproportionate to the effort. Long copyright terms stifle creativity. Ask the computer industry. SCO and NTP make a good living off of it.

And authors and their families don't need these excessive copyright terms to make a living. Elvis Presley's heirs would have made out fine if they had to compete with others selling Elvis' sound and image. Just ask the family of the Tolkien family who made a ton of money off the Lord of the Ring books in the US despite losing the copyright in error.

And ask yourself, if long intellectual property right terms are necessary for the promotion and progress of science and the useful arts (er, is a cartoon really what was considered a useful art?, but I digress) then why do we give such shorter terms to inventors of new cures than drawers of cartoons?

Because Congress thinks medicines benefit society. Our philistine legislators wouldn't dare make drug patents much longer than their current 20 or so years because these literal-minded boobs are old and see the advantage of competition in the drug making art. And they know the benefit that would accrue the land would lose if terms were longer.

But art? Who cares if George Harrison never made My Sweet Lord because it infringes He’s So Fine.

I believe that the Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc. ruling in which Biz Markie was sued for sampling Gilbert O’Sullivan’s Alone Again has been partly responsible for rap turning from a possible explosion of sonic collages and mashups, that the illicit Gray Album of Danger Mouse only hints at, to the numbing sameness of the current state of the industry. Boo to the rapacious pirates who have put our cultural heritage on a shelf for the benefit of a few rich people.

Posted by: epistemology on January 4, 2007 08:20 PM

Well said Grouch.

Posted by: epistemology on January 4, 2007 08:42 PM

What kind of service should libraries provide?

They should probably continue to increase free internet access available to the public. In L.A. and San Diego, terminals were always in demand at the public libraries. Public domain works can be found free on the internet or cheaply available in hard copy, while contemporary works are inaccessible to many due to cost. While preservation of hard copies is still a function of library archives, most small public libraries exist to serve the demands of its readers, and can vastly expand its catelogue with a few extra computers.

Posted by: Tim on January 4, 2007 09:05 PM

Next they'll take the names of those who last checked out these now-banned books, hunt them down, and kill them.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein on January 4, 2007 09:45 PM

This is a quibble, but the point about most classics being PD applies only to classic works originally written in English. If you want to read (or reprint) an English translation of classic X, no matter how old X is, you'll usually either have to settle for one of several crappy or outdated PD translations, or pay for a good, newer translation.

Posted by: david on January 4, 2007 10:05 PM

"The inherited dollar is a stinking fish."

This is a nice general principle. But as with all applications, quite the uphill battle against the copyright inheritors.

Posted by: text on January 4, 2007 10:08 PM

So here's a question for Matthew and others fighting the good fight against IP expansionism: How has the patent system avoided these problems?

Every year, very valuable drugs go off patent. Costs the patent holders billions (which of course are saved by us lucky drug consumers.) Presumably Merck et al. would love to keep rewriting the rules the way the copyright holders do, but somehow they haven't been able to. Why not?

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on January 4, 2007 10:18 PM

Epistemology's criticism of Sailer is right. That said, there's a useful subsidiary point in S. S.'s suggestion, which is that copyrights of whatever legnth should require some occasional action by the copyright holder to maintain -- just a filing every few years. This would eliminate the problem of older but still copyrighted works where the legal owner is unknown or unclear, which can't be reproduced even by someone willing to pay for the rights.

But that's a totally separate and less pressing issue from the theft of our heritage by copyright extension.

Posted by: lemuel pitkin on January 4, 2007 10:26 PM

A modest copyright proposal: Extend copyright for only five years beyond the last time the item -- in whatever medium (book, cd, dvd) -- was produced for general consumption. The intellectual property holder could extend the copyright indefinitely, as long as they reissue the item every at least once every five years. To qualify as a legitimate re-edition that would protect the copyright, the print run -- be it book, cd, dvd -- would have to be at least some minimum number of copies -- say 10,000.

This would have a the beneficial effect of forcing the copyright holders to put up or shut up. If they don't want to invest some minimal amount of money to keep their product in circulation they'd lose the right to be the sole producer of that product after five years.

I was shocked to find that two thirds of all recorded music produced since the 1940s is unavailable because it's just not worth it for the recording industry to reissue it. Meanwhile the music industry zealously prevents anyone else from licensing their horded recordings -- even if they get a piece of the action -- because they're afraid it will distract consumers from their latest hit parage of offerings.

Consumers would benefit, because the popular stuff would always be accessible. And there would always be some niche publishers mining the public-domain for forgotten nuggets.

And the Micky Mouse and Snow White copyright would be forever sacrosant because Disney will always be reissuing their "beloved classics" every few years.

Posted by: beowulf888 on January 5, 2007 12:41 AM

Pitkin's question is interesting. Mickey may sell hats, but paxil sells happiness (actual happiness may not occur,side effects include dependence, sexual dysfunction, and occasional explosion) How does the latter succeed and the former fail?

My first take is that the competitor to Merck is G/S/K, and the competitor to Disney is the public. There is much more profit to be made by selling generic drugs than there is to selling generic art.

Posted by: foolishmortal on January 5, 2007 01:50 AM

Regarding Sanchez' post--some entertainment damn well should be free.

Posted by: Katherine on January 5, 2007 01:52 AM

Furthermore, on Pitkin:

Out of copyright literature is a niche product, Rat Ears are not. That is to say, the value of keeping Mickey profitable exceeds the profit to be had by reprinting Faulkner. I apply the principle of countervailing forces here: there exist companies which produce generic drugs successfully and profitably, and stand to benefit from patent expiration. These companies ensure that patents expire in due time, and companies like Merck et. al. ensure that patents are respected. By contrast, though reprinting Shakespeare might be profitable, reprints of Absalom, Absalom! could never generate the kind of payoffs that Disney can, and hence, they lose.

The hope of the American public is that consumers will grow bored of Mickey, and turn their fascination towards something more modern. Perhaps someday, random commenters will be bemoaning Jim Henson's stranglehold on the american cultural heritage. Alternatively, we might get serious about "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts", though we'll be arguing over exactly what constitues a "Backstreet Boy" before it come to that.

Posted by: foolishmortal on January 5, 2007 03:16 AM

beowulf888:

I like that idea. But the outer limit of copyright still would have to be shortened from its current ridiculous length.

Posted by: epistemology on January 5, 2007 08:50 AM

Steve Sailer on January 4, 2007 06:45 PM

That's a silly argument, Steve. Disney may have continued to invest in Mickey Mouse, as a trademark interest. But it did not continue to invest in the 1920s and 1930s cartoons that it produced. They merely re-released them on a regular basis, much as any publisher might do with any other kind of work: a book, music, whatever, lo these many hundreds of years.

The fact is that the Disney corporation published the cartoons at issue at a time when the copyright protection for those specific cartoons was something on the order of 56 years (28 years original term, 28 years of the renewal term). After the 56 year term for the cartoons, the cartoons should have gone into the public domain--that was the bargain that the authors of the cartoons had made with the US government in order to get the copyright protection for the cartoons in the first place. If someone wanted to sell a cap, shirt, or whatever, with the Mickey Mouse trademark, that's a completely different issue.

The US constitution gives congress the right to grant copyright protection for works for a limited term. What you, Disney, and others are suggesting is that the terms should be as limited as the corporations can get the congress to extend. And that is an absurd reading of the constitution.

Posted by: raj on January 5, 2007 09:02 AM

A note on the post.

One of the commenters mentioned that more than a few of the classics can be obtained from libraries via inter-library loans. This is true, but it is also the fact that many of those that are out of copyright can be obtained over the Internet via Project Gutenberg (do a google search). I know that they have more than a few of the classics in English and German digitized, but I'm not sure about other languages.

Posted by: raj on January 5, 2007 09:05 AM

I've quit believing in the Intellectual Property Rights Fairy.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 5, 2007 09:16 AM

What you, Disney, and others are suggesting is that the terms should be as limited as the corporations can get the congress to extend. And that is an absurd reading of the constitution.

Agreed, but it's an absurd reading that the Supreme Court agreed with in Eldred v. Ashcroft, where it was generally agreed that unambiguously declaring copyrights "eternal" would be unconstitutional, but five thousand years is constitutional as long as Congress legislates such a techically finite period.

Posted by: mds on January 5, 2007 09:16 AM

Matt, being an upper class elite, finds it comforting to believe that the elite always get their way. They don't, we're just in a cyclical period where they do. It's pretty clear we're reaching the end of that period. I really doubt these insane copy right laws will survive the next decade. When these periods end, people tend to be enraged by their symbols and current copyright law is one of them. They got too greedy, and took things way too far.

In the end, it's mostly moot anyway. I can download just about any book, piece of software, or movie I want from a chinese or norwegian server and get this stuff for free. As they abuse copyright policy further, most people will simpyl stop playing by the rules.

Posted by: soullite on January 5, 2007 10:19 AM

"Damn and fuck Mickey Mouse: he grows fat eating the grapes of wrath. "

Please desist from using "Grapes of Wrath" in this manner, as it is the trademarked name for Vinny Steinbeck and son's "Grapes of Wrath" brand winery. Let me also point out at this time that the novelty mouse ears sold at our "Of Mice and Men" themeparks are significantly (and legally) different than those offered at any other rodent based themeparks.

Thank you,
Vinny Steinbeck

Posted by: Njorl on January 5, 2007 10:39 AM

If you're interested in helping add to the offerings at Project Gutenberg, in English or any other language, there are volunteer-based websites where you can help proofread scanned texts on their way to being posted.

www.pgdp.net is US-based but has many different language projects

www.rastko.net/dp is based in Serbia has many other languages (including non-Latin alphabets) available.

If there's something you'd like to see that's not currently in Project Gutenberg, they take requests, too.

Posted by: Stacy on January 5, 2007 01:25 PM

U.S. libraries might have problems, but the more interesting library news of the week is on the British Library site (http://www.bl.uk/iraqdiary11.html). The head of reconstruction for the Iraqi National Library's diary is being published there. Here's an entry that reminds me of how librarians must go to work in Washington D.C. and Detroit, which, as is wellknown, have exactly the same level of violence as Iraq. Coming home from a conference in Italy, this is what the librarian, Saad Eskander, confronts:

"I left Rome to Amman, and the next day, I arrived to the Baghdad International Airport. It is well known that the highway, which links the Airport to the Baghdad City, is the most dangerous road in the world.

For a security reason, I asked the taxi driver to drop me at the first military checkpoint, which is by car 3 minutes away from the Airport. One must not trust anybody, especially the Airport taxi drivers. At the checkpoint, my driver was waiting for me with his car. The security police asked us to leave the area immediately, as they were suspicious of abandoned car at the checkpoint. The highway was in a chaotic state, as everyone tried to leave the Airport area, including the policemen and the soldiers, who did not hesitate to point their guns at us, when our car slowed its speed in order to allow their cars to pass!!

I asked the driver to take me to my office straightaway. Minutes after we left the highway, two terrorists bombed a police checkpoint in the Al-Yarmook district, killing 60 people and injuring 90 others. My driver and I decided to take another route via the Al-Karradah district. Once again, just as we entered the Al-Karradah district, two car-bombs exploded killing and injuring a lot of civilians. I decided not to go to my office, as the other main routes were extremely dangerous. Indeed, on the same day and in the very busy Al-Sa'adun area, two more car-bombs exploded, killing and injuring many people. It was a very nice welcome and back to reality."

Doesn't that sound like your typical, librarian day? We are so winning the central front on the war on terrorism! Of course, stuff happens, but Iraq's National library apparently was able to get ahead of the American cycle in cleaning out the deadwood - the cleansing started back on those unforgettable days of liberation in 2003. Talk about having room on the shelves for new books! Compare that to the occupation of Germany in 1945 - they were so way behind that the German libraries still hadn't done that necessary spring cleaning, nor did they have an up to date level of urban violence. This is, of course, not reported by the terrorist sympathetic press, but we are winning the war in Iraq even on the library front.

Posted by: roger on January 5, 2007 01:42 PM

epistemology, re:
The inherited dollar is a stinking fish.

If you don't know about it, it might interest you to read up on the E.U.'s Droit de Suite, being introduced in gradual stages (in an extremely complicated and bureaucratic process, with individual countries taking different steps.) I would venture a guess that they are not going in a direction that you would like, and it puts someone with your opinion on the side of the art dealers and publishers who are quite unhappy with the smells. What I find interesting about the whole situation is that it turns a lot of the usual capitalism/socialism/communism relationships upside down. The inherited wealth comes out of creativity, not capital investment. Heirs get a bonus for their genes, as it were. In certain ways it brings back reward for who you are, not what you do, as in ye olde aristocracy, even though the obvious initial intent of the law was socialistic, to see that others do not profit more than the "artist" does. It all brings up some amazingly complicated issues, it's certainly not your grandfather's capitalism.

Posted by: artappraiser on January 5, 2007 11:35 PM

Steve Sailor makes the statement that "Disney was right to demand copyright protection ...". Regretfully this ignores many fundamental aspects to how our society and economy work. First, as has already been pointed out, copyright was (is) supposed to be for a limited period of time - it was never meant to be a perpetual license. Second, Disney's "demmand" violates free market principles and how the government should act within that context. To say it another way - our government should not be for "sale". Corporations should not be able to "buy" legislation that protects their revenue. If a business can not make money; to bad.

Posted by: Steve R. on January 8, 2007 11:05 AM

re: Pitkin & FoolishMortal: When a drug is about to go off patent, the company makes a slight change to it, gives it a new name, and sells the hell out of the new one, hoping everyone forgets about the old one. See, e.g., the purple pills called Prilosec and Nexium. . . .

Posted by: Isaac S on January 9, 2007 05:36 PM

If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm

Posted by: sohbet on August 21, 2007 01:13 PM

porno pornotube porn
Sex Güzel Sözler Acı sözler Duygusal Sözler sextube 89
89com Seks
Amerikan kapı Sohbet Chat
Mobilya Ahşap Arkadaş arkadaşlık sikiş
Site Ekle Ahşap kapı Toplist site Ekle toplist Türkçe Mirc Mirc sextube Sohbet chat Kapı Tosya Ahşap TOSYATHANK YOU GRUP..

Posted by: pusat dizisi on August 28, 2007 07:10 PM

This server allows you to host your own video chat room, not videochat. If you want to video chat only download Camfrog Video Chat. ...

Posted by: Sohbet on September 25, 2007 10:00 AM

Go to the "Between Barcelona and London" chatroom · Regional · Between Barcelona and London ... A women's only chatroom, for women who love women ...

Posted by: chat on September 25, 2007 10:01 AM

This server allows you to host your own video chat room, not videochat. If you want to video chat only download Camfrog Video Chat. ...

Posted by: sohbet on September 27, 2007 04:59 AM

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet

Posted by: sohbet on September 28, 2007 06:14 PM

kim geldi

Posted by: evetyes on October 2, 2007 07:32 AM

kemkum

Posted by: tamm on October 2, 2007 07:35 AM

chat

Posted by: chat on October 2, 2007 07:36 AM

heyo

Posted by: neyo on October 2, 2007 07:40 AM

Posted by: ch on October 2, 2007 07:43 AM

hiitemm

Posted by: temm on October 2, 2007 07:46 AM

feed/nosports">emman

Posted by: eyye on October 2, 2007 07:50 AM

feed/nosports">ezo

Posted by: kems on October 2, 2007 07:53 AM

xeze

Posted by: teyar on October 2, 2007 07:56 AM

xeze

Posted by: xz on October 2, 2007 07:58 AM

a href="com" follow "feed/nosports">xeze

Posted by: xz on October 2, 2007 07:59 AM

xeze

Posted by: tamm on October 2, 2007 08:00 AM

xeze

Posted by: essa on October 2, 2007 08:01 AM

eri

Posted by: er on October 2, 2007 08:03 AM

noyes

Posted by: eso on October 2, 2007 08:04 AM

ki hat

Posted by: naj on October 2, 2007 08:05 AM

ki hat

Posted by: nana on October 2, 2007 08:07 AM

http://www.kihat.com "" follow "feed/nosports">ki bar

Posted by: heys on October 2, 2007 08:08 AM

ki bar

Posted by: kimz on October 2, 2007 08:11 AM

http://www.kibar.com "" www.tamdost.com>cilli bom

Posted by: cilli on October 2, 2007 08:12 AM

http://www.kibar.com "" http://www.tamdost.com

Posted by: bomm on October 2, 2007 08:14 AM

thanks.

Posted by: video on October 4, 2007 07:56 PM

thanks for you.

Posted by: radyo dinle on October 4, 2007 08:04 PM

thank you.

Posted by: sohbet on October 7, 2007 07:00 AM

thank you

Posted by: sohbet siteleri on October 25, 2007 04:36 PM

Sohbet
almanya sohbet
izmir sohbet
msn sohbet
Sohbet odaları
Chat
chat siteleri
free CHAT
sohbet siteleri

- Alt Linkler - * sohbet *

Kelebek Sohbet
Liselikızlar
ingiltere Sohbet
islam sohbet
islamkent
Arkadaş
Dost Chat
Chat Sohbet
Reklam ver
Avrupa Chat
Yazılı Sohbet
Yazgülü
Bolsohbet
izmir sohbet
Hollanda sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohpet
sohbet.com
msn sohbet
mynet sohbet
cet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline

- Alt Linkler - * Chat *

maynet
camchat
chatavenue
chatline
seslichat

- Yeniler -

Gurbet
Sevgi
Ask
antalya sohbet
sex sohbet
girl

- Amsalak Linkler -

Komik Videolar
Komik vidiyolar
bedava Videolar

her hangi bir sorun oldugunda pm atınız ...

- Bglog - * webmaster blog *

webmaster
komik blog
komik
komik Resimler
komik yazılar
komik videolar
komik fıkralar

- Sohbet5.Net -

Sohbet
chat

girl

hosting

Posted by: sohbet on October 25, 2007 04:40 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
turkmirc

Posted by: mirc on November 2, 2007 03:18 PM

video izle

Posted by: bedava oyunlar on November 5, 2007 12:14 PM

thank you very good article

Posted by: oyunlar on November 6, 2007 07:49 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Posted by: mirc on November 9, 2007 02:34 PM

ty so much

xoyunx

Posted by: xoyunx on November 10, 2007 07:05 AM

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Posted by: youtube on November 16, 2007 01:12 PM

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Posted by: www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması on November 16, 2007 07:31 PM

Interesting. He's so apathetic to the birdwatching-like irrelavance of athiesm that he takes special time to comment on the books written about them. Is there a contradiction here. Sounds like he feels the need to add to the discussion of a thing which he things nobody like him feels the need to discuss.

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on November 17, 2007 10:09 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
türk
karar