Quantcast
PT session files as intellectual property - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
PT session files as intellectual property
Old 7th February 2006 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Nut
 
pvoc3000's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Dominant
Maybe I'll stiff my engineer on his payment, because I'm afraid he'll delete the work I paid him to do.

C'mon guys...

If you want a particular credit on a recording you worked on, get it in writing that you'll be credited as such, if it's all that important to you.

But to pre-emptively stiff a client because you're afraid they will stiff you is unprofessional at best.

As both a writer-member and publisher-member of ASCAP, I can assure you that for sound engineers to get their hands into areas of intellectual property concerning the music they record is considered not only tacky but highly unprofessional.

I don't care what sorts of philosophical arguments anyone might cook up in their defense. There is simply no basis in copyright law or intellectual property law for a sound engineer to lay claim to those rights in any fashion or form.

If someone wants to own intellectual property, they can compose a chord change with an accompanying melody, and register it with the Library Of Congress.

In the meantime, you're paid to do a job, and obligated to hand it off to the next person on the team when you're done your job.

All this talk about witholding files and deleting files makes me feel like I'm on a forum for auto mechanics.
[/rant]
I don't think anyone is saying they'd withhold or delete the session, just the automation data and plug-ins used to make it sound like a "mix". I'm all for stripping that stuff from sessions before turning them in. I flatten the files (printing the essential automation/fx to separate tracks), and remove anything that can or should be recreated by a mixer later on. As an engineer, I'm hired to provide them with recorded tracks, not "pre-mixed" tracks, so thats what they get.
Old 7th February 2006 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igotsoul4u
Technically they are paying for the mix in its entirety, which to me includes all session data and or tapes. I did have an incident where I took all my processing off because I hadn't been payed yet, but I think thats a whole different situation. I have always interpreted intellectual property as being the musical content. We are simply changing how that musical content sounds. The only solution I can think of is printing stems.
I always tell clients up front that they are not getting my work sessions. They are paying for the end result, not how the end result was achieved. The 'art' or 'craft' of the mixer is the manipulation of the 'musical content'. For lack of a better way to put it, my unique ablilty is was got me hired to begin with. I agree I do not own the final stereo mix, but I do own the process by which it was created.

I will always do instrumental and TV [no lead vocal] passes of anything I mix, and have done vocal only passes if requested.

my 2 cents...

John
Old 7th February 2006 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno
I always tell clients up front that they are not getting my work sessions. They are paying for the end result, not how the end result was achieved. The 'art' or 'craft' of the mixer is the manipulation of the 'musical content'. For lack of a better way to put it, my unique ablilty is was got me hired to begin with. I agree I do not own the final stereo mix, but I do own the process by which it was created.
I agree with this 100%

I reserve the right to share the "process" by choice, NOT by obligation.
Sometimes I will provide complete session data in certain situations, but that is only when a certain level of AE/Client trust is present and that is only for me to decide.

-Z-
Old 7th February 2006 | Show parent
  #34
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
I agree...

clean up and consolidate regions, print any fx or amp models, anything that is an essential MUSICAL part of the recording, and then strip all the plugs, automation, etc. Most mixers, myself included, are gonna take their own approach, so may as well give em a clean slate.

I don't think it's an issue- masters are masters, make them as simple and easy toacess as possible. It's gonna be hard enough to open DAW files in 5 years anyway, without having a bunch of plugs and other info to worry about opening too...

my $.02

mark burris
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Cosmonauta's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Right now, I mix using a digital mixer... so if the client open the PT session in another set up, it's just like a bunch of raw track with output from A1 to C8... very similar to day old 2' tape days.

So I don't bother... yet.

But I have plans to be in the total ITB league soon, and I was wondering about this situation. I really think I will retain the "mixed.pts" file with me and send the client just the "edited-mixready.pts" with no plugins and automations.

All situations would drive me crazy:
-Another engineer lowering down the guitar -1.5 db in the chorus and get the mix credit.
-or the drummer, open the session in his PT's home studio, turn up the drumbus and send this to the mastering guy.... credit: ME!

I think if the client wants minor changes this would be asked to ME (and payed as well)... If they want drastic changes with other engineer, then go from the start and use the raw tracks.

Am I wrong?
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Add Here!
Let me try and explain where I'm coming from and clarify the situation. I will in fact be compensated for my labor as the mix engineer for the project. In turn, the client will get what he has contracted me for (i.e. the mixes - 24/44.1 stereo SD2 files). I'm pretty confident the client will be happy and the work will exceed his expectations. To be clear - I never had any intention of setting the project back or trashing the work put in.

His request (more specifically, the drummers') for the session files is another issue all together. I'd rather give them the sessions as they were after tracking and prior to any of my mix work. The way I look at it is, let's imagine the new mixer takes my sessions post mixing, rides a level here and there, instantiates a new plug-in on an aux track, adjusts an eq, etc., lands the mix on the record and gets the mix credit. I view this as wrong simply because I did most of the mix prior to his/her finishing their version of the mix. And trust me there was quite a bit of work in the mixing of this project.

I know this reasoning risks coming across as egotistical, withholding, counter-productive, etc. but I beg to differ with that analysis. I think what I'm saying is quite reasonable.

In addition, why would a mixer want a PT session fully mixed to "mix"? I say take the session in the condition following the final overdub and mix the record from scratch. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with having to delete automation moves from another mix. I think that adherence to Charles' guidelines for prepping a mixing session for interchange is the right and most professional way to handle this situation.

That's my take.
I agree 100% with your view. Your mix has been supplied as agreed - stereo mixdown.

If someone else is gonna "mix" it then they have to actually do the work. You guys have gotta respect your work more. I think a good mix makes as much (more actually but dont tell the ME's) difference to a track as a good master.

I respect the work of a good mix engineer as much as anyone else in the chain.

Mastering engineers certainly wont be giving you all the plugins, settings and list of outboard gear they used to complete your master so why shouldn't the mix engineer do the same?

Sure, if you use outboard it cant be replicated very easily at all then you wouldn't worry, but if you mix ITB then I say strip all your "mix work" out of the session before supplying. That isn't paranoid, it's not giving your work and knowledge away for free.

another example - If you engineered (tracked) a project then some work went to another studio for a few guitar overdubs (band is on tour or something) then the credits went to the "other studio" for engineering then you would be entitled to be very unhappy. I doubt this would happen for engineering but there has already been examples of this happening above for mixing.

the only caveat is if supplying the mix session files is part of your contract. Although Id certainly be adding a premium dollar value for that.

eg:

$xxx per song - stereo files and tracking session

$yyy extra per song for ITB mix session files with automation intact and either printed plugins or plugs left inserted.
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
hey guys- great comments on all types of scenarios....here's something that happend to me last summer that really made me think twice about putting my PT mix session on the DVD backup that goes w/the client. i always keep all of my PT mix session(s) on the backup that i keep....but i digress:

i was mixing an independent rock "record" for a band that had their own recording setup- they originally booked me to mix the whole "record"; but then scaled it back to a few songs- they actually told me they were just going to copy my eq's, compression, levels, etc, etc to other songs and mix the rest of the "record" themselves- thus reducing the need for me, and saving a lot of money.

now, we can ponder what is intellectual property, what it means to turn in a mix, what is a mix credit, etc- but to me, this is the heart of the matter---basically using technology to take advantage of our hard earned experience and trusting natures in order to take the engineer out of the picture. it really pissed me off.

has this happened to anyone else?

chris
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmnash
i was mixing an independent rock "record" for a band that had their own recording setup- they originally booked me to mix the whole "record"; but then scaled it back to a few songs- they actually told me they were just going to copy my eq's, compression, levels, etc, etc to other songs and mix the rest of the "record" themselves- thus reducing the need for me, and saving a lot of money.


chris

I would pass on a gig like that next time.
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Dominant
There is simply no basis in copyright law or intellectual property law for a sound engineer to lay claim to those rights in any fashion or form.

If someone wants to own intellectual property, they can compose a chord change with an accompanying melody, and register it with the Library Of Congress.

In the meantime, you're paid to do a job, and obligated to hand it off to the next person on the team when you're done your job.

All this talk about witholding files and deleting files makes me feel like I'm on a forum for auto mechanics.
[/rant]
I think your legal conclusions are somewhat off the mark. While there may be no legal basis for a sound engineer to claim songwriting credits, arranging credits or the like, those credits/rights apply to the composition, not the sound recording. Sound recordings, however, are a different class of copyrightable works (like visual arts, textual works, architectural works, etc.). I'm pretty sure that this issue has been litigated, and a sound engineer's claim of rights in a sound recording that he engineered without having signed an assignment of rights/work made for hire agreement was successful, resulting in an award of damages in the form of back-royalties representing his share of the earnings from the sound recordings. In today's environment, engineers are often (or should be) required to sign assignment/work made for hire agreements with the producers/record co's prior to starting work on a record.

Any producer who doesn't require such an agreement be signed by an engineer that is not intended to be a profit participant and/or part-owner of the copyright is exposing him/herself to the potential risk that the engineer will claim a share of the proceeds from exploiting the copyright (i.e. the sound recording, master, hit single...). If the producer did the album on spec at "shizzounds hollywood graveyard shift studios" with some space-eyed 24 year old flying the board for cheap on an hourly basis, but later managed to get the finished product signed and it became a hit, the record company would almost certainly be indemnified against the engineer's claim, since the producer would have had to rep & warrant that he owned or had cleared all the applicable rights in the product. So, it would be the producer's share that gets chopped up to pay the engineer.

Add to that the possibility that, should said master be converted into a ringtone, the engineer could claim that the converted ringtone audio file is an unauthorized derivative work and therefore infringes his copyright, which could raise the (remote) possibility of injunctive relief or statutory damages...

It's a far more complex legal landscape than you portray, for better or for worse. fortunately, the assignment/work for hire language required to "fix" the agreement can be worded economically in a single paragraph.



v
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cram
O.K., here's a spanner in the works. I brought this up on another bbs a few months ago.

I had a band bail on me after tracking for a cheaper studio (read, free) where they wanted to mix. The studio used PARIS just as I do. The engineer asked for ALL PARIS files including internal FX settings. Now I have a bunch of personally tweaked FX settings that I have modelled after some favorite settings on PCM81's, fave comps, etc. I have spent hours in some cases getting these just right.

I refused to give him these settings.

Additionally, earlier as a favor for the band I did some mixes off the clock, that were far from rough, in fact I would (with a tweak here and there) consider them close to final.

I refused to give him these as well.

I used the rationale that if I were an analog tracking studio, there would be no record of inserted outboard and console settings other than hardcopy notes and a floppy. Which would be useless, unless his imaginary console and my imaginary console shared the same automation info (highly unlikely) and his outboard was the same as my outboard.

I also asked him a question he was unable to answer. I asked "If you are going to mix this thing according to your sensibilities, wouldn't roughs mixed with MY sensibilities be a hindrance?" He sputtered and blustered, and that was when I KNEW he was looking to USE me. I don't like being used. evileye

He got PARIS files with all tracks labelled correctly, all at the same levels, no FX settings, no automation, no eq, no pans.

That may make me a jerk, but that is what I felt most comfortable doing.

p.s., I heard the disc after he was done mixing it, the mixes sounded like ****.
you did the right thing, regardless of how the mixes sounded in the end.
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #41
YZ!
Gear Addict
 
YZ!'s Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno
(snip)They are paying for the end result, not how the end result was achieved. The 'art' or 'craft' of the mixer is the manipulation of the 'musical content'. For lack of a better way to put it, my unique ablilty is was got me hired to begin with. I agree I do not own the final stereo mix, but I do own the process by which it was created.
(snip)
John
I agree 110%.

The client pays the engineer for the end result.

IMO unless otherwise stated by contract the mixing engineer is hired to provide a finished composite (AKA "mixdown") of the original tracks and nothing else.

He is under no obligation to provide the means that were used in the achievement of the end result so those could be used later by someone else in the same or even in a different piece of music.

So you were hired to do a guitar solo in someone's song, they liked it at first but a week later wanted to use someone else instead but you have an obligation to provide your guitar, amp and FXs, not to mention being there to shape the sound so that the other guy can solo while keeping your sound that they liked so much, and all for free? well, if they are friends you may do it, but it is your choice and not an obligation.
Old 8th February 2006 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
When I pay for food at a restraunt, I don't think that entitles me to the recipe. Even if I provided them with the raw materials beforehand.
Old 11th December 2010 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyclueless ➡️
When I pay for food at a restraunt, I don't think that entitles me to the recipe. Even if I provided them with the raw materials beforehand.
BINGO! Really folks, you can't argue the above analogy is not applicable and appropriate. Like competing chefs, your "recipe" is your "job security". If it's hard won, and gives you an advantage in the market place, then why should you give that advantage away, or risk some one else taking credit for your own work?
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Since long before DAW's it's been pretty common practice when mixing certain types of albums to keep the patches and console settings between songs -at least as a starting point. Afterall, it's the same drum kit, same vocalist, same guitarist etc etc. That's what helps the album sound cohesive.

I think it's disrespectful to the engineer to expect them to hand over their complete sessions. Mixing takes years to learn, does not pay well during the learning period, and these days doesn't pay well for the pros either (mostly) so on top of expecting them to work for crap wages we also want to own what took them years to learn?

Sure, mixing is source dependent, whatever. If engineers want to share their information either here or with clients, that should be their choice, not something that is required.

Engineers get shafted all the time because they don't have any strong organization looking out for them (like AFTRA). As a result, just like we see on this thread, the attitude becomes, work 16 hour days for crap wages, give us everything you do so we have the option to throw you to the curb at any moment, keep your mouth shut about it and jump like a dog when we throw you the next opportunity to do free spec mix for us.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
In my experience, the higher up the mixing food chain you go, the less anyone is inclined to hand over their mix notes and/or session data to anyone, for any reason.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
In my experience, the higher up the mixing food chain you go, the less anyone is inclined to hand over their mix notes and/or session data to anyone, for any reason.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Well, in my experience, the higher up you go, the less they give a sh*t, as they know the mix isn't about settings. It's about the ears that made the mix.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I have lost follow up work on at least one occasion where I was told flat out by a band who loved my (analog!) mixes that they tried to replicate my settings for their next album which they tried to mix themselves, disastrously... OK, So they learned their lesson and realised there was nothing in my sessions that was the missing "secret" (especially given all the real work was done in analog LOL!), and used me subsequently on their latest release. But I missed work because they thought they could get my sound by replicating some settings. In other words, you don't lose work because people replicate your sound from your sessions, you lose work because they think they can....

As for "stolen" intellectual property, I have had people use my stems as the basis for a very small level change or two -arguably for the worse - and claimed to have mixed these very songs that went on to be hits or garnered lots of press. Now I'm not an insecure guy - I've had my share of platinum successes over the years - but I never stole my schtick off anyone and I frankly resent it when people "steal" my work and pass it off as their own, and then get considered for follow up work ahead of me on the strength of said work!

Until these things happen to you at the high end of the game, don't be so sure you'd be so happy to take it on the chin.

Last edited by Whitecat; 12th December 2010 at 11:42 PM.. Reason: removed quote
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The OP made a valid point that has been discussed quite a bit before, about handing in a mix with and the complete session files: eq, compression, verbs, routing etc, etc.

I doubt if you are one of the big guy's - Brauer, Alge, Ghenea, Marroquin etc that you would be asked to do so.

I guess it depends on whether some other person is going to 'alter' your mix to change it to their own taste or tweak it a little pass it off as their own?

I doubt this happens much. If you are contracted as the sole mixer you should be pretty secure.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
evangelista's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If the client has paid in full, they can have whatever the hell they want. The thought that anyone could "steal my work" or "learn my secrets" from this is hilarious.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Cosmonauta's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by evangelista ➡️
If the client has paid in full, they can have whatever the hell they want. The thought that anyone could "steal my work" or "learn my secrets" from this is hilarious.
What is full?

I think the client pays for the MIX. The final result from the "blended" tracks.

This means: L + R.

For back up purposes I will give him a session file that opens all tracks labelled correctly, at unity, without FX settings, no automation, no eq, no pans. Because this is their property.

I retain the the session file I used for the Mix in my back up archive.

If you guys are only engineering for fun and enthusiastic reasons, go ahead and give it all for free.

But I believe this should be common sense among professionals who do this for a living.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #51
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
For what it's worth- I never hand in my mix sessions. As far as I'm concerned- The label, or artist paid for their tracks and for you to do whatever it is you do with those tracks- so I give them my mix, and all of the multi tracks.

If anyone asks for the session files too- just tell them it was mixed OTB. What can they say about that?
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Addict
 
russellwolff's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
+1

What he said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmonauta ➡️
What is full?

I think the client pays for the MIX. The final result from the "blended" tracks.

This means: L + R.

If you guys are only engineering for fun and enthusiastic reasons, go ahead and give it all for free.

But I believe this should be common sense among professionals who do this for a living.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Addict
 
russellwolff's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
good idea!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsswtpmp182 ➡️
If anyone asks for the session files too- just tell them it was mixed OTB. What can they say about that?
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
evangelista's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmonauta ➡️
What is full?

I think the client pays for the MIX. The final result from the "blended" tracks.

This means: L + R.

For back up purposes I will give him a session file that opens all tracks labelled correctly, at unity, without FX settings, no automation, no eq, no pans. Because this is their property.

I retain the the session file I used for the Mix in my back up archive.

If you guys are only engineering for fun and enthusiastic reasons, go ahead and give it all for free.

But I believe this should be common sense among professionals who do this for a living.

I've been making a decent living off this stuff for over 10 years. Just sayin'.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Cosmonauta's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by evangelista ➡️
I've been making a decent living off this stuff for over 10 years. Just sayin'.
Just like most people in this forum…

And this could be our last 10 years in the business if there's no union between engineers to protect OUR interestings instead of only looking for client's one, no matter what.

If you are good enough, educated clients will not leave you.

But looking for the big picture, act like the cool guy who gives everything uneducated client wants for free just contribute to the future of anarchy in this segment.

This is just my humble opinion.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #56
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
There are actually a number of people who won't use Pro Tools for this very reason.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #57
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmonauta ➡️
Just like most people in this forum…

And this could be our last 10 years in the business if there's no union between engineers to protect OUR interestings instead of only looking for client's one, no matter what.

If you are good enough, educated clients will not leave you.

But looking for the big picture, act like the cool guy who gives everything uneducated client wants for free just contribute to the future of anarchy in this segment.

This is just my humble opinion.

I agree...evangelista, I'm sure by your attitude that you at least use a hybrid mixing system if not completely out of the box....A completely ITB (which I think is rare) mix being handed over can be a nightmare especially if something is changed that is ****ty and you ARE credited for it...what if someone takes your session and turns the drums down 2 db the vocals up 2 db...and doesn't change anything else like the mixbuss comp...whatever...you spent a good chunk of time getting the elemnets to bounce off eachother just right and your gonna live with your name /rep to this.

If the Artist wants a different mix , so be it...go get a different mix...here's your files back...sorry it didn't work out
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #58
Lives for gear
 
evangelista's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmonauta ➡️
Just like most people in this forum…

And this could be our last 10 years in the business if there's no union between engineers to protect OUR interestings instead of only looking for client's one, no matter what.

If you are good enough, educated clients will not leave you.

But looking for the big picture, act like the cool guy who gives everything uneducated client wants for free just contribute to the future of anarchy in this segment.

This is just my humble opinion.

I don't think most people on this forum support themselves with music, though that's here nor there.

I don't give my work away for free. I believe that looking at my mix session will give you minimal knowledge in regards to why I make the choices that I do.

This is a personal choice. If others don't want to give away the mix sessions, that's fine by me. It's not like this is going to get standardized, anyway.

It is my humble opinion that things like routing or compression settings aren't the reason people hire me.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #59
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
so you do use hardware pieces then...of course you do...so you are protected and it's easy to have a Laisse faire attitude...kinda like when piracy first became rampant...artists embraced it to appear like they were above it and it didn't matter to them....well. they/we weren't and they/we are not...and that attitude nearly killed us...our whole society is structured on trade...I give you this service and you give me money (or an other service) in return...when that becomes corrupted...we're in trouble...and you will be singing a different tune in five years...when it's par for the course that mix engineers have to present their complete work flow...including printing individual tracks for an OTB mix..

is this a precedent you'd like to set?

Not gonna happen over here.
Old 12th December 2010 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I don't provide my settings and most of the time have not been asked to. Without my outboard gear it wouldn't do much good anyway. Fortunately, the clients are generally only concerned with the stereo master.

On the other side, I have been given sessions to remix that had the previous guy's settings. In those cases I import those tracks into my own fresh session with nothing other than the audio.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 72497
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 178795
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
replies: 73 views: 7024
Avatar for italo de angelis
italo de angelis 24th February 2021
replies: 1452 views: 147096
Avatar for buckan
buckan 1 day ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump