
Facebook prohibits music or music listening experience on Live - craigmcnamara
https://www.facebook.com/legal/music_guidelines
======
zucker42
Our overly restrictive copyright law does a lot of unnecessary damage to our
culture and our society. Instead of adapting to technological change, many
music companies seem intent on protecting their revenue by limiting the
expression of others, and the ability to remix content.

I wonder if there are exceptions for properly licensed music. It is certainly
so hard to license most music that such exceptions are practically useless,
though.

~~~
TekMol
Is it possible for a musician to publish their music in a way so that
everybody else can do with it whatever they like?

If so, are there already websites that deal with only this type of music? Like
there is pexels.com for images?

~~~
httpsterio
Well, like in open source software we have licenses like MIT and WTFPL, in
creative industries there's different Creative Commons licenses like CC0 or
CC-BY-SA for example which would grant different usage rights in certain
circumstances.

There's a lot of different mediums which supports sharing and searching for
media under different CC licenses, I've tagged a majority of my SoundCloud
releases for example with great success.

If we're talking about a whole site dedicated for openly licensed music and
audio, freesounds.org comes to mind.

~~~
techdragon
The issue with the permissive licensing is when the works get legally used in
works that aren’t licensed that way. This is a common cause of YouTube
contentID legal “false positive” results.

Both you and the other person have the rights to that audio and platforms like
YouTube have put no effort into giving us a solution to resolve this “edge
case”.

------
dkobia
It has been an especially tough time for DJs who as you can imagine are
severely affected by Covid19. A game of copyright whack-a-mole has been going
on across other platforms for a few years now (SoundCloud, MixCloud, etc.),
exacerbated now by a move to live streaming over the last few months.

Live streaming has been a great way to avoid getting tagged for copyright
infringement vs a pre-recorded upload which can automatically be scanned for
violations, so it is easy to see why this was a problem for Facebook. They
basically brute forced a solution to avoid legal responsibility.

Via SoundClouds guidelines: "The best way to avoid copyright infringement is
to ensure that you don't use anything created by someone else. Simple as
that.". It has just been hard to find an equitable balance between original
music creators and mix creators. "Fair Use" is such a gray area here and is
barely defensible.

~~~
drchopchop
I watch a lot of live DJ streams (and have done some myself), and basically
right now everyone is either using Twitch or Mixcloud.

Twitch - doesn't enforce any takedowns when you're live, but will mute you
after the fact in clips/etc. Very gamer-y, but has friendlier chat features,
emojis, and some meta-games around unlocking them. Also has support for
hosting (showing someone else's channel in your own for a period of time) and
raiding (relocating everyone in your channel to someone else's), which are key
for people that want to do multi-artist events.

Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal so muting is far less
common. Chat is primitive (no @'s, limited emojis). Streaming quality is good,
though.

Facebook - basically a non-starter as they'll mute you live. Only really works
if you're playing a literal live show with a band, where you're making noise
that the algorithms won't pick. Reach is obviously much bigger, as the
platform will shove live videos in your face if people have already liked your
fan page.

~~~
elliekelly
> Mixcloud - smaller, but actually has a licensing deal

Interesting, can you explain how this works? Is there a way for DJs to look up
which songs are licensed while you're live-streaming?

~~~
jaywalk
No, but their licenses are very broad. Their rules are also fairly
straightforward: [https://help.mixcloud.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360004031080](https://help.mixcloud.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360004031080)

------
throwaway189262
Copyright law needs major reform. Technology has hit the point where you have
to make a concerted effort to avoid infringing by accident. Every time a
security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement. When your camera
records virtually anything man-made, copyright infringement. Probably 90% of
photos are infringing copyright.

It's totally nuts now that recording devices are everywhere.

Copyright on images and audio are just unrealistic. Abolish them, the artists
make most of their money in other ways anyway

~~~
CaptArmchair
Preface: I absolutely agree on the reform. I can't stress this enough.

I've dealt with copyright professionally and had my fair share of discussions
with legal experts... It's definitely a rabbit hole, but it's not a rabbit
hole you can readily dismiss and replace with something else. Working with
copyrighted materials, copyright hampered us, but other times it backed us as
well. It really is a double edged sword depending on where you come from...

So. I hope to give you a bit of an insight why it's not that easy...

At it's core, there are three reasons why copyright - or any law for that
matter - is a hard problem:

First, describing a complex reality and codifying them in rules that govern
society is a hard problem. Either the principles you derive from reality are
too generic; or you end up with a law and volumes upon volumes of exceptions,
clarifications, and so on. And in between, you always end up with people who
feel that the law doesn't include them.

Secondly, there's the interpretation of the rules. That happens in court. And
depending on the legal system that applies to you, this creates a precedent
that may or may not be followed in general. Which is where you end up in the
murkiness of legal traditions, customs and so on.

Thirdly, as a result, most people have a vague notion of what copyright is...
but when you ask them to clarify and apply copyright law to specific cases,
they tend have it wrong.

For instance:

> Every time a security camera picks up music, it's copyright infringement.
> When your camera records virtually anything man-made, copyright
> infringement.

No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It prohibits
you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to other people.

You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone,
security camera, whatever. But as soon as you hit the "post" or "publish"
button and you make your copy available for the wider world, that's copyright
infringement.

> Probably 90% of photos are infringing copyright.

Depends who publishes them and whether they have permission from the original
photographer to publish them. Or whether they are the original photographer
themselves.

If you snap a picture and you publish that on Instagram, you are the original
photographer and copyright automatically protects your rights. If some paper
or magazine downloads that picture and publishes it on their website without
your permission: you can send them an e-mail demanding to take that picture
down. And they actually will have to comply with your demand less they want to
risk you suing them.

If you make a picture of protected materials and you post that on line, well,
now you are potentially infringing copyright. Like, if you go to MoMa and you
do an Instagram of Andy Warhol. Technically, you published a copy of a
creative work which is still under copyright. Or if you publish a 30 second
sample from a Walt Disney's Snowwhite on Snapchat: same thing.

You could go "Oh! But Andy Warhol is dead and his art is in a museum, and
Snowwhite is 80 years old, what's the harm? They are so well known!" You could
argue: let's create exceptions for anything that hits a collection display of
a museum; or is so well known that it's part of some implicit cultural canon
which is foundational to society...

... but then you end up in a massive rabbit hole: how do you establish equal
and fair criteria that say "this creative work is protected by copyright; and
this isn't?" Which inevitably leads to endless yak shaving and bike shedding
discussions (Yes, I've been there professionally. These are unwinable!).

> the artists make most of their money in other ways anyway

It's the other way around. Artists make their money in other ways today, not
because of copyright... but because of technology.

When your band gets signed up with a record label, you actually sign away your
own copyright. You waive your rights as an author to your material. You
basically say to a record label: "In exchange for leveraging your capability
to produce, market and distribute millions of copies, I'll agree to 2, 5 or
10% of the revenue of the distribution." That's the deal you signed up for.

As an artist, it used to be that you earned nicely when music/video/movies
were still distributed through movie theatres or record shops where consumers
bought a physical record. You'd pay maybe 15 or 20$ for the album of your
favourite band. And you'd listen to that album for hours on end.

Digital technology and streaming platforms have completely undercut that
model. And the price for content has crashed entirely. Today, you don't pay
15$ for just 20 songs on a single album. You pay 15$ a month to get access to
a catalogue of tens of thousands of songs. That's the difference.

The biggest issue is that streaming platforms and digital services have taken
over distribution of creative content - audio and video - from traditional
record labels, movie produces and so on, and have become the new middle men.
And it has happened, the artists who signed away their rights see far less in
return for their efforts.

This is a huge debate in the industry:
[https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-
musician...](https://musically.com/2020/05/05/spotify-should-pay-musicians-
more-lets-talk-about-how/)

At the end of the day, copyright isn't going to go anywhere, I'm afraid. After
all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's why modern copyright
emerged some 300 years in the first place: Ironically _because_ of the
introduction of a new technology. As it happens, with the proliferation of the
printing press and movable type, book printers, authors and publishers wanted
to put a halt to others piggybacking on the success of selling their
materials.

~~~
DanBC
> No, it's not. Copyright doesn't prohibit you from making a copy. It
> prohibits you from publishing that copy: sharing with or distributing to
> other people.

> You're perfectly good to make a recording or photo's with your smartphone,
> security camera, whatever.

This is incorrect. It's an offence (although civil, not criminal) to make a
copy if you don't have correct authorisation. No-one is going to enforce that
for the vast majority of copying, but non-enforcement doesn't mean it's not an
offence.

[https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf](https://copyrightservice.co.uk/_f/8215/8193/9720/edupack.pdf)

> Acts restricted by copyright

> It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of
> the copyright owner:

> i.Copy the work.

> ii.Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.

> iii.Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.

> iv.Adapt the work

~~~
CaptArmchair
> although civil, not criminal

That's exactly why I said that copying is not prohibited. Just that makes a
huge difference.

First, it's a right which is granted to natural and legal persons. It's
entirely up to that legal person to decide whether or not to seek damages
because someone violated that right. What that means is that governments and
authorities won't stop original authors from seeking damages in a courtroom.

Second, what it doesn't mean is that public authorities prohibits the act of
copying. Extreme example: if copying was prohibited by criminal law, judicial
authorities could order law enforcement to search your home on the mere
suspicion of you having copied a book using pencil and paper.

Moreover, copyright gives the exclusive right to authorize reproduction to the
original author. Mind the wording here: It's not the "exclusive right to
reproduce", it's the "exclusive right to authorize".

Finally, that right itself isn't an absolute. The Berne treaty itself already
provides for exceptions. In practice, you're looking at Fair Use, Fair Dealing
and discussions such as the Treshold of Originality which excludes all kinds
of contexts from copyright (i.e. security camera footage).

This entire discussion about the impact of technology is, in truth, a
discussion about increased legal liability. The proliferation of camera's and
mic's in digital devices have created a huge vector for violating copyright.
If Facebook decides to disallow music from being played on it's platform, then
that's an attempt to reduce that liability. Let's not forget that there's a
huge discussion whether Facebook is merely a service provider of
infrastructure, or a publisher, as well. And this move fits within that
context.

I'm sorry, but absolutes such as "copyright prohibits you from making a copy"
muddle exactly this discussion even more.

------
kirillzubovsky
Clickbait title. Please change to "Facebook Music Guidelines," or something
that isn't editorialized to make it sound like Facebook is against music.

At most, this guideline says not to stream other people's music to the
internet without a license, which is very reasonable, given that artists want
to get paid and wouldn't want you to play their songs on air for 2 billion
people to enjoy for free.

Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music
for your friends, so long as it is yours.

~~~
bluntfang
>Otherwise, it quite literally states the opposite - please do play your music
for your friends, so long as it is yours.

where do you read that?

Cuz when I read the BOLDED statement

>You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening experience

Your take is not my take.

------
lmedinas
I wonder how long it will take for such measures to reach Twitch and Youtube.
I remember some weeks ago some streamers started to get threats from DCMA over
playing music on stream, i think some of them even got their clips and videos
removed due to copyright claim.

I think this is purely music companies decisions, even the artists are not
aware of this.

~~~
inerte
A lot of artists (or their managers) are! I’ve been watching some YouTube
videos from Ricky Beato and he talks about “blockers”, and within the same
label you have different artists that block or don’t.

------
aikah
> You may not use videos on our Products to create a music listening
> experience

So basically if you are a DJ you cannot broadcast a mix session on Facebook or
even broadcast a live performance of your own music under threat of being
removed from Facebook.

Facebook might not want to have to deal with copyright management like Youtube
does.

~~~
comprev
Many DJs switched to Twitch

------
aboringusername
I mean what's the end goal here? Any video that contains music is just auto
blocked? Hopefully as more regular people are impacted each person becomes an
advocate for change.

I think we need AI and rules so strict you can't even upload a video at all
because you're breaking some rule somewhere. Maybe we can even have AI on this
website that says your words are breaking copyright and you're not allowed to
publish them.

Only then will we see a real push for changen I feel.

~~~
zadokshi
Nah, the real goal is music companies want money. Bags and bags of money
Facebook clearly doesn’t want to pay.

------
zupreme
So...as it reads, per my understanding, Facebook reserves the right to ban my
account if I pick up my guitar while on live and play even an original melody.

Am I the only one who sees this as a new gatekeeper preventing the organic
rise of new musical talent?

There are alot of young artists in the music industry who first got widely
noticed by building a social media following around their singing or other
musical talents.

It seems that this is a way to close that door.

~~~
dheera
Not only that, but Facebook _actively_ downranks you if you post a link to
Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more
people would make noise about it.

------
khalilravanna
The record industry lashing out against DJs strikes me as a particularly
braindead reaction. They’re shutting down free promotion of their music. I
don’t listen to DJs because I want to illegally listen to one song, I listen
to find new music and then go off and buy it.

~~~
envy2
I think you're misunderstanding the economic reality of the modern music
business for labels. They make their money off streams, not people "buying"
music; they have no real incentive to let people stream music for free as a
'promotion.'

Bands make their money off merch, and to a lesser extent, live shows.

~~~
khalilravanna
I also stream the music. The point is a mix is not a medium for listening to
one song. It’s a medium for listening to a set of songs mixed together.
Sometimes you only get 1 or 2 minutes of a 8/9 minute non-Radio-Edit of a
track.

To be fair, playing devil’s advocate I do know some people who _only_ listen
to streams of DJs. I guess the question is what’s the breakdown of people who
do that. My guess is it’s a very small margin. _And_ even if it were more
sizable, are those people really gonna go off and go buy individual Drum And
Bass tracks or whatever off Beatport? I would doubt it.

The end result is it feels like they cannibalizing or cauterizing off a
potential market and generating more bad will.

------
gamblor956
Prohibited.... Unless you have the appropriate licenses for the music.

Much ado about nothing. Did anyone ever bother to read the post?

~~~
avhon1
Firstly, how do I prove to Facebook that I have an appropriate license, or
that one isn't required (for example, music in the public domain)?

Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even
copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events
can be in-person or online. As an example: it is legal ("fair use") for
someone in my family to strum a popular, copyrighted tune on their guitar
during a family gathering. Another example: it is also legal for us to listen
to music that only one family member owns a legal copy of -- this happens any
time someone puts on a CD during Christmas. These perfectly legal, normal, un-
bureaucratic activities seem to be prohibited by Facebook's new rules.

During COVID-19, online experiences have replaced many experiences that people
would otherwise have had in-person. Facebook's rules seems to be unnecessarily
restrictive, which is especially disappointing during this time when many
experiences people would be having face-to-face are now taking place on its
platform, or on competitors' who may imitate Facebook's policies.

~~~
kube-system
> Second, it is legal (in the United States) to perform or play music, even
> copyrighted music, at personal, private, non-commercial events. These events
> can be in-person or online.

But it is legal for you and Facebook to enter into an agreement to sublicense
that content for Facebook's commercial use? You may get the benefit of Fair
Use, but the same may not be the case for Facebook, who also must have a valid
right to distribute the content.

~~~
gamblor956
No. You can't grant a (sub) license of rights you don't have. However, a
special licensing regime applies to derivative musical works like covers of
songs.

------
sneak
It’s rare that Facebook itself accelerates the thing that desperately needs to
happen: people must, en masse, stop donating free content to massive
censorship platforms.

This is a good step, counterintuitively.

~~~
zadokshi
Yep, it’s one step towards the death of Facebook. I am also quite pleased
about this.

------
Thorrez
> We want you to be able to enjoy videos posted by family and friends.
> However, if you use videos on our Products to create a music listening
> experience for yourself or for others, your videos will be blocked and your
> page, profile or group may be deleted. This includes Live.

That sounds like all music videos are banned (not just live stuff).

------
bustin
Perhaps in the future you can avoid surveillance by playing Top 50 music at
all times?

~~~
sellyme
Surely we've had enough examples of governments blatantly disregarding
copyright law in election advertisements to establish that this is one of
those "rules for thee but not for me" situations.

~~~
Robotbeat
Depends on how deeply record companies get their claws into broad tools. The
government may not always have the competence to roll their own.

------
firloop
Many gaming streamers on Twitch play music (at least at a low volume) while
they stream. A blanket ban like this doesn't make me think that Facebook is
going to get a significant part of Twitch's market anytime soon despite their
"Facebook Gaming" initiative.

~~~
kirillzubovsky
FYI, they just got a big chunk of users from Mixer, a Microsoft-funded Twitch
competitor that shut down.

------
craigmcnamara
Their updated terms seem to imply copyrighted music, but it comes off as
banning any and all music including original content.

~~~
vonseel
_Use of music for commercial or non-personal purposes in particular is
prohibited unless you have obtained appropriate licenses._

 _Unauthorized content may be removed_

If you post content that contains music _owned by someone else_ , your content
may be blocked, or may be reviewed by the applicable rights owner and removed
_if your use of that music is not properly authorized._

Seems fair enough to me.

~~~
anaganisk
A famous record label sent its lawyers to us, because we used some song to
dance at a party an uploaded it on youtube. How that is fair?

~~~
Thorrez
Advocate for changes to the law.

~~~
moron4hire
A lot of people have been doing that for a long time. It's not working.

~~~
zucker42
Most people don't understand the issue. What actions people generally find
acceptable are very different from the actions permitted under copyright law,
but most people don't understand that.

------
andjd
Shameless plug:

For anyone out there looking for live listening music experiences, I work on
Stationhead, a social radio app. We're built on top of Spotify and Apple
Music, so all the music is not only 100% legal and licensed, the artists
actually get paid when you play or listen to your music.

Download for iOS (Android coming soon):
[http://share.stationhead.com/hn](http://share.stationhead.com/hn)

------
smkellat
Well, that does help explain why one of the local high schools had their
livestream abruptly terminate 22 times when they tried to stream their band’s
senior night concert. It does seem to be a clear TOS violation by the school
even though the school was trying to work within Ohio coronavirus guidelines.
I guess the effort to build something using OpenBroadcaster has increased
urgency now.

------
neiman
There are a few problems in copyright laws: \- bad incentives (cf, "mickey
mouse law"),

\- one rule for all areas (music, movies, books, graphics) instead of
different rules for different areas,

\- not being fit to digital era.

This item emphasize the last one quite strongly, and it's only going to get
worse.

------
doh
I know many believe that this is mess is the result of the existing Copyright
laws but I disagree. We are in times of change, where Wild Wild West is
getting rules and enforcement. It's a painful situation for most, because the
rules are ambiguous, made up on spot and change often.

I believe the true solution is through use of scalable and precise technology,
brining high transparency and removing ambiguity. I built my whole company
around this idea [0], so I'm definitely biased.

I know that many might disagree with me on this, but shattering copyright is
not going to do us, the society, any favors. If you, as I, believe that
automation is going exceedingly take over more of our responsibilities, IP
(intellectual property) [read creativity] is the only thing left to us as
humans. While many believe copyright is about extortion of money, I believe
it's about proper attribution. This is the founding principle behind Creative
Commons which believes that credits needs to be given to the creators. If they
choose to make money of their creation, that's their right and should be
followed.

I do believe that with transparent rules and removed ambiguity the UGC market
will thrive beyond what we seen so far. You can see glimpses of what's
possible through platforms like TikTok or Triller that do acquire licenses and
are in process of paying creators portion of the revenue. This was one of the
most important innovations of YouTube that spurred a whole new market and
paved the way for many new platforms.

Imagine that you, as a creator, could know instantly which content of other
people can you use under what conditions. If you disagree with them, you just
don't use it and choose something else. Especially in music, this gives you a
freedom of selection. There is 80M songs. There will be always enough to
choose from, even if the major righpshodlers would withhold their catalogues.

I believe that if the rules are know, are stable and unambiguous, then the
market will be much stronger and healthier for everyone.

[0] [https://pex.com/attribution-engine/](https://pex.com/attribution-engine/)

------
IronWolve
My favorite is when reporters are out in the field reporting and someone
drives by with their car radio on, and the entire clip gets taken down due to
copyright.

Streamers listening to music is a common thing while talking, gaming, etc.
Something needs to change.

------
cronix
This will be a huge problem for people on the ground reporting on news events
like protests/riots. Often, people in the crowd are using portable bluetooth
speakers and playing commercial music. There are FB accounts (and youtube,
twitch, etc) that have several thousand people watching these protests/riots
every night, and often make it to mainstream news outlets.

There should be a fair use exemption for live newsworthy events where the
music isn't the focus. The music is just in the background and not the main
point or even a secondary point. It's inconsequential and you can't even hear
it clearly.

------
ajouna1685
Facebook is concerned about possibly having to pay licensing fees to music
publishers and rights owners. The new policy is a disclaimer, attempting to
release Facebook from any responsibility for infringement. It's however
unlikely that Facebook would be judged to be in the clear if it's determined
that they are benefiting from uploaded content. Most likely they will balance
the threat of paying fees against the hurt to the appeal of their product
caused by their own restrictions, and that will determine the level of
enforcement.

------
fletchowns
Rick Beato had a great video on Youtube blockers recently:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7a-vh5OzU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z7a-vh5OzU)

~~~
tomtompl
I expected to go there just to see that the video is blocked

------
Juliate
What about whistling, singing or performing music live? Where is the line?

I mean, are the people enacting such policies even real person living a real
life?

~~~
grishka
They're the same people who purposely ruin their products with advertising,
pervasive tracking, and hostile UX. Then they claim they're doing their users
a favor. By "helping businesses reach their audiences". Because that's clearly
what people use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and all other social media
services for, right?

Social media companies are waaay out of touch with the real world.

------
aantix
I thought Facebook had reached a deal a couple years back with the music
publishers so that they wouldn't have to do this?

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-
warner-m...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/9/17100454/facebook-warner-music-
deal-songs-user-videos-instagram)

------
mensetmanusman
Has anyone created an AI annealing tool that can take a basic beat and create
a randomized but good-sounding sampling for real-time DJing?

------
PaulHoule
Radio hams are not allowed to retransmit music, even that is as simple as
having music in the background when you key the mike.

I never heard anyone try this on the east coast but around Southern CA and San
Diego I heard it all the time on 2 meters.

There is the exception that you CAN retransmit music from the space shuttle or
space station however.

------
okareaman
Facebook will mute anything that contains music it recognizes that has a
copyright. It's annoying and stupid because YouTube is much more liberal about
it as most people know. I always post video with music on YouTube and share a
link.

~~~
dheera
Not only that, but Facebook _actively_ downranks you if you post a link to
Youtube instead of using Facebook video. This is unethical and I wish more
people would make noise about it.

Facebook once did the mute thing on my OWN recording of a classical Beethoven
piece (long out of copyright) and it was infuriating. I would have used
Youtube to avoid the problem except Facebook downranks Youtube videos I post
and doesn't show them to most of my friends.

------
mola
Just so a few hundred of people can be ultra billionaires we use so much force
and violence against any creative endavours that may jeporedize the wealth of
these few individuals.

------
fuzzfactor
I know this hurts people's feelings, but Facebook wasn't supposed to be
important or entertaining anyway.

------
andrewflnr
It's not even clear from their wording if you can play original music live.
Did they not even think of that possibility?

~~~
ajouna1685
I think they are trying to envision every possible scenario. For example, and
unknown singer could upload an original song to Facebook, sell the rights to
the song, become famous, and have a billion views on Facebook. The owners of
the song could then be owed performance royalties from Facebook, according to
the current laws that apply to internet streaming.

------
BrianOnHN
Facebook: "let's distract them with music copyright non-sense while we utterly
fail politically."

Edit: since this was downvoted, I hope someone can explain this: "why now?"
What other motivation does FB have to address this, right now?

------
api
Good. I'd hate to see Facebook get big in the music world in any way.

------
undoware
reminds me of this Onion:

"CHICAGO—Music, a mode of creative expression consisting of sound and silence
expressed through time, was given a 6.8 out of 10 rating in an review
published Monday on Pitchfork Media, a well-known music-criticism website."

[https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-
music-6-8...](https://entertainment.theonion.com/pitchfork-gives-
music-6-8-1819569318)

I cannot _wait_ to find out what common human behaviours are regulated online
next, after all, if you don't like it, you can just

actually sorry there is only online now

