[HN Gopher] How the Music Industry Learned to Love Piracy
___________________________________________________________________
How the Music Industry Learned to Love Piracy
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 76 points
Date : 2024-08-05 14:57 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://archive.ph/P4TFy
| politelemon wrote:
| Some places such as Amazon and Bandcamp still allow downloading
| the music files. Is there a similarly lopsided revenue model in
| these cases, as there is for streaming?
|
| Anyway it seems that the industry is pleased with where it ended
| up, the link between then and now is a bit tenuous. However it's
| also on us that we willingly handed over control to streaming
| companies for the convenience. Think about the number of times
| we've justified something by it being the cost of a few coffees a
| month. TV, music, Adobe.
| mrsilencedogood wrote:
| >Amazon
|
| Guarantee you these are lots of bootlegs and other-region
| copies behind resold. So probably Amazon is worst for the
| artists because even the labels are getting cheated there.
|
| >Bandcamp
|
| As I understand it, this is (was?) one of the few places an
| artist could still get a good deal. Bandcamp positions itself
| more as a marketplace and takes (iirc) 16ish percent. Let me
| check that against their website:
|
| "when a fan buys something on Bandcamp, an average of 82% of
| the money goes to you"
| (https://bandcamp.com/artists?from=footer)
|
| So yeah, they get a lot of the niche weird music. I buy a lot
| of NWOTHM music off there for this reason.
| diggan wrote:
| Also, Bandcamp has "Bandcamp Fridays" (or similar name),
| where for the entire day, 100% goes to the artists.
|
| I keep a list of music that I add to when I come across
| something I want to buy, then when the Bandcamp Friday comes
| around, buy everything on the list.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Hello fellow NWOTHM fan. (So much of it is so bad, but every
| now and then there is something awesome)
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| I follow 2 rules:
|
| 1. If an artist has a bandcamp, I buy.
|
| 2. there is no second rule
| freedomben wrote:
| Indeed. I used to buy amazon mp3s, but they jacked around a
| couple of times to make it harder to download whole albums,
| at which point I stopped and won't buy on amazon anymore. I
| know _currently_ it 's pretty easy to download whole albums,
| but they torched my trust. On Bandcamp, I buy it. Not on
| Bandcamp, nope.
| skydhash wrote:
| Qobuz has a pretty chill process too. I don't actually
| trust their servers that much, (or anyone server) so I
| download albums as soon as I bought them. What I wish for
| when downloading digitally is getting the booklet (or liner
| notes) of the albums. It's nice knowing who was involved in
| the project and the thoughts/story of the artists.
| _3u10 wrote:
| Hopefully the times learns to love paywall blockers.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/31/magazine/how-music-got-fr...
| neallindsay wrote:
| Presumably there's a reason they make their paywall so porous.
| scelerat wrote:
| Nelson's faming here pretty much sums up how I feel about the
| whole ball of wax myself, a musician, and someone who started
| their career working for a major national concert promotor,
| worked for two streaming music services and who participates in a
| local music scene as performer, supporter and occasional
| promotor:
|
| """
|
| The problem isn't just the ever-decreasing viability of even
| established, popular artists keeping food on the table. There is
| also a cultural poverty that attends the streaming economy. There
| is the ruthless profit maximization and the constant steering of
| listeners toward the same music. There is the lock-step social
| engineering and manufactured consensus. There is the escalating
| -- and demeaning -- sense of music being treated as a utility
| that need not be meaningfully engaged with.
|
| """
| johnny22 wrote:
| > There is the ruthless profit maximization and the constant
| steering of listeners toward the same music.
|
| What is your reference time frame here? That's exactly how it
| was in the 90s and before. Feels like there was a tiny bright
| spot from the early 2000s to say 2010 or so, but then it was
| over.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| It's CHEAP to make and distribute music. Production costs are
| low due to advances in PC and audio tech. Distribution costs
| are at the floor where the actual distribution is practically
| free and it is only the legal concerns that are a cost. The
| whole industry currently doesn't have a better physical value-
| add than the guy playing on the street corner with a money hat.
| If anyone can make music then music has demeaned itself, and
| maybe it simply wasn't ever a big deal in the first place.
|
| Many say the 60's and 70's were the best years in music, and
| this was the heyday of the time where if you wanted to listen
| to someone's song, you had to buy their record and you didn't
| really have any other choice unless you fooled around with
| expensive and bulky reel-to-reel tape decks[1]. Was that all it
| was - inability for the masses to create and distribute media
| without a middleman? Not that the middleman didn't perform a
| valuable function, but it was performing it for everyone who
| would buy records in the whole market. Now we get to choose or
| be our own middlemen, and people who don't want to do that
| kinda get what they deserve.
|
| [1] I don't know when the compact cassette started becoming
| popular - did people make mixtapes in the 70's?
| phone8675309 wrote:
| > If anyone can make music then music has demeaned itself,
| and maybe it simply wasn't ever a big deal in the first
| place.
|
| I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Could you please
| explain?
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| A) If anyone can make music then music has demeaned itself;
| B) maybe it simply wasn't ever a big deal in the first
| place.
|
| Intended meaning: A can't be true so B therefore must be
| true. I probably should have used 'or' instead of 'and.'
|
| Music kinda always has been a utility. I reach for Happy
| Birthday like I reach for tools in my toolbox - it's
| birthday time, so let's sing it.
|
| A hard truth about art is that, for "good" art, the artist
| has often poured intense _personal_ energy into it, yet
| there is no guarantee that that energy will transfer to
| future experiencers of your art. When that transfer happens
| consistently over decades or centuries, it 's awesome and
| that speaks to the greatness of that art, of course (not
| necessarily the artist). Business models around particular
| arts such as music have little bearing on this phenomenon,
| other than possibly giving more people the ability to
| pursue art. But artists who can achieve greatness (which
| they will have an innate need to do because it is a
| personal energy thing) will manage it regardless of any
| surrounding business model or economic/religious/political
| system.
|
| "Happy Birthday" is a utility, but also a great work of
| art, because we are still singing it 100 years later.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| It was always true that anyone could make music, since the
| earliest days of modern humans.
|
| By "music" you really seem to mean the recording industry,
| which is a very different beast than the concept of music.
| jerf wrote:
| I think the point is the recording industry _was_ a very
| different beast. Now it 's not. What would pass as a high-
| quality studio in the 1980s is now home hobbyist
| accessible, with bits and pieces state of the art for even
| the current decade like the digital processing. Anyone
| willing to put in enough time to have music worth recording
| can record it with only a modest percentage increase in
| time and money.
|
| The gate was never that music is hard [1], but recording
| and distribution. Well, recording and distribution is now
| very, very feasibly done without companies, and even the
| process of making it is easier than ever. Why would we
| expect anything but an explosion in supply?
|
| Most of it will, of course, be crap. Sturgeon's law can not
| be denied. But 10% of a 50x increase is still a _lot_ of
| new good music, and 10% of 10% of a 100x increase is still
| quite a bit of new _great_ music.
|
| [1]: Music is, of course, hard. But it's hard in the way
| programming is hard, accounting is hard, being a biochemist
| is hard, plumbing is hard, etc. Many, many things are on
| this level of "hard". It's the sort of thing that takes
| enough investment that you are making a choice to pursue it
| rather than other things, but it's well within an
| individual's capability. No need to form a 1000 person
| company in 2024 just to record some tunes, whereas if you
| want to distribute your music nationally in the 1960s you
| are looking at "1000 person company" sorts of tasks, where
| the successful companies were larger than that.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| "If anyone can make music then music has demeaned itself,
| and maybe it simply wasn't ever a big deal in the first
| place."
|
| That's what I have a problem with. Music hasn't demeaned
| itself. Music is just as meaningful as it's ever been.
| jen20 wrote:
| > What would pass as a high-quality studio in the 1980s
| is now home hobbyist accessible, with bits and pieces
| state of the art for even the current decade like the
| digital processing.
|
| The gear is accessible - but the acoustics of a studio
| certainly is not.
| tjr wrote:
| True, but there's still a whole lot you can do with
| virtual instruments, synthesizers, direct-recorded
| guitars, and minimal (or even no) good room acoustics.
|
| That does leave some niches open for the value of
| recording live instruments in a sonically good space, so
| surely some professional studios will persist, of course.
|
| And just for recording larger groups, regardless of the
| acoustics. Many home studios are fine for one person, or
| two, or three, but if you want to record a band or a
| choir or whatever you may just need more space.
| jen20 wrote:
| Indeed, virtual instruments open up a whole lot of
| creative space. And not having to record everything in
| reverse order of importance while burning the previous
| version is a substantial benefit vs even professional
| recording gear of the past!
| mbg721 wrote:
| There's also the instruments themselves, for a lot of 60s-80s
| pop music. A guy on the street corner with a money hat today
| can make any electronic sound that Kraftwerk blew people's
| minds with.
| bagful wrote:
| The ease of obtaining such sounds on the cheap makes it
| difficult to appreciate just how cutting-edge those sounds
| were in Kraftwerk's time. Making electronic drums sound
| good requires a lot of processing, and they did all of that
| with analog equipment before we even had a complete idea of
| how electronic drums "should" sound. And that raises the
| bar for today's musicians -- doing "Kraftwerk" today
| requires pushing boundaries like they did, not just making
| the same sounds.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The actual distribution is not free, management companies
| take a huge cut both formally or informally. For some
| reason[0], you can't just upload your music to Spotify or
| Apple Music directly, you have to have a middleman, and that
| market of "middlemen for unsigned artists" is just three
| companies[1]. They all suck in different ways, but there's a
| _lot_ of creative-class wage theft going on, even beyond
| Spotify just underpaying indies on rights.
|
| You _can_ upload music directly on YouTube, but they pay very
| little on short videos and music streams. And there 's also
| sketchy management companies and MCNs there _anyway_.
|
| We also have to keep in mind that the music industry loves
| complicated and unclear ownership structures over the music
| being produced. Nobody completely _owns_ a music track; there
| 's separate copyrights for melody and recordings, both of
| which get separated and broken down in extremely opaque ways.
| Remixes and sampling make the rights situation even more
| complicated, and at best, mean that the person who made the
| remix or used the samples has to share revenue. At worst, you
| get to deal with all sorts of bullshit claims (or lawsuits)
| from people who think they own more than they do.
|
| Insamuch as cheap distribution _has_ flooded the market, it
| 's often either in the form of attempts to launder money
| through Spotify[2], or online advertising style click fraud
| of some kind. The problem is not that there are too many
| honest artists, but that nobody does proper KYC on indies.
| Either they don't care if you're legit or they don't want to
| work with people at the small end.
|
| [0] In the case of Apple, long-standing trademark disputes
| with The Beatles prohibit them from representing artists
| directly, which is how management companies got their start
| for self-published acts. However, this would not bind Spotify
| or other streaming services.
|
| [1] CDBaby, TuneCore, and DistroKid, if I remember correctly
|
| [2] e.g. buy a bunch of Spotify subscriptions with drug
| money, publish a bunch of nominally unrelated artists on
| Spotify, listen to them 24/7, then the Spotify payments are
| clean cash
| bhelkey wrote:
| > The actual distribution is not free, management companies
| take a huge cut both formally or informally.
|
| Spotify has a list of recommended distributors [1]. The
| first one on the list, DistroKid, charges $22/yr for
| unlimited uploads to Spotify, Apple Music with the artist
| keeping all royalties[2].
|
| $22 is not free but is very reasonable.
|
| [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/getting-
| music...
|
| [2] https://distrokid.com/
| kmeisthax wrote:
| YouTube is chock full of musicians with endless
| complaints about DistroKid's practices and policies:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x14kZTPA064
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuE3YQK1-Ng
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itYB2XSsLAc
| bsder wrote:
| > Was that all it was - inability for the masses to create
| and distribute media without a middleman?
|
| The difference in era was the ability to earn enough money to
| exist long enough to "Git Gud".
|
| Sure, music is cheap to make today. However, that just means
| there are twelve zillion shitty bands that _never progress
| past that_.
|
| Many of the bands that are heralded as "awesome" really
| weren't to start. They generally took years to gel and often
| the members formed, dissolved and reformed several bands
| before the one that caught fire.
|
| Even the Beatles sounded like every other Merseybeat band to
| start.
|
| Without the ability to make money at their craft, artists
| don't get better at their craft. It's that simple.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > What this means is that it is essentially impossible for all
| but a glancingly small number of musicians to make meaningful
| income from their recordings.
|
| I'm not sure what's supposed to happen, honestly. With the
| invention of home recording and all the attendant production
| tools, the lower barriers to entry, broader exposure due to the
| internet, etc., there was always going to be a vastly larger
| amount of music than there was 30 years ago. If the old model had
| not changed, we'd still be in a world with a glancingly small
| number of slots on the radio charts for each genre--those are the
| people the average person knows about, and spends money on--and
| most other musicians would be broke.
|
| I assume. I could be wrong. But my two points are that it's not
| like the old model was friendly to artists either, and that it's
| not actually very easy for me to imagine a coherent model for
| music that would work be equitable for all artists in the world
| today, given the other changes that've taken place.
|
| I don't think it's just to pretend that if there are 4-5x more
| people releasing music today, we would all would be spending 4-5x
| more on records and concerts than we did in 1996. And I am not
| saying that's what the author is saying, I'm just trying to work
| through the consequences of what I inferred from this article,
| the economics of which were a little hand-wavey.
| codexb wrote:
| It's also worth pointing out that, historically, a very small
| percentage of artists live off the income from recordings or
| reproductions of their works. This is true for musicians,
| painters, authors, actors, or any other creative artists.
|
| By and large, the only way to make a living as an artist is to
| continuously produce and perform copious amounts of work, or to
| have another source of income from a day job.
| gamepsys wrote:
| The entire concept of making a living off
| recordings/reproductions didn't really start until the
| invention of the printing press which allowed for mass
| reproductions.
|
| Prior to that anyone with enough time on their hands and
| skills could legally reproduce any text, music, painting, etc
| for profit. Artist where largely compensated for performances
| or for original artwork. There was more relative demand for
| live performances because of the lack of other available
| entertainment options.
|
| Now the primary issue with being a successful artist is the
| attention economy is incredibly competitive, and the barriers
| to entry are incredibly low.
| philwelch wrote:
| Recorded music was a viable business for maybe a single
| century. That's a historical blip. If you wanted to listen to
| music before the 20th century, your only option was live
| music, so that's how musicians made money. In the 21st
| century this is also how musicians make money. Also, it turns
| out that even in the 20th century, the _real_ money was still
| made on tour.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| You're right. I'm going to get bashed for gatekeeping I'm sure,
| but Spotify is filled with low quality garbage. Not everyone's
| band deserves to make it. As a former musician, it's incredibly
| difficult to make a living and always has been. Most
| bands/artists just aren't that good. Art is hard. There's a lot
| of loud people yelling about how they can't sit at home and
| make passive income by gaming social media and getting paid for
| releasing a song on Spotify and never performing live. Get out
| and play. Music is a social thing. If you can't book shows or
| are unwilling to, too bad.
|
| I know this comes off as get off my lawn, but that's just how a
| performance art works. Only the best make it no matter what you
| do.
| javier2 wrote:
| Not to be negative towards my musical friends, but the bands
| that can make a living today are often putting out incredible
| art.
| cm2012 wrote:
| It's a golden age for music. More than half of Spotify payouts go
| to non-agency talent, IE small musicians. It's a great discovery
| mechanism.
| ysofunny wrote:
| sure... until one realizes one has gotta pay the ripper if they
| ever wanna get recommended by "the" algorithm of spotify
| freedomben wrote:
| "the algorithm" has got to be a tough one though. You can't
| recommend very many bad fits for the user before they will
| stop using it, and unknown/lesser known songs are a _huge_
| gamble.
|
| I badly want an algorithm that I can say, "Find me artists
| that sounds like <example-song> that have less than 1,000
| subcribers (or whatever metric)" but I can understand why
| they don't do that (because there are very, very few people
| like me out there). It sucks.
| cue_the_strings wrote:
| I'm afraid you'd be dissapointed if you got what you
| wanted, because it'd likely be AI-generated money-
| laundering-core.
| cm2012 wrote:
| It's the same story on every platform. No one is owed
| attention. Building an audience is a grind.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| "the" algorithm is constantly giving me new music from small
| artists. If all you hear is top 40 hits, that's on you.
| nsonha wrote:
| As opposed to what? Pay the record companies, or, most
| likely, never even to be discovered by them?
| rightbyte wrote:
| The recommendation algorithm works fine for me. There should
| be some reset button though or some other levers though.
|
| If you let someone else choose songs or choose song others
| like too for a party it gets messed up.
| legitster wrote:
| > What this means is that it is essentially impossible for all
| but a glancingly small number of musicians to make meaningful
| income from their recordings.
|
| I mean, if you look back before radio, the amount of money
| artists made from recordings was $0 (Okay, maybe some money off
| of sheet music or player piano sheets).
|
| So in the grand scheme of human history, the primary income of
| musicians has been from their performances. That was true before
| recordings, and that is true again now. For a weird blip there
| was a cartel propping up the value of their recordings (of which
| the industry profited more than musicians). But this isn't a
| collapse of anything more than it's a regression to the mean -
| the marginal value of a copy of something approaches to 0 over
| time.
|
| When you hear about artists complaining about royalties from
| streaming, it was a very, very, very elite group of musicians who
| ever made money just from dropping albums. You are only hearing
| from the winners of the Label system. Most bands ended up "owing"
| money to their record labels.
|
| (The way record deals worked, you got paid an advance for
| songs/albums. But you only kept ~10% of album sales. From which
| you had to pay back your advance + recording expenses + marketing
| costs.)
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| When I was a teen I used to download all my stuff from torrent,
| or DDL sites. Before that it was Limewire and other P2P
| networks... These days, with a stable job, I've kind of gone into
| a weird redemption ark that sees me paying for music from all the
| bands I used to listed back then... I'm probably about 50% into
| my collection and I now buy a lot from Bandcamp, but also
| iTunes... I feel like I'm seeking absolution from the music
| industry, or something like that...
| giantrobot wrote:
| > I'm probably about 50% into my collection and I now buy a lot
| from Bandcamp, but also iTunes... I feel like I'm seeking
| absolution from the music industry, or something like that...
|
| Go see those bands live and buy something from their merch
| table, they'll make a lot more money than if you just buy
| albums.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think that is true?
|
| I would expect an artist to get a far larger cut off Bandcamp
| than merch or tickets.
|
| Artists get like 85% of a zero cost digital sale.
|
| I can't imagine a ticket being close to that after
| ticketmaster takes a cut, the venue takes a cut, and the band
| pays all the expenses of touring.
| bubblebeard wrote:
| I can relate, and I think this is a great sentiment. Buying a
| Spotify subscription was enough to ease my personal feelings of
| guilt though (and subscriptions to some video streaming
| services like Prime). This way I give back to the artist
| community as a whole rather then a specific artist I may have
| cheated in the past. Plus, I get a ton of new content.
| kevinsync wrote:
| Apologies if this feels off-topic and ranting, but it's all
| connected:
|
| I'm convinced (in particular by years of reading Bob Lefsetz's
| punditry [0], as well as working alongside multiple successful
| musicians, DJs, and industry agencies for many years) that
| Spotify single-handedly saved the aging and out-of-touch record
| business, that their payments to artists are fair, and that it's
| more accessible now than ever before by an order of magnitude to
| build a real, sustainable career as a musician.
|
| You have to simply put in the work, and it is brutal, long,
| thankless, isolating work, on top of the Herculean task of
| creating something people legitimately want and connect with. And
| you should be attractive (not beautiful persay, but charismatic
| and authentic). And provide the illusion of access to you. And be
| kind to your fans. And maximize all of your potential channels
| (digital and IRL, from socials to tours to brand partnerships to
| merch/apparel to unpredictable, serendipitous syncs in film and
| tv (ex. Kate Bush "Running Up That Hill")), all the while
| cultivating fans like plants in a garden.
|
| You have to travel and perform, and be present, and be the
| soundtrack to their lives, always meeting your fans where they
| are, however they congregate, and and and and and! For years and
| years. It takes a long time to enjoy a tree you've just planted.
|
| People do not have the bandwidth, mentally or financially, to
| support or patronize more than a few artists that mean something
| significant to them. Just because the amount of people making and
| publishing music has exploded doesn't mean that listeners have
| available slots to add you into their mental playlist, until you
| keep doing what you're doing long enough that you appear, almost
| seamlessly, into a moment in their life that awes and delights
| and converts them into a believer.
|
| There is no "right place at the right time" -- you have to be in
| the right place ALL the time, and eventually your random times
| become other peoples' "right time".
|
| If you never give up, if you're always there, you'll also
| eventually be a staple on the scene -- you'll be, literally by
| default, "old guard" that people look up to. You'll have earned
| your respect, you'll have put in your dues, and the money / fame
| / power will come as an after-effect.
|
| Any other situation where it's overnight success, those acts are
| created as nothing more than products to be sold. Both can make a
| lot of money, but money isn't the goal. Craft, legacy, driving
| culture, these are what artistry is supposed to be about. Money
| is secondary, and always comes if you take the time to learn the
| business and take your fan stewardship seriously.
|
| The amount of shallow takes on Twitter, Threads, or god forbid
| LinkedIn about poor musicians who "deserve a living wage", who
| are "gamed by Big Tech", who are "slaves to the algorithm", who
| aren't living the dreams they weirdly feel entitled to, they
| don't deserve anything if their music and persona are nothing
| anybody wants, if they haven't put in the work, haven't shown up
| and met people continuously, haven't failed over and over,
| haven't paid for it with blood, sweat and tears, haven't stuck to
| their guns until they eventually get lucky -- not because the
| universe chose them, but because they made sure they were already
| all of what I wrote above when opportunity came knocking.
|
| Like, sorry, the world has become hyper-connected, super
| decentralized, insular, tribal -- MTV can't break you anymore.
| None of us are paying attention to the same things as anybody
| else. It's harder than ever to get attention, and what you're
| selling had better be damn good -- but if you succeed, the
| rewards are richer than they've ever been.
|
| Most plants get choked out on the jungle floor by the canopy, or
| end up adapting to quietly survive in their environment. Some
| defy all odds and break through the top. Chances are you're not
| going to the top, but you don't have to get choked out either.
|
| Anyways.
|
| [0] https://lefsetz.com
| codexb wrote:
| > "That path turns out to be streaming, a neat compromise between
| letting consumers listen to whatever they want online and
| collecting just enough money for it that big record labels are
| satisfied with their cut."
|
| I think it's a bit early to start claiming victory in a paradigm
| shift to streaming that makes pirating obsolete. The price of
| video and music streaming has quickly been increasing, and in
| many cases, we've come full circle to being forced to deal with
| ads again. It's entirely possible for the music business to price
| their customers out of the market again to the point that an on-
| demand pirate streaming service completely overtakes legal
| streaming. I think we're already approaching that for video
| streaming.
| skydhash wrote:
| I'd love streaming if the client software were actually useful.
| All of them are disaster in UX if you do more than listening to
| music in the background. Peak design for me was iTunes 10 and
| Winamp 2. Which means control/status panel, a queue list and
| customizable table views for the songs (optional grid view to
| browse by album). Most streaming clients are click/scroll hell.
| epiccoleman wrote:
| It's not just price and ads either - the user experience on
| most of the big streaming apps is absolutely dismal. I just
| recently started using Stremio with a debrid plugin (basically,
| it's just a nice streaming frontend for watching torrents,
| without needing to download them to my LAN).
|
| It is crazy to see just how good things can be. And Stremio's
| UX isn't even great, it's just that it's not loading me with
| ads and bullshit, and the thing I want to watch is just there,
| and turns on with minimal fuss.
| kelnos wrote:
| [delayed]
| tuetuopay wrote:
| Fortunately the music industry does not seem to go the same way
| as the video streaming industry: each platform having their
| exclusives, fragmenting the offer, and making life hard for
| customers. Music streaming services differentiate through other
| means.
|
| That's why I'm happily paying for Deezer and not for video
| services.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Ask any musician: they never made real money on anything but
| licensing/publishing fees
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-05 23:01 UTC)