Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby nowfocus » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:18 pm UTC

The question here is whether they prosecute people who hack the chip. If not, then there just offering more choice to the consumer, which is a good thing. If they do, then they are taking away our ownership rights over our processors, which is bad.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Xeio » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:40 pm UTC

lowbart wrote:I don't really like this idea on principle because I think when you buy an object you should be able to do anything you want to it - take it apart, overclock it, resell it, whatever, as long as you're not claiming you made it yourself or using it to harm someone.
Who said you can't?

I still don't see anything here about illegality of modding it unlocked (it will happen, though who knows how long it will take to do so). You almost certainly will void your warranty, but modding the hardware will also do that...

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kyrn » Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:30 am UTC

Xeio wrote:
lowbart wrote:I don't really like this idea on principle because I think when you buy an object you should be able to do anything you want to it - take it apart, overclock it, resell it, whatever, as long as you're not claiming you made it yourself or using it to harm someone.
Who said you can't?

I still don't see anything here about illegality of modding it unlocked (it will happen, though who knows how long it will take to do so). You almost certainly will void your warranty, but modding the hardware will also do that...

Intel would likely say you can't, because it can easily hurt their theoretical profit margin. I'm almost certain they would have some sort of EULA or other licensing agreement with those chips.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

GoC
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:35 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby GoC » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:51 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:The law is a difference. Cracking shareware is illegal

Thank God the US is the only country stupid enough to have DMCA legislation. :?

Dark567 wrote:
Sockmonkey wrote:Personally, the reason it bugs me is because they controll what I can do with it after it's in my hand.


But this is true of any product that the cost isn't the physical manufacturing but the Research and Development that gets put into the individual features. Software does this all the time, often when you download a program, you download the whole thing, but still have to pay extra for extra features, that are already on your computer.

I'm willing to bet most people just crack those programs (I know I do).

Kyrn wrote:I'm almost certain they would have some sort of EULA or other licensing agreement with those chips.

I've heard EULAs are not legally binding.
Belial wrote:I'm just being a dick. It happens.

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Levelheaded » Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:07 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:The question here is whether they prosecute people who hack the chip. If not, then there just offering more choice to the consumer, which is a good thing. If they do, then they are taking away our ownership rights over our processors, which is bad.


I doubt they will prosecute people who hack the chip. There is no real incentive to prosecute an individual - anymore than there is an incentive to prosecute someone who overclocks their processor. I doubt they will even go as far as say, Apple, in intentionally 'bricking' processors that are modified or hacked.

As for a company that hacks then resells these processors, or a company that offers a program that hacks these processors, I could see them taking legal action. Depending on the implementation of this chip, they could probably sue for violating their IP rights. Basically, the same grounds a shareware company would have for reselling cracked software. Even if they don't think they would win in court, the limited market for a 'hacked' version of this chip (without Intel support) combined with a low profit margin (at most, $50 per chip, but likely significantly less) would cause even the threat of a lawsuit to have a major chilling effect.

In the end though, Intel probably wouldn't care. They are still making major revenue and profits selling the chips in the first place, and many / most people who want the upgrade will just pay the $50. Power users who would even consider hacking the chip or actually even understand the difference are just going to pay the $10-20 extra for the better chip w/o locked capability in the first place.

This is for your parents and for businesses - the majority of users. They can buy a computer that does everything they need off the shelf at Best Buy or order it from Dell at a cheaper price. Then, if they find they do need more capability, they can upgrade without having to buy a new CPU and pay Geek Squad $200 to install it.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:40 pm UTC

GoC wrote:
Kyrn wrote:I'm almost certain they would have some sort of EULA or other licensing agreement with those chips.

I've heard EULAs are not legally binding.

You heard wrong. They *may* not be legally binding, but have never been tested as a whole in court. Some courts have overruled certain provisions, but it can depend on the court that hears your case.

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby phillipsjk » Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:11 pm UTC

Keep in mind that an EULA needs a "stick" to be enforceable. There has to be something the license is allowing you to do that you would not be able to do otherwise with something you own. In this case, the cache is probably* enabled with a microcode update. Originally built into the PII after the Pentium recall, this allows problematic CPU features to be disabled. Micro-Code updates must be reapplied on every boot. Since microcode would be software, copyright law would apply.

My non-lawyerly speculation that the Windows 7 EULA is actually a patent, not copyright license.

*speculation or course. (not mine originally, but it makes sense.)
Did you get the number on that truck?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3863
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Dauric » Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:43 pm UTC

I think the issue isn't with this specific case per-se but rather with a growing "authoritarian" trend in consumer products (and software) on the whole. We want our devices to be "Ours", dealing with information-appliances (be they smartphones or PCs, or anything in between) we want to be assured that the legal "loyalty" of our devices belongs to us as individuals, not that we're renting or leasing a device to handle our data (be it credit-card numbers or racy photos of the significant other), and the device and all the data on it is "Owned" by some large corporation that could access our lives without notice or permission, or that the company could come and take back the device under the "Rental agreement", while our information, the details of our lives, and possibly the fruits of our creativity are on that device. The idea of an information device that we do not have the right to keep, and control access to on our own terms is disturbing to many people.

This is doubly so for any device which we "Buy", and place the label of "Purchase" on the transaction, rather than a transaction where we purposefully and expressly say we "Rent" or we "Lease" the object in question. If I "Buy" something with a lock on it I expect to get a key for every lock it has, whereas if I "Rent" a car I understand that there's a computerized black box in accordance with their rental agreement that I don't have permission to touch, or that by "Renting" an apartment I don't have permission to engage in most forms of "Home Improvement" and that I can't be as loud in an apartment as I could if I owned a home on the middle of a hundred-acre-ranch.

However the industry seems to be favoring EULAs that read more like rental agreements though I have the program -in hand- and it was called a -purchase-, while I'm storing my data on a device that I have ostensibly -bought- with locks to which someone else holds the keys. If nothing else it -feels- creepy and Orwellian.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kyrn » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:07 am UTC

Dauric wrote:I think the issue isn't with this specific case per-se but rather with a growing "authoritarian" trend in consumer products (and software) on the whole. We want our devices to be "Ours", dealing with information-appliances (be they smartphones or PCs, or anything in between) we want to be assured that the legal "loyalty" of our devices belongs to us as individuals, not that we're renting or leasing a device to handle our data (be it credit-card numbers or racy photos of the significant other), and the device and all the data on it is "Owned" by some large corporation that could access our lives without notice or permission, or that the company could come and take back the device under the "Rental agreement", while our information, the details of our lives, and possibly the fruits of our creativity are on that device. The idea of an information device that we do not have the right to keep, and control access to on our own terms is disturbing to many people.

This is doubly so for any device which we "Buy", and place the label of "Purchase" on the transaction, rather than a transaction where we purposefully and expressly say we "Rent" or we "Lease" the object in question. If I "Buy" something with a lock on it I expect to get a key for every lock it has, whereas if I "Rent" a car I understand that there's a computerized black box in accordance with their rental agreement that I don't have permission to touch, or that by "Renting" an apartment I don't have permission to engage in most forms of "Home Improvement" and that I can't be as loud in an apartment as I could if I owned a home on the middle of a hundred-acre-ranch.

However the industry seems to be favoring EULAs that read more like rental agreements though I have the program -in hand- and it was called a -purchase-, while I'm storing my data on a device that I have ostensibly -bought- with locks to which someone else holds the keys. If nothing else it -feels- creepy and Orwellian.


I vote we simply stop calling them purchases. Solves the confusion, gets the point across, lets the industry continue selling as they wish to. Also, in this case, the term to use is license.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby phillipsjk » Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:26 am UTC

Calling it a rental has legal implications. If you rent an apartment you are not allowed to do most home improvements, but the landlord is expected to make repairs when something breaks.

If I am renting my computer, it becomes the owner's problem if I get it infected with a virus. I would not even be allowed to attempt to fix it. If i am renting a computer game, the store has to accept the software back in a week (whenever the rental period is up) if it didn't install properly.

The problem with EULA's is that the companies in question want all the benefits of charging rent without the risks.
Did you get the number on that truck?

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:08 am UTC

Levelheaded wrote:
Spoiler:
Dark567 wrote:I think this is the way I generally think about this, imagine two hypothetical scenarios.

In one scenario Intel spends $10 billion on designing a chip without the cache and hyperthreading. It costs $10 per chip to manufacture.

In second Intel spends $20 billions on designing a chip with the cache and hyperthreading. It costs $10 per chip to manufacture.

Whats essentially happening is Intel is doing(and iirc did the same thing on clocking speeds for P4's) the second. Intel is catering to the market that wants the first by selling those chips at only the cost for the research for the first situation, and making people that want the full features pick up the full research costs of all the features.


My company is in a similar situation, just with software.

Our primary product (specialized enterprise software) is targeted at larger (5+ user) customers and the pricing scale reflects this. The product is developed, in place, and works.

However, we had demand from smaller (1-2 user) customers for our product, but they aren't interested at the pricing scale we offered for the 'full' product. A smaller customer also doesn't generally need all of the features that we provide for larger customers.

To offer a product to the smaller market, we disabled a number of the features they would find non-essential (but larger users generally need) and offered our software at a discounted rate only to these smaller customers. If they grow and choose to upgrade, it's a simple software switch to activate the disabled components instead of a complete re-installation (several hours of time).

Everyone is happy - the small users have the product they demanded cheaply with the ability to grow. Our existing mid and large users have the product they want. We have a larger customer base without having to develop a whole new product. Increased revenue means more attention and improvements that will benefit everyone.

I don't see any difference between this and what Intel is doing. While we could offer our smaller clients the full product at a cheap cost, it's not exactly fair to our larger clients and it's not something they need. The biggest difference I see is that we bill monthly, and Intel offers a one-time upgrade cost.


This is no different than any company that offers a tiered product.

This I don't mind in the Hardware options, as long as it follows the same system as my car does. Why a car? Well, look at it this way. I buy a new car at $15,000. It is not the sports version, which is $15,050. Now, I can take it into the showroom/garage and get the engine management computer reprogrammed for $50 into a sports mode. OR I can do this at home myself for free (assuming I have the software, or we are talking about old cars with manual adjustments).

I don't mind Intel doing the same. Offering a tiered product as long as the 3 core + updrade to 4 cores costs the same as the 4 core! OR I'm allowed to upgrade it myself for free. Just as with the car, I know I will void my warranty, but I know many people who would not buy a car that was tied down like Intel will do with a chip. Just imagine the back doors being locked until you pay $50 for an upgrade!
Plus, as said, it's just adding another, not needed, line of complexity. I don't want to be sold a car with no keys, and have to pay extra for a key fob. Or, have a car come with central locking, but have to "upgrade" to get batteries for my key fob. I want it to come included. :roll:
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Levelheaded » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:24 am UTC

Technical Ben wrote:This is no different than any company that offers a tiered product.

This I don't mind in the Hardware options, as long as it follows the same system as my car does. Why a car? Well, look at it this way. I buy a new car at $15,000. It is not the sports version, which is $15,050. Now, I can take it into the showroom/garage and get the engine management computer reprogrammed for $50 into a sports mode. OR I can do this at home myself for free (assuming I have the software, or we are talking about old cars with manual adjustments).

I don't mind Intel doing the same. Offering a tiered product as long as the 3 core + updrade to 4 cores costs the same as the 4 core! OR I'm allowed to upgrade it myself for free. Just as with the car, I know I will void my warranty, but I know many people who would not buy a car that was tied down like Intel will do with a chip. Just imagine the back doors being locked until you pay $50 for an upgrade!
Plus, as said, it's just adding another, not needed, line of complexity. I don't want to be sold a car with no keys, and have to pay extra for a key fob. Or, have a car come with central locking, but have to "upgrade" to get batteries for my key fob. I want it to come included. :roll:[/quote]


Dealer installed options not always, but frequently, cost more than the same options would from the factory. Ever price adding a sunroof or leather seats?

The real world application of your keyless / remote entry system example actually counters the point you are trying to make. You can purchase a car without checking the box for the keyless entry system (say, a $50 factory option) that gives you two keyfobs and a valet keyfob. Since you didn't order that option, you just get keys without keyfobs and have to manually unlock the door.

If you take your car home and change your mind, you can go back to the dealer and add a keyless entry system. The sensor was probably installed from the factory so they aren't making any changes to your car, but to purchase two keyfobs, a valet keyfob, and have it synced with your car at the dealer may cost you $200 - much more than it would have to check the same box and get it from the factory in the first place.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Hawknc » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:07 pm UTC

That's because dealers are assholes, though. (Not terribly relevant to the thread, I know, but I feel it needs to be said.)
ImageImageImageImageImage

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kyrn » Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:39 am UTC

phillipsjk wrote:Calling it a rental has legal implications. If you rent an apartment you are not allowed to do most home improvements, but the landlord is expected to make repairs when something breaks.

If I am renting my computer, it becomes the owner's problem if I get it infected with a virus. I would not even be allowed to attempt to fix it. If i am renting a computer game, the store has to accept the software back in a week (whenever the rental period is up) if it didn't install properly.

The problem with EULA's is that the companies in question want all the benefits of charging rent without the risks.


The problem is still equating licenses with rent. Licenses is just an extension of the Copyright mechanism: It lets the creator retains some rights while still letting them sell their product. An (fiction) author is generally not responsible for harm caused to their works, while you still don't get full rights over your purchase of a book. A hardware manufacturer wants the same sort of rights an author is granted.

Of cause, whether copyright should be allowed to be extended in this manner is another issue, but I'm inclined to believe it has a beneficial effect on businesses, in the same vein as copyright: In the same way copyright allows the author to profit from their works, licenses allows the creator to do the same, but with slightly more legalese to state exactly what rights are granted; Same in the sense that in terms of hardware (or software), it allows them to develop better hardware/software while still giving them equatable profit margins.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kag » Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:54 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:It lets the creator retains some rights while still letting them sell their product.


If you retain rights on the product, by definition you did not sell it.

Of cause, whether copyright should be allowed to be extended in this manner is another issue, but I'm inclined to believe it has a beneficial effect on businesses, in the same vein as copyright: In the same way copyright allows the author to profit from their works, licenses allows the creator to do the same, but with slightly more legalese to state exactly what rights are granted; Same in the sense that in terms of hardware (or software), it allows them to develop better hardware/software while still giving them equatable profit margins.


That just sounds like a patent, to me.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kyrn » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:23 am UTC

Kag wrote:
Kyrn wrote:It lets the creator retains some rights while still letting them sell their product.


If you retain rights on the product, by definition you did not sell it.

You're not selling the product, you're selling the specific rights/licenses. Terming it "selling the product" is a shortcut, though as I mentioned, it should probably be accurately termed as licensing to eliminate confusion.

Kag wrote:
Of cause, whether copyright should be allowed to be extended in this manner is another issue, but I'm inclined to believe it has a beneficial effect on businesses, in the same vein as copyright: In the same way copyright allows the author to profit from their works, licenses allows the creator to do the same, but with slightly more legalese to state exactly what rights are granted; Same in the sense that in terms of hardware (or software), it allows them to develop better hardware/software while still giving them equatable profit margins.


That just sounds like a patent, to me.

There are several differences between patents and this. Namely that this retains more rights than just patenting. Many of the rights retained coincidentally matches those of copyrights.

By retaining the rights over their creation, they can continue to improve it without losing their value over the improvements done; they can hence distribute the improved products at the same price as their original products (improvements not only from actual performance, but also cost of manufacture, environmental issues, etc). In addition, it allows better distribution of a product, easier seen with key-unlocked but freely distributed software. Alternatively, they may want to give discounts to specific groups of people (such as students) while still retaining profit margins on commercial purposes, which again licenses help with.

Building an unlock mechanism is simply a software-enforced mechanism to ensure license terms are met.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kag » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:40 am UTC

No, I understand why they want to do it. I don't understand how masquerading this kind of deal as a sale isn't heinous. And anyway, a license is not implicit in the sale of non-copyrighted things.

If the entire point of the exercise is to strip consumer rights, it isn't unreasonable to be a little upset.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby phillipsjk » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:19 am UTC

I think the point is that hardware manufacturers are no longer selling you hardware: they are selling you the software built into their hardware. That is why they have stopped releasing the hardware specifications that would allow you to write your own software (firmware). Sometimes, as in the case of HDCP, hardware manufactures collude to agree on what the end-user is not allowed to know.

Why would they do this? Patents last 20 years. Copyright lasts at least 50 years after the death of the author (required by Berne convention). Of course, the trap is that patents are stronger protection against "copying" than copyright: independent development is not a defence for patents. For course, many companies are lobbying for software patents: that way you can get patent and copyright protection. </cynic mode.>
Did you get the number on that truck?

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:32 am UTC

Levelheaded wrote:
Technical Ben wrote:This is no different than any company that offers a tiered product.

This I don't mind in the Hardware options, as long as it follows the same system as my car does. Why a car? Well, look at it this way. I buy a new car at $15,000. It is not the sports version, which is $15,050. Now, I can take it into the showroom/garage and get the engine management computer reprogrammed for $50 into a sports mode. OR I can do this at home myself for free (assuming I have the software, or we are talking about old cars with manual adjustments).

I don't mind Intel doing the same. Offering a tiered product as long as the 3 core + updrade to 4 cores costs the same as the 4 core! OR I'm allowed to upgrade it myself for free. Just as with the car, I know I will void my warranty, but I know many people who would not buy a car that was tied down like Intel will do with a chip. Just imagine the back doors being locked until you pay $50 for an upgrade!
Plus, as said, it's just adding another, not needed, line of complexity. I don't want to be sold a car with no keys, and have to pay extra for a key fob. Or, have a car come with central locking, but have to "upgrade" to get batteries for my key fob. I want it to come included. :roll:



Dealer installed options not always, but frequently, cost more than the same options would from the factory. Ever price adding a sunroof or leather seats?

The real world application of your keyless / remote entry system example actually counters the point you are trying to make. You can purchase a car without checking the box for the keyless entry system (say, a $50 factory option) that gives you two keyfobs and a valet keyfob. Since you didn't order that option, you just get keys without keyfobs and have to manually unlock the door.

If you take your car home and change your mind, you can go back to the dealer and add a keyless entry system. The sensor was probably installed from the factory so they aren't making any changes to your car, but to purchase two keyfobs, a valet keyfob, and have it synced with your car at the dealer may cost you $200 - much more than it would have to check the same box and get it from the factory in the first place.


Nope. It's not like optional extras. They ARE installed after market/in production. You don't buy a car with a sun roof painted over, then they scrape the paint off if you pay extra. You don't buy a car with leather seats covered in fabric, and they rip it out if you pay extra. They add them in (like the current CPU market). It's more like buying a 4 door estate car, and having 2 door wielded shut untill you pay extra to unwield them. Note in this example the work to make the doors is already down, and it takes extra work to unbreak the broken car.

Please for the love of the deity of your choice, preview your posts before posting so they don't break the forums. -Hawk
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Intel wants to charge $50 to use your CPU fully

Postby Kag » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:35 pm UTC

phillipsjk wrote:Why would they do this? Patents last 20 years. Copyright lasts at least 50 years after the death of the author (required by Berne convention).


I...don't think this is really relevant, in this case.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests