|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,381
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,381 |
Rob is correct. The guy who made the recording does not hold a copyright on the sound that train made. He holds/held the copyright on the recording he made. I'm not even sure it falls under the category of "intellectual property". Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I'm not a lawyer. The Beach Boys (or more likely and accurately, the record company) saved some money by licensing the recording instead of recording it themselves. That is at least a part of the value of the copyright.
It's the difference (in the old but still used model) between copyrights on a song and copyrights on the recording of said song. The former is held by the publisher of record. The latter is held by the "record company". The latter don't "own the song", just the recording. In fact, they pay the "owner of the song"...a statutory amount. Covers (no matter how closely they resemble the recorded version) have nothing to do with the latter...only the former.
I curious about how all this works in synchronization rights. I know you can't put a Led Zeppelin song in your film without explicit permission from either the publisher, record company, or both. And I'm pretty certain that the rates are not statutory, but negotiated and contractual. But I don't know who gets paid or how.
------
"You are right, Captain. I do babble." Data, Star Trek the Next Generation.
Last edited by Tangmo; 04/12/20 06:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,697
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,697 |
All this is very interesting but the original question is going off the rails, haha. To bring this train back on track...
Yes, we can post a cover on YouTube. Yes, YT may take it down. No, it doesn't appear that causes any problems with the uploader, the vid gets taken down, s/he moves on. No harm, no foul, right? Welll, not quite imho.
From Google's Help page concerning this:
It’s up to the copyright owners to decide whether or not others can reuse their original material. Copyright owners often allow their content to be used in YouTube videos in exchange for having ads run on those videos. These ads may play before the video or during it (if the video is longer than 10 minutes).
It's up to the copyright owner to decide. There is the moral rub because YT is forcing those owners to police YT looking for illegal uploads. It's also the answer to Rogers question that the owners do not get paid if YT doesn't have a huge database for that. According to this they don't need that because they simply wait for an owner to contact them first. Now they know who it is and now they know who to pay if they want to get paid. If they don't then YT will happily take it down.
If the rights holder is a huge corporation then I'm sure this is not an issue. They probably have some automatic algo that searches YT continually looking for this. But if it's an individual that's a burden to put on them but then maybe not. Maybe there is free or inexpensive software that can do that for them too. If not then they have to spend time maybe monthly to do YT searches and then the question is how to search?
If the uploader doesn't put the name of the song in the title, how do they search? YT itself apparently knows by their software that it's a copyrighted song but they don't automatically remove it, they wait for the owner to contact them. I may be wrong but it sounds like a catch 22 at that point. But OTH, if there's no or an incorrect song title then nobody else is going to hear it either except by accident. For the purposes of posting a cover just to show family and friends or for me perhaps to post a Biab version of a copywritten song just to demo how Biab works, I don't see any harm there because the link would need to be posted on this forum for example or to your friends only, the general public including the rights holder would never find it anyway.
Anyway, from a legal POV it seems like it's ok to post covers on YouTube and Soundcloud and probably others who use that same system. If someone is morally bothered by the fact that the burden is on the rights holder to catch it then don't do it.
Bob
Biab/RB latest build, Win 11 Pro, Ryzen 5 5600 G, 512 Gig SSD, 16 Gigs Ram, Steinberg UR22 MkII, Roland Sonic Cell, Kurzweil PC3, Hammond SK1, Korg PA3XPro, Garritan JABB, Hypercanvas, Sampletank 3, more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 20,586 |
Bob (jazzmammal),
I like the clarity that you bring to the table on this. Thank you.
I'm pretty sure that covers have often been played in situations such as weddings, coffee shops, small gatherings, etc., without the necessary copyright clearance always being obtained. With the aid of Google, I imagine it's much easier to search Youtube for covers than it is to police all the weddings, coffee shops, etc., around the world.
Noel
MY SONGS...Audiophile BIAB 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,915
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,915 |
Another bit of info for YouTube users. As everyone has explained they will either monetize or take down your video if it gets reported by its owner. BUT, if you get multiple takedown requests YouTube can and will kill your account!
Last edited by JohnJohnJohn; 04/12/20 03:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792 |
There is no doubt in my mind that there are coffee shops, wedding venues, even bars and such that do not acquire a license to play copy written material so as to pay royalties. (Bear in mind live cover music requires a different license from recording covers) I’m just as sure that for many that upload to YouTube feel that it’s fine to post others property, since it will either not be discovered, yet removed, or have ads embedded to monetize it. That is their business. Heck I have to admit I have played live music including covers. Not for pay but still. I will say I purchased my backing tracks from companies that carry a license. Everyone has a different view and happily each gets to decide what they want to do in this regard.
The only point I am making is, and the reason I used the term “morally” is that what is right and wrong is not defined by what one gets away with, or what other people, any organization, or group says. Right or wrong is defined by what is moral. What is legal, and fair. Stealing is stealing, taking what is not yours is theft. Using the lawnmower again, if I take my neighbors lawnmower use it, post it online sell it, and give the money back to my neighbor. I still stole it, because I did not have permission to use, post it, or resell it. This my view and while I respect that others is different, and I also respect their right to that view I am unlikely to change mine.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
I can't help but wonder how many people technically violated copyright law by singing one of John Prine's songs as a tribute to him recently after we lost him.
I feel safe in saying that not all of them had paid rights to sing and post videos honoring him.
On the other hand, I can't imagine John being upset about it or wanting a take down notice to be issued to them or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867 |
I can't help but wonder how many people technically violated copyright law by singing one of John Prine's songs as a tribute to him recently after we lost him.
I feel safe in saying that not all of them had paid rights to sing and post videos honoring him.
On the other hand, I can't imagine John being upset about it or wanting a take down notice to be issued to them or worse. Hey, the guy just died, lets rip off his song..... Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.... yeah I know its not funny.... but it is a bit ironic.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.comAdd nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both. The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867 |
If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law. IANAL, and this is the internet, but neither the chord progression nor the title can be copyrighted. So what law has been violated in your example? Of course, I'm not so foolish as to test this theory out myself.  I have a book about the business and legal aspects of music law. It's over 600 pages and I did try to find the section that dealt with this. UNsuccessfully. Essentially, what you say is generally correct. Titles and chord progressions are not copyrightable under most circumstances. All the rock and rollers and blues guys are thankful for that.... the 1-4-5 progression is a standard. However..... there is a point where the progression can be problematic. When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. The argument would be.... do the chords to yesterday amount to that point? F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F Now it looks as though they're here to stay oh I believe in yesterday [Verse 2] F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F there's a shadow hanging over me oh yesterday came suddenly [Chorus] Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F I said something wrong now I long for yesterday That would be for a jury and judge to decide. Above my pay grade. To reply to the question you posed.... Using this unique chord progression and naming it Yesterday..... I think that's a little too much of a stretch to call it a random musical event. Especially when the timing also falls into place. If you were on that jury, how would you decide?
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.comAdd nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both. The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,197
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,197 |
When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. You are correct, and I'm wrong. Darned it, you made me do more research!  A legal entity doesn't own the "copyright" to the chords, in the sense that no one else can use the progression. But they do have the right to prevent the song from being intentionally copied in a way that has "substantial similarity" to the song. An infringement case has to prove two things: "access" and "substantial similarity." If the defendant can prove that they came up with the progression on their own, there's no infringment, even if the two songs are identical. Which means their version isn't a "copy", so no rights were infringed. So in your example, given how ubiquitous the song is, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate "access" as well as "substantial similarity."
-- David Cuny My virtual singer development blogVocal control, you say. Never heard of it. Is that some kind of ProTools thing?BiaB 2025 | Windows 11 | Reaper | Way too many VSTis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,094
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,094 |
When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name Interesting. I wonder how does that affect nearly every twelve-bar blues ever written? And what about 1-6-4-5 progressions? Many of them sound exactly the same.
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Pro & Windows 11, Cakewalk Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Session Keys Grand S & Electric R, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M, Pioneer Active Monitors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792 |
If I went to 12 bars I would definitely get the blues! Can I take Herbs lawn mower on Charlie’s train and not get sued? These are questions I ponder!
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,381
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,381 |
I don't know which is worse--David being wrong or Herb being right. (Do not copy/paste that comment anywhere. All rights reserved.) I don't really have a dog in this race. I don't usually care for covers, unless whoever does it takes ownership (creative, not legal). I don't play an instrument well enough to benefit from "backing tracks"--and I certainly don't want to sing along. *shudders*. It's just that there are a lot of terms being inserted that may or may not apply to the OP's request (remember him/her?) and a lot of ambiguity in the request itself. TECHNICALLY, YouTube is a video sharing site. You can't upload an .mp3 or other recognized audio file. TECHNICALLY, the license required would be a Synch license for music included in a video or film. PRACTICALLY, there is no way for essentially any less-than-professional entity to secure a Synch license. So PRACTICALLY, YouTube resorts to other options, and responds to Copyright holders. Lawyers are not hippies. Lawsuits are not going to be filed if there are no damages to collect. I have done two covers for inclusion on a standard CD release. I paid (through HFA) license for inclusion in a limited run to Bill Withers for Ain't No Sunshine. I did not sell enough CD's to pay for a stack of Blank CD's, but am happy that MR. Withers got a few dollars up-front. I attempted to locate the copyright holder of the other song, but it/they were not listed at HFA. So I sent a letter with my intentions* to the publisher of record and asked where I might send a check. I received no reply. Why not? Because is just wasn't worth the trouble and angst. In neither case did I release the CD for streaming. Perhaps I should not have included that second cover. Less than 10 individuals purchased a recording of me covering that song. There must be a special place in Hell for such as me. Anyway, just wanted to confess my sins. I've done a small number of covers besides those only available at free streaming services. My only payment was listens and comments. Copyright holders and their lawyers can have them all. I did no damage to those copyrights, and may have even helped sell a few downloads or hard-copies of the originals, if only to wash out the bad taste of my cover from their ears. Intent is important, both in law and morals. Read the YouTube terms of service and abide by it. Do all possible to see that Song-writers are compensated for their contribution to your hobby. And I hereby swear that never again will I publicly perform whether in person or via recording someone else's creative work to an audience beyond my long-suffering family and/or close friends (of which I would expect to have fewer in the event of said performance) without implied consent and due compensation. So help me God. * Yes, "intentions". Right or wrong, you don't need explicit permission to cover and release a song in a song format unless it is a "derivative" work. Take that, hippies. http://ostrowesq.com/no-you-dont-own-your-arrangement-of-that-hit-song/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792 |
Okay Tangster that was funny and entertaining.
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867 |
I don't know which is worse--David being wrong or Herb being right That right there's funny, I don't care who you are..... wait that too might be a copyrighted phrase..... that fat redneck comedian guy who likes to say "poop" a lot. Oh what the hey... have your lawyer call my lawyer and we'll see what we can work out.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.comAdd nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both. The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,867 |
When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name Interesting. I wonder how does that affect nearly every twelve-bar blues ever written? And what about 1-6-4-5 progressions? Many of them sound exactly the same. Well all the blues songs sound the same. Yesterday doesn't. Do you realize how many rock bands would never have released a single song if the 1-4-5-6 or 1-6-4-5 progressions were copyrighted....???? I think I will now go a plagiarize a C-F-G progression and claim it as my own. I might raise it a few steps to E-A-B to throw off the copyright claimants. You reckon they'll notice?
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.comAdd nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both. The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,792 |
Only a redneck hillbilly North Carolinian would say reckon, ... er I reckon!
Turns and runs away!
HP Win 11 12 gig ram, Mac mini Sonoma with 16 gig of ram, BiaB/RB 2026, Reaper 7, Harrison Mixbus 11 , Presonus Audiobox USB96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 125
Apprentice
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 125 |
If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law. IANAL, and this is the internet, but neither the chord progression nor the title can be copyrighted. So what law has been violated in your example? Of course, I'm not so foolish as to test this theory out myself. I have a book about the business and legal aspects of music law. It's over 600 pages and I did try to find the section that dealt with this. UNsuccessfully. Essentially, what you say is generally correct. Titles and chord progressions are not copyrightable under most circumstances. All the rock and rollers and blues guys are thankful for that.... the 1-4-5 progression is a standard. However..... there is a point where the progression can be problematic. When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. The argument would be.... do the chords to yesterday amount to that point? F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F Now it looks as though they're here to stay oh I believe in yesterday [Verse 2] F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F there's a shadow hanging over me oh yesterday came suddenly [Chorus] Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F I said something wrong now I long for yesterday That would be for a jury and judge to decide. Above my pay grade. To reply to the question you posed.... Using this unique chord progression and naming it Yesterday..... I think that's a little too much of a stretch to call it a random musical event. Especially when the timing also falls into place. If you were on that jury, how would you decide? Interesting complicated stuff, So just wondering as there are third party Fake disks with the format outlined just as you have described above (in my humble opinion anyway) so what you are saying is, this could well fall into the Copyright Infringement trap, and to muddle the waters even further, if an end user was to buy this particular Beatles Fake disk knowing the above they could get into trouble too. I know the above is 99.99 % unlikely to happen either for the creator of a fake disk or the customer buying it, but what once seemed clear cut as being totally within the law, ie, chords or a title can't be Copyrighted, now no longer seems so, particularly if its a unique set of chords to a particular song and the Title of the song is clearly shown in a disk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
Note: XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac Videos
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Check out this forum post for "One Stop Shopping" of our Band-in-a-Box® 2026 Mac Videos!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 100 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Holiday Weekend Hours
As we hop into the Easter weekend, here are our holiday hours:
April 3 (Good Friday): 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM PDT
April 4 (Saturday): Closed
April 5 (Easter Sunday): Closed
April 6 (Easter Monday): Open regular hours
Wishing you an egg-cellent weekend!
— Team PG
Update to Build 10 of RealBand® 2026 for Windows®!
If you're already using RealBand 2026 for Windows, download build 10 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® users: Build 1237 is now available!
Already a Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Windows user? Stay up to date and download the build 1237 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums57
Topics86,204
Posts801,931
Members40,068
| |
Most Online64,515
Apr 8th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean