Draft Copyright Policy

Discuss Pirate Party policy

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby bobappleyard » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:38 pm

In addition to the point about first-mover advantage, there is the difficulty at which many forms of technology can be transferred. I can't remember where I read it now, but there was a quote along the lines of "we've got espresso machines everywhere now, but you still can't get a decent cup of coffee outside Italy."

You could also mention in the bit about EULAs and proprietary file formats things like no-compete provisions and non-disclosure agreements in contracts.

Although... yeah.. it's a bit long. I'm not sure how I'd tidy it up, though.
Live in the North West? viewtopic.php?p=2409
Note the meetup time&place has changed AGAIN.
User avatar
bobappleyard
Lookout
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:44 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby chikrodah » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:59 pm

Can I offer my services as a proofreader?

in order to provide an incentive people to create works (a pubic good).


Not entirely sure what works would get created with that particular incentive... :lol:
chikrodah
Swabbie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby chikrodah » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:29 pm

No problem (currently reading Information Freedom whilst browsing the forum - thanks for the link :) ).

I meant it about offering to proofread - it's one of my more useful skills.
chikrodah
Swabbie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Teachdaire » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:04 am

I'd just like to point out a couple of things to make the text of the policy slightly clearer.

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Copyrights and our Culture", the line
held hostage in the vaults of huge media corps,
would be better served by using the word "corporations" instead of the currently used "corps".

Also in a similar vein, in the section entitled "Patents and Private Monopolies Harm Society", the line
small- and medium-sized businesses in the IT sector.
would read better if the words "information technology" were used in place of the acronym "IT".

Like I said, these are just for clarity, especially on a document of intent, so that short phrases or acronyms are kept to a minimum.
Teachdaire
Swabbie
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:40 am

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jez9999 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:43 pm

Nice job... I'll just comment on certain bits of it...

johnb wrote:In a free market, vendors wishing to sell products crippled by digital restrictions (DRM) should be allowed to do so, however any such product must be clearly labelled as containing DRM, and similarly companies must be equally free to sell products that circumvent DRM.

This sounds almost jovial, like a kind of merry-go-round system. If we believe that products to circumvent DRM should be legal, we're basically saying circumventimg DRM is OK... why do we think that? Presumably because DRM is bad... so shouldn't we just say we don't think DRM should be legal? Or lay out some kind of code as to what software must allow customers who've bought it to do? Things like backing it up, never having it 'die' on them because it needs to 'phone home', etc? Then DRM 'circumvention' wouldn't be needed.

Pirate Party UK believes that the end of copyright is inevitable and that the United Kingdom should enjoy lasting strategic benefits and immediate economic gains from being an early adopter of such reform.

My eyebrows raised a bit at this - the end of copyright is inevitable? Even we're not proposing ending it *completely*... maybe the end of copyright in its current form?

We dispute claims that copyright is a necessary basis for cultural development. We point to the works of composers like Handel and Mendelssohn; to writers like Dickens and Shakespeare; and to the rise of free software as evidence that copyright is not a necessary foundation for artistic and commercial advancement in any age.

Ironically, FOSS generally uses copyright to protect itself by some licence, so do we really want to 'point' to that?

We suggest a reduction in duration of commercial copyright protection, i.e. the monopoly to create copies of a work for commercial purposes, counted from the publication of the work.

I assume the specific proposed duration of copyright is pending? :)

All non-commercial gathering, use, processing and distribution of culture shall be explicitly permitted, including format-shifting, time-shifting, and the making of backups. Technologies limiting people's legal rights to copy and use information or culture, digital restrictions (DRM), if used shall display clear warnings to inform purchasers of this fact. Technologies which allow digital restrictions to be circumvented will equally be permitted.

Same comment as above regarding the farcical nature of the merry-go-round that is allowing DRM and then allowing DRM circumvention.

Contractual agreements such as End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) implemented to prevent such legal distribution of information shall be declared null and void. Non-commercial distribution of published culture, information or knowledge – with the clear exception of personal data – must not be limited or punished. As a logical conclusion of this, we oppose blank media taxes.

Couldn't we just declare ALL EULAs null and void? That is to say, a EULA which the user is expected to agree to AFTER parting with their money having purchased the software? You don't have to read and agree to a big long contract after you've bought a physical product before you're allowed to use it, so I fail to see why this should be allowed for software. All legal terms and conditions the user is expected to agree to with regards to their usage of the software should be presented upfront, and agreed to BEFORE they pay for the software.

Limitation of EULAs

I think we should propose the end of EULAs.

On the patent stuff, A+. I agree with it all.
- Jeremy Morton
jez9999
Hijacker Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jez9999 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:31 pm

johnb wrote:
jez9999 wrote:
We dispute claims that copyright is a necessary basis for cultural development. We point to the works of composers like Handel and Mendelssohn; to writers like Dickens and Shakespeare; and to the rise of free software as evidence that copyright is not a necessary foundation for artistic and commercial advancement in any age.

Ironically, FOSS generally uses copyright to protect itself by some licence, so do we really want to 'point' to that?


This came directly from Swedish policy; however, it isn't actually prescriptive, but descriptive, and seems to be absolutely factually correct, while FOSS licenses make use of copyright law (the 'copyright hack') to achieve their objectives, copyleft is certainly nothing like conventional copyright?

I think that because, as you said, FOSS uses conventional copyright to achieve its goals, 'pointing' to the rise of free software leaves an easy target for opponents to say that FOSS wouldn't be able to exist without copyright, which is true. Copyright is what gives its licences the power to prevent the code being used in a non-FOSS way.

If you consider copyright as something that just gives the creator the right to say what can and can't be done with the work, rather than something that necessarily completely deprives society of it for the purposes of derivatives, then I'd say copyleft isn't just 'like' conventional copyright, it IS a form of conventional copyright. :)
- Jeremy Morton
jez9999
Hijacker Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jamesmcm » Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:16 pm

This is really good and very well written.

Forcing companies to release the source code when the copyright expires is a good idea, in theory. I am worried about how it would work in practice - for example, some companies may legitimately lose the source code, they might also release an obfuscated version or soemthing.

I don't know where to post it but prohibiting Tivoisation, making public TV broadcasts to be unencrypted, and forcing hardware manufacturers to release open specifications might all be good policies.

EDIT: Also how does copyright affect versioning? What is to stop a company updating the software when it comes close to going public domain?
User avatar
jamesmcm
Cabin Kid
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby valisk1 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:32 pm

The companies may also simply choose not to copyright the code, but instead keep it trade secret releasing in binary format only.
this could be fixed by mandating that all software sold or given away in the UK has to deposit its software in escrow in a public database perhaps using CVS or somesuch.
But I don't trust government to keep any such database secure and it would add, a potentially intolerable burden on developers looking to keep total or near total control over their own code as the law would permit. And I say that as an avowed Free software user typing this out on a Debian GNU/Linux system.

It's one of the reasons why i think a 5 year term is realistically too short, even though I hope it would be achievable.

One thing also we may need to look at is how to deal with the existing copyrights, simply changing the law and cutting back the terms on all existing copyrights will generate a huge amount of legal battles from existing licensees and creators demanding compensation for the loss of what they presently have.
Copyright has never been shortened in law previously and it would be interesting how judges would deal with the question.

One particular option that occurs to me, which I don't expect would be popular, but as a potential fallback, if after taking legal advice, we find we would have to pay out billions in compensation, is to grandfather all existing copyrights on their existing terms upto the day the new Terms apply.
The benefits I can see of this are that there will be no reduction in the number of people creating copyrighted works and that very shortly said works will become freely sharable by all whilst still giving a limited time for a commercial entity to reap the reward for creation and their endeavours in production.

Assuming that five years remains our goal and were applied, the still held old copyrights would rapidly become irrelevant as beyond the first five year period vast quantities of new works would enter the public domain on an ever increasing basis to be shared, remixed and enjoyed freely.

As a coda, like Jez9999, I don't believe we should be looking to completely end copyright or suggesting it is at an end. People today would still see the sort of actions that resulted in the need for protection such as copyright, to prevent large commercial interests from lifting wholesale the artistic creations of others and benefiting from them with no accruing benefit to the artist.
I believe we should and must be the artist's friend, giving them a limited time to exclusively exploit the work commercially, limiting transferability and making certain that even after having signed the most draconian agreement possible in law they would still regain the ability to do what they want with their own works at most a few years down the line when it becomes public domain.
valisk1
Cannon Loader
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:46 am

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby NDR008 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:37 am

johnb wrote:Abolition of patents
Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community.

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries).

We would abolish patents in areas where they are morally repulsive (patents on living organisms), seriously harmful (patents on software, business methods), and we would review whether the patenting of physical inventions where the method/apparatus is fully disclosed are beneficial or harmful to our society.

We have everything to gain, and nothing to lose by abolishing harmful patents, and those that cover ideas or concepts rather than a functional physical invention. If we lead the way and demonstrate the benefits for our society, the rest of the world will follow.

(ends)


I am a bit worried about this. The title starts off Abolition of Patents.
When I see a bold wide title like that - my reaction is oh dear "Let's see how they concluded this is good".
But then I read through and notice the emphasis on pharmaceutical patents. And as a casual reader my mind thinks "Ah, in this case they're right... Brilliant"

But then I feel it is a bit wafely on software, and business methods. And I think somewhere else in the text there is talk about abolition of patents on concepts and ideas. Yet it seems to be in favour of physical patents.

Now you see, I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry (ick) and now work in an engineering environment - where we apply for patents. However, I don't feel like a patent filed is actually on the physical invention. It is on the concept. The same concept can be applied with 100 of infinitesimal physical alterations, and be the same product/concept.

In our field - patents don't last long - which is interesting. Further more - the workings can be found out from our competitors once they hold a patent - so in a way knowledge is shared - and say someone invented something - when we see it we say "Wow, this is quite smart" and then either use this new knowledge to do something better or have to say "hats off to them, we will pay their royalty fee for the next 5 years...".

What is counter productive in my field - is the length of the patent filing system. It really slows down the release of new ideas.
User avatar
NDR008
Swabbie
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:31 pm
Location: Bristol / Coventry / Malta

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Trakgalvis » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:00 pm

johnb wrote:I have also passed this on to Richard Stallman, and invited comment, since we refer both to him by name, and to the General Public License and software in general.


It would be very useful to have his input. He has a very good eye for the long-term effects of things.

Many of Richard Stallman's thoughts on this subject are described here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
http://caf.kalvis.com/ --- old member account of Trakgalvis, waiting for deletion.
Trakgalvis
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:34 am

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby VJ » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:23 pm

jamesmcm wrote:EDIT: Also how does copyright affect versioning? What is to stop a company updating the software when it comes close to going public domain?

As I understand it, say version 1 is about to go public domain, and company releases version 2, version everything in version 1 still goes public domain, version 2, however is copyright protected. To apply this to a current piece of software, and 14yr copyrights: MSOffice 95 would be nearing (or perhaps already be) public domain, but MSOffice 2008 will be copyrighted until 20222.


As to my opinion, I liked it, the detail was great, but think that the section tile "Abolition of patents" should be changed as that will be dismissed as lunacy regardless of the merits of our arguments. People won't read the section or the detail, they'll just take the title. A "big" party won't touch it because as soon as they do, the national media will run headlines saying $Partywill cost the economy £$MadeUpNumbers*. Right from here and now, we need to be media savvy. What would the headline in the Sun or the Daily mail be?

*this will come from the think tank that provides the largest number
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jamesmcm » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:58 am

vj wrote:
jamesmcm wrote:EDIT: Also how does copyright affect versioning? What is to stop a company updating the software when it comes close to going public domain?

As I understand it, say version 1 is about to go public domain, and company releases version 2, version everything in version 1 still goes public domain, version 2, however is copyright protected. To apply this to a current piece of software, and 14yr copyrights: MSOffice 95 would be nearing (or perhaps already be) public domain, but MSOffice 2008 will be copyrighted until 20222.


As to my opinion, I liked it, the detail was great, but think that the section tile "Abolition of patents" should be changed as that will be dismissed as lunacy regardless of the merits of our arguments. People won't read the section or the detail, they'll just take the title. A "big" party won't touch it because as soon as they do, the national media will run headlines saying $Partywill cost the economy £$MadeUpNumbers*. Right from here and now, we need to be media savvy. What would the headline in the Sun or the Daily mail be?

*this will come from the think tank that provides the largest number


But how do we apply that to say bazaar-developed GPLd software - where it might be rolling release rather than specific versions, how could they keep the source code and binaries for each tiny little change?

Also, what is to stop proprietary software companies using EULAs to bypass the copyright law - unless we remove authority from EULAs too?
User avatar
jamesmcm
Cabin Kid
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jez9999 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:45 am

vj wrote:Right from here and now, we need to be media savvy. What would the headline in the Sun or the Daily mail be?

Uck. If we're defining our policy on this question, we'll be making the mistake that all the mainstream parties currently make. How about standing up for what we believe in and screw the red tops? Better to lose a little support than do what the big parties are already doing anyway.
- Jeremy Morton
jez9999
Hijacker Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby rancidpunk » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:06 pm

vj wrote:Right from here and now, we need to be media savvy. What would the headline in the Sun or the Daily mail be?

Well put.
- No copyright, Piratpartiet, 1983 -
User avatar
rancidpunk
Terror of the High Seas
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Portsmouth

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Gavin » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:12 pm

About escrow, as other posters slightly highlighted, forcing companies to give us source code for each binary isn't feasible. As we move into the near future of this country, thousands of applications will be created a year, how can we manage it. Now some might compare it to the library of all books printed in the country, but, applications would have to be checked against the binaries regularly considering patching and revisions. Now I guess a simple way to do this would be to compare the end result with a hash or something, but doing this for every update, every revision submitted, how is that going to be managed without huge investment in government and expansion of power / bureaucracy. Our proposed policy will to be expanding the copyright office and related departments, but an unknown amount? And then offices to deal with foreign developers wanting copyright protection in our country, we scale back the patent system and expand the copyright one enormously.

Furthermore it's pretty immoral to force developers to give us their source code as I see it, we'll end up refusing to give copyright protection to those who fail to comply, fine to those who 'purposely' send in falsified source code, and penalising innocent people who lost sourcecode? To me that is not a good way for the pirate party to go, bullying people into developing in a way that apparently self evidently helps society, we should enable policies that encourage and foster the open source movement, but not force developers to share source code

One point by Stallman is that if we have a 5 year copyright people may put "time-bombs" into the code, stopping it working after the copyright has run out for everyone that purchased it. My initial argument against this is that it would be the death knell of the company that made the program, if a policy is enacted that make the copyright law 5 years long consumers would then ask what happens after the 5 years, as companies of course still use legacy software that fills their needs. It will become a part of buying the product, as customers ask manufacturers "Will this product still work once the copyright has run out?" and if it doesn't, they look for alternative companies.

Which is exactly where I think we should leave it, in the hand of the consumer and producer. As mentioned about DRM, we need to foster understanding , boost consumer rights and enable better decisions on things and without using the heavy hand of government. If a company fails to say that the product will end after 5 years, it's a case of not informing customers and the customers could take legal action.

At the end of copyright the company has three options as I see it,

First is to do nothing and let the binary be distributed freely but be sour about it,
Secondly charge for support for the application, but other companies could too
Or they could release their source code

Once the copyright has ended, releasing your product as a sponsored open source project not only brings in publicity and awareness, but customers will know at the end of the next product they buy, it will most likely be open sourced. It's not a guarantee that would happen, but those are the three choices for a companies I see, leave the binaries in public domain or do something with then.

Furthermore, I think the existence of application cracks right now circumventing all current copyright protection, be it through code / date wrapper or reverse engineering, alleviates any fear I'd have of time bombs. I would say that once something goes out of copyright, reverse engineering of the product would also become legal under law.
Last edited by Gavin on Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: hey hey grammar and spelling mistakes.
User avatar
Gavin
Lookout
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby jez9999 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:37 pm

Cracks aren't always available for software, and can be very hard to make if the software is coded deviously enough.

How about just codifying into law that a company may not purposely put in any mechanism to their software that causes it to cease functioning after copyright has expired?

Also, as I've mentioned before, I think I'd 'reward' the opening of source code by giving FOSS licences a much longer copyright protection than binaries.
- Jeremy Morton
jez9999
Hijacker Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby VJ » Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:41 pm

jez9999 wrote:
vj wrote:Right from here and now, we need to be media savvy. What would the headline in the Sun or the Daily mail be?

Uck. If we're defining our policy on this question, we'll be making the mistake that all the mainstream parties currently make. How about standing up for what we believe in and screw the red tops? Better to lose a little support than do what the big parties are already doing anyway.

I'm not saying that we follow the red top agenda like the mainstream parties, merely that we engage in a little "spin" in the way we put forward our message. In order to get anywhere we need to be careful not to frighten people away from our message. Like it or not, middle Britain largely feels comfortable with the status quo, propose anything radical and you get labelled as loonies and nutters. All I'm suggesting is that we word our message so that we get a hearing before being dismissed rather than being told we're fruitcakes before we even get a chance to put our message across.

An illustration: during the Europian parliament elections I saw some Swedish voters being interviewed on TV, they were trying to talk about civil liberties when asked why they were voting Pirate but the interviewer was twisting their words to mean "we think downloading free Hollywood movies is a basic human right". The media will try and do that to us as well so we have to be very careful about what we say and how we will be portrayed.
~share & enjoy~
User avatar
VJ
Boatswain's Mate
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Vanders » Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:22 pm

jez9999 wrote:
We dispute claims that copyright is a necessary basis for cultural development. We point to the works of composers like Handel and Mendelssohn; to writers like Dickens and Shakespeare; and to the rise of free software as evidence that copyright is not a necessary foundation for artistic and commercial advancement in any age.

Ironically, FOSS generally uses copyright to protect itself by some licence, so do we really want to 'point' to that?


Yes. This applies to your original comment and the ensuing discussion: we can not have our cake and eat it, too. We should not and can not practically create exceptions for things like Free Software just because it's something some of us have a particular attachment to. If copyright will expire on "closed" software, it must also equally and fairly expire on "open" software. Trying to do anything else will simply make us hypocrites and easily open us up to the criticism that Pirates "Just want to download stuff for free." It would be a fair accusation, too.

The suggestion that companies should provide source to their product once the copyright has expired is an interesting solution to the issue and would introduce some balance between Open & Closed software, but practically I suspect it is fraught with problems and would be a legislative nightmare. I'd suggest that the solution to the issue of copyleft needs a lot more work. I'd actually love to see an international Working Group of Pirate Parties and other interested groups I.e. the FSF, OSI etc. involved in a discussion to find a solution.
Vanders
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:21 pm

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Gavin » Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:24 pm

vanders wrote:
Yes. This applies to your original comment and the ensuing discussion: we can not have our cake and eat it, too. We should not and can not practically create exceptions for things like Free Software just because it's something some of us have a particular attachment to. If copyright will expire on "closed" software, it must also equally and fairly expire on "open" software. Trying to do anything else will simply make us hypocrites and easily open us up to the criticism that Pirates "Just want to download stuff for free." It would be a fair accusation, too.


I think we could fairly create an exception for open source however, not the free software movement by itself, but recognising that open source software does add value to society once copyright has expired. For that reason I'd be more inclined to agree with jez on an extension of copyright for open source source.
As what the patent system does at the moment is open up the invention so society knows how it works, when the patent does expire. Maybe not intended to do it (as in I haven't read about it yet), but it does. Having a company get rewarded for sharing the source in society, would be in my opinion be a fair way to do it and not an attachment to the motives of free software.

I would however say that the software only has to be open source for the extended period of time, for example with copyright at 5 years, a binary can exist for those 5 years, but to be legible for the extended copyright time it has to be open sourced for the extended time frame. Also the company can still dictate licenses over it, they can still have a copyleft / copyright control over it, stipulating uses of the software, so open source wouldn't necessarily mean the freedom to use the sourcecode as we wish.

This however in my eyes does provide a fair way to do what we want, help innovation.
User avatar
Gavin
Lookout
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:33 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Draft Copyright Policy

Postby Vanders » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:20 pm

gavin wrote:
vanders wrote:
Yes. This applies to your original comment and the ensuing discussion: we can not have our cake and eat it, too. We should not and can not practically create exceptions for things like Free Software just because it's something some of us have a particular attachment to. If copyright will expire on "closed" software, it must also equally and fairly expire on "open" software. Trying to do anything else will simply make us hypocrites and easily open us up to the criticism that Pirates "Just want to download stuff for free." It would be a fair accusation, too.


I think we could fairly create an exception for open source however, not the free software movement by itself, but recognising that open source software does add value to society once copyright has expired. For that reason I'd be more inclined to agree with jez on an extension of copyright for open source source.


If you start to add exceptions for open source software, you open the door to other exceptions and it dilutes our argument. For example should copyright be extended for any musician who is not signed to a record label?
Vanders
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:21 pm

Next

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.