digg

Join DiggAbout

Sharing is Caring - Pro Piracy Commercial watch!

youtube.com — Its not "piracy", its sharing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cbdgr, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5I was expecting the mpaa to come in at the end
  • goodkidyo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+71Tim Burton?
  • igraham09, on 10/10/2007, -18/+79the obligatory:

    ***** THE RIAA
  • adaskyfah, on 10/10/2007, -35/+0-
  • iJessicaRabbit, on 10/10/2007, -8/+53Good message but kind of creepy
  • seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -4/+43i wonder if they pirated that song from jack johnson, or if jack agrees with them .
    • vat0r, on 10/28/2007, -4/+10I wonder if anyone cares?
    • bootstrap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3your tellin me theres a guy named jack johnson? whaddabout john jackson?
  • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -41/+13Stealing IS caring! I see now, thank you!
    • Nick22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28its only stealing if you take it, and the person you took it from no longer has it because of you taking it. Copying != stealing
      • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Although you are technically right with the idea that copying isn't necessarily stealing.

        Piracy is stealing because your copying something without someone's permission and it's wrong.
        People work very hard on their content and it's their choice to do with it what they will, personally I wholeheartedly support OSS.
        If you don't buy movies/music/software but steal/pirate them your depriving the creator the money they rightfully deserve. Don't want to pay for your stuff? Well then guess what There's tons of free stuff out there. Don't want to pay 150 for Vista? Use Linux, Won't want to pay 20 bucks for a CD? there's a bunch of free indie stuff out there.

        So Nick, your stealing money from the creators every time you pirate, this means a lot to me because I create a lot and the stuff I create is mine! Not YOURS! Don't like it? go make your own stuff and make it freely available!
        • Syphon8, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3If you had the ability to copy someone's car for free, and they expressly denied you from doing it, how would you feel?
        • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Legally, piracy is copyright infringement, not stealing.

          Not saying it's right or wrong, but you should at least have a basic understanding of the issue.
        • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Then don't work on it.
          I'm tired of hearing this ***** about how people work soooo hard on this stuff. If you don't like file sharing, then don't work to provide content. The world does not owe you a living. Find something else to do and stop whining.
          Frankly, it would be better if most people stopped working on this stuff. There's far too much crap about already. We need to thin it out.
        • vat0r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Remember when people created art for the sole purpose of expression? All about the money nowadays, maybe that's why most modern media ("art") blows.
          • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Please tell me about this magical time when people created art for sole purpose expression. We're talking cave paintings right?
        • adraft, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5@Syphon8, he may feel bad, but I bet the factory workers who lose their jobs in this hypothetical situation feel a lot worse when no one buys their products.
          @vat0r, news flash: Money makes the world go round. Always has, always will.
        • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"Piracy is stealing because your copying something without someone's permission and it's wrong."

          Some believe it is wrong, some do not - however, let me take your assertion at face value for the purpose of my argument. You said it yourself - you are COPYING something without someone's permission, not TAKING something without someone's permission. THAT is why it is not stealing.

          "So Nick, your stealing money from the creators every time you pirate,"

          Nope. If your argument is right, then every time you walk through a store looking at and trying out stuff without buying it you are stealing money from them. You are stealing their air conditioning, their time helping you, putting wear on their display products, and more. We should ban window shopping for this reason. Who's with me? Let's get a law passed that stops all these aweful air conditioning pirates.


          In other words, using something without buying it does not equal a lost sale. This goes infinitely more for intangible things.

          "this means a lot to me because I create a lot and the stuff I create is mine! Not YOURS! Don't like it? go make your own stuff and make it freely available!"

          What you are saying is equivalent to saying that if you put a piece of artwork on the side of the road and I look at it, I owe you money. Uh, no. Don't want people looking at it but not buying it, then don't put it on the side of the darned road!
      • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5By this logic, you could hire a maid to clean your house and then feel totally justified by throwing her out without paying after she finished. You didn't take an OBJECT from her so you didn't steal from her.
        • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5*****. I would have contracted with the maid to provide a service. If a maid was equivalent to the record companies, then she'd only clean a couple of rooms and then demand that I couldn't use them unless I paid her more, and that I couldn't have friends over unless I allowed her to sexually assault me with her mop.
          See... it ain't quite the same.
          Anyway, there's nothing you can do about file sharing. So cry more.
        • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I really don't see what you're trying to say here except maybe "ME! ME! ME!" If your next example relied less heavily on nonsense you would be understood more clearly, so that's a good goal for you.
        • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That is different as well - you -did- take something directly from her, which is her time, the energy from the food she ate, etc.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You're stealing the creators ability to profit from their efforts. This is their job, their primary source of income. Movies and music are difficult and expensive to make (or at least to make well) and require highly specialized skills that take years to master, thousands of man hours to produce and dozens (if not hundreds) of people working full time. How do people feel that it is completely justified to receive these things for free? I'm not saying not to copy these things, but only do so if you are comfortable with the fact that you are stealing. I think people keep this argument going because they like to receive things for free but also like to feel like good, moral people so they bend or ignore all the facts of the big picture until it fits into their moral framework.
      I ask that someone please explain to me why they expect these hundreds of people to dedicate their lives and put so much time, effort, money and skill into creating something so that you can receive it without compensating them?
      • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Awww... boo hoo. They can find another job. Industries are made obsolete all the time. If you don't like the new technology, stop making stuff and go sulk in the corner. No-one cares. There'll be plenty of other people to replace you.
        • adraft, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Let's think about this situation a little more intensely. So most current movie/music makers quit because they can't make any money and there for can't make a living. Who exactly is going to replace them? The guy who was living under a rock and doesn't know the industry stopped making money?
          • BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2How about caring more about life essentials than entertainment. Go produce something that actualy helps sustain our population. Grow wheat or corn. They've got great copy protection - they're physical. Quit applying physical analogies to intellectual medium. Ideas should be free. Everyone should benefit from our ideas.

            Do you want me to gather my friends around a camp fire and charge them a fee before I start playing my guitar? You want me to be creative while making a living? I say, screw that! I'll entertain for the hell of it, while making a living doing something else. I don't mind.
          • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2BESTenemy:

            The way people on Digg so fiercely defend their piracy, you would think entertainment was essential. Thank you for making the case that they should be able to easily go without it.
        • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3So, Aggman, your answer to my question of moral justification of the theft of content is that they will lose their jobs if you do it? You made my point perfectly. High five. Thanks for the assist.
      • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3movies are expensive to make well, music not so much.
      • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"You're stealing the creators ability to profit from their efforts."

        They can still profit from their efforts, and WILL still profit from their efforts. They just won't get my money.

        "This is their job, their primary source of income. Movies and music are difficult and expensive to make (or at least to make well) and require highly specialized skills that take years to master, thousands of man hours to produce and dozens (if not hundreds) of people working full time. How do people feel that it is completely justified to receive these things for free?"

        As a T-Shirt says, "Your failed business model is not my problem." You may know the person who had it - Alex Albrecht?

        "I'm not saying not to copy these things, but only do so if you are comfortable with the fact that you are stealing."

        No, I'm NOT comfortable with stealing things. I haven't stolen a single item in my entire life. However, I have copied media. Your argument is like saying, "I'm not saying not to smash bugs, but only do so if you are comfortable with the fact that you are committing murder."

        "I think people keep this argument going because they like to receive things for free but also like to feel like good, moral people so they bend or ignore all the facts of the big picture until it fits into their moral framework."

        Actually, if you cut out the free part, that's almost the best description I have ever heard of pro-copyright advocates.

        "I ask that someone please explain to me why they expect these hundreds of people to dedicate their lives and put so much time, effort, money and skill into creating something so that you can receive it without compensating them?"

        Because others will compensate them. If others do not, then it is their problem and they need to devise a business model around current technology - and they will. The most amazing ability computers bring to life is the ability to copy infinitely without any additional cost. When you start putting an artificial legal restriction on a technology, well... Imagine if the horse and buggy conglomerates decided that this new "automobile" technology was infringing on their profits, and cried to the government for help - who turned around and made automobiles illegal. What do you think would be better - for the horse and buggy makers to get with the times and build a business model around automobiles, or for the government to step in and make them illegal so they don't have to bother changing their ways?
  • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -36/+9Stealing IS caring! I see now, thank you!
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4I say things twice, say things twice.
  • spartin92, on 10/10/2007, -8/+43that is how i have always looked at piracy...
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2...because the internet is such a loving place.
  • dudefather, on 10/10/2007, -8/+103its like sharing cookies. but its your friends cookies. without his permission

    I pirate because the RIAA are dicks...and game copy protection is stupid...and Movies are overpriced...and...and...............***** it I'm just cheap
    • AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -13/+12Looks like you're setting a good example for your children.
    • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5its like sharing cookies. but its your friends cookies. but you paid for them and he still has all the cookies he didn't sell you, so you're not taking his cookies, you're just giving your other friends cookies you made that are just like your friends cookies.
    • Skanadian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4No. It's not. Your friend shared a cookie with you, which he bought and said "Share with everyone else", which he did and you did, while you passed on that message.
    • earthforce1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2
      Taking somebody's cookies and giving them away without permission to a 3rd party is more like taxation, not piracy.

      I wonder, if Harry Potter and the wizarding world was real, would all magic wands come with DRM built in to prevent them from making magical copies of copyrighted objects?

      Actually, this sort of copyright nonsense reminds me of the end of the original Hitchiker's Guide triology, where the survivors of the B ark decided to make plentiful objects (leaves) artificially scarce, by burning down all the trees so they could use them as money. The world has changed, and the **AA must change their business models to go along with it, or die.

    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4"its like sharing cookies. but its your friends cookies. without his permission"

      No, because your friend does not lose his cookies by you doing so.
  • thePheonix9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29I really like that art style. The Zune commercials, while not necessarily very Zune related, at least look nice.
  • DefaultGen, on 10/10/2007, -21/+5Piracy isn't a crime?
    • xMedic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I wonder, since when sharing started to be considered piracy?
      • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4When it started affecting the income of rich people and their hangers on.
    • xMedic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I wonder, since when sharing started to be considered piracy?
      • stubear, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4It's not sharing, it's unauthorized distribution of intellectual property. If you pedantic ***** are going to attack people for misusing the word "theft", I'm going to kick you in the nuts for misusing the word "sharing". Making a song available ona P2P network is unauthorized distribution, plain and simple.
        • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7And there's nothing you can do about it, bitch.

          hahahahahahahahahahah

          ;)
          • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Way to turn a conversation into a grammar school pissing match.
    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://www.google.com/search?q=piracy+is+not+a+cri ...

      Apparently it's a civil matter.
  • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Mmmm...free.
  • OffPiste, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11Gosh that just makes me want to go out and write a hit song or make a great game just so it can be stolen by millions of people.
    • sally00, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6shut up, you hippie
    • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Then don't. No one is forced to do that, and no-one has the right to force everyone else to agree to some bogus idea of "intellectual property". If you don't like the idea of people being able to freely distribute intellectual goods you make, then don't make any. Problem solved. There'll always be plenty of other people who want fame or just want to make stuff who will provide it without whining like stuck pigs.
      • OffPiste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So I should just walk into a BMW dealership and take what I want?
  • jihadjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39For those who don't know this is an old zune ad.
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Happy cookie sharing pirates we am!!! ARRRR-
  • crakbot, on 10/10/2007, -20/+6People who support piracy are usually just broke ass losers who can't even afford a $10 DVD. Plus, I bet if any of these losers ever did create something of value and somebody stole it, they would be the first to scream and yell, hire lawyers, and condemn such activity.
    • 0firefly0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6lol yup
    • Syphon8, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The only people who do call the lawyers are selfish. There I said it.
  • Bob042, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm pretty sure I've seen this a long time ago, without the YARRRRRfullness pasted onto the end of it.
  • godmode, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17They didnt show the part where he stabbed some baker and stole the cookies!
  • sixdust, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Thats a zune commercial, isn't it? They just covered up the zune logo and changed the music?
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is it? Can you link to it, I can't find it..
    • tedhead2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly... not really all that amazing.
  • Istrancis, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Okay, I've buried that commercial as horrifically disturbing. In fact, it's made me glad piracy is illegal, otherwise we'd have this ad pasted over all of our television shows. Meh, I guess if that was the case, we could just get the pirated versions of TV shows without the commercials!
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Ah hell yeah, I hope they get that on TV.
  • stubear, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4That was just a zune piece (https://www.zune-arts.net/) with a different song. Color me shocked that a person in favor of piracy is incapable of creating their own work to express their ideas.
    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There is a difference between being incapable and not wanting to duplicate effort when there is no need to do so. Is every programmer who writes an application which uses Win32 incapable of designing a GUI library? No, but why bother when there is already one which fits your needs?
  • Bartboy919, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Bonus points for using a zune ad! http://youtube.com/watch?v=H0kfX40NcV0
  • VigaDSon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Awesome.
  • lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13The dude who made the magic cookie has got to get paid. People who share still need to take care of the artists who make the magic cookies. Otherwise, there won't be any more cookies.

    It's the middlemen and distributors who previously controlled the supply of magic cookies can go find new jobs. Cookie makers will always need agents, managers, assistants and marketing people to help spread their work but the massive industry based upon exploiting cookies and bakers that currently exists, quite frankly, does not need to be as large or as money-driven as it is. Scale down, get rid of the bloat, support the bakers and enjoy the cookies.
    • Nidy1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Dugg for keeping the analogy.
    • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I agree fully - and we need to find a way to pay the people who made the magic cookie without making it illegal to make the cookie do what sets it apart from regular cookies.
    • tothemax64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And dont forget, stop using that crappy Spleda garbage...
    • stklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, we need to make sure that the maker gets paid.
  • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12so in the zune version your cookie disappears after you take three nibbles or leave it in your pantry for three days?
  • Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Damn you people are stupid. You think piracy is the best thing. I just hate copy protection.
  • Jenovaside, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2sharing is a felony, don't you know?
  • terrordome, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2SHARING IS COMMUNIST! BURN EVIL PIRATES, BURN!
  • adraft, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6I used to download music a lot until my sister and a friend in college both got caught and I realized that by comparison to the punishment at stake, paying 99 cents for a song isn't all that bad. I've since started buying all of the songs I've illegally downloaded, and to be honest it feels pretty good. I won't lie though, I have a small inheritance to help fund this, but mostly I can do this because I have a job. Piracy is just as bad as stealing, there's no way to justify otherwise. Pay for something if you want it.
  • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5"Sharing" is stealing. You're stealing the creators ability to profit from their efforts. This is their job, their primary source of income. Movies and music are difficult and expensive to make (or at least to make well) and require highly specialized skills that take years to master, thousands of man hours to produce and dozens (if not hundreds) of people working full time. How do people feel that it is completely justified to receive these things for free? I'm not saying not to copy these things, but only do so if you are comfortable with the fact that you are stealing. I think people keep this argument going because they like to receive things for free but also like to feel like good, moral people so they bend or ignore all the facts of the big picture until it fits into their moral framework.
    I ask that someone please explain to me why they expect these hundreds of people to dedicate their lives and put so much time, effort, money and skill into creating something so that you can receive it without compensating them?
    If someone has an actual answer to this question and not just some vague metaphor about cookies or some misguided nonsense about freedom of speech, please respond.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I'll note that people can bury my question but are unable to answer it. Moral victory FTW!
      • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"I'll note that people can bury my question but are unable to answer it. Moral victory FTW!"

        I responded to your OTHER posting of this EXACT SAME THING - buried for dupe.
    • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i'm just doing what trent reznor, the person who actually created his music, told me to do with his music.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just to be clear,you're saying you only download Trent Reznor's music, correct?
    • aadnk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I think you have a very warped idea of what constitute "stealing", and it might steam from your definition of "property". That has, traditionally, been the physical ownership of an specific item, such as a specific chair or a table, and not encompassed the totality of said items (patterns), as in patents, or the act of replicating them (copyright). Moreover, I believe the umbrella term "intellectual property" is at best misleading, and should rather be called "intellectual monopoly" or "intellectual protectionism" (or something like it). Claiming that "sharing is stealing", is thus merely a play with words.

      Now, would people be producing works without direct compensation through intellectual protectionism? YES! They did so before (what originally was a the british reinvention of state-sponsored censorship system), and they would do after. Just think of all the material that's licensed under the Creative Common, or under GNU. Just consider GNU/Linux, or all the other free software projects, which all have been created by the joint forces of peers all over the world. As for musicians, they (with the exception of the so-called pop-musicians that don't actually create anything themselves), they first and foremost make a profit on arranging or participating in concerts and other public events. Here, the distributors are the ones profitting the most out of IP, and not the actual authors. As for patents, well, software patents are evil (Richard Stallman), and many pantents actually hinder further development by distracting real research to patent-circumvensions (as in the case of pharmaceuticals, which spend more than 90% of their budget on doing so instead of actually developing new treatments).

      Sure, some of these crumbling monopolies would fall if non-commercial sharing of works were allowed, but seeing that they don't make a very good constribution to socitety, and that new business would spring up in their place, I don't think such a change would be a bad thing.
    • crimpshrine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Like the previous post before, you have a very warped idea of "stealing" If you can duplicate bytes of data with no impact to ther original data, you are if anything guilty of cloning. Not stealing. Is it wrong to clone something you would have never paid for to begin with? Not to me. I am not making their families go hungry. I would NEVER pay the high premiums for the "in" and "popular" clothes. So am I contributing to the fasion designers going hungry?


  • Alex2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And when someone copies this posting, the original poster will whine and complain "He copied by digg article and is making money off of blogspam!"

    And when someone copies his Youtube video, he will whine and complain that 'Someone stole my video!'
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not exactly. There is a understanding of those terms by the people choosing to use those distribution methods. It would be different if content protection was promised in but not given, at which point the poster would have proper justification to go after the distributor.
  • ffemt300, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2kinda creepy.....
  • 2Bnor2B, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Copy protections cause piracy.
    They encourage paying customers to venture into Warez sites to get no-CD patches. They make the DRM free and protection free copies more valuable than the original. They prevent a user from running the game under an emulator (Wine). Some create privacy concerns. Newer designs are preventing you from selling the game back as used or allowing a family user to play it after you are done. Copy protections have nothing to do with piracy protection, they are just a form of marketing control.

    NOTE TO PUBLISHERS: If you want to stop piracy respect your user base. Make the unprotected original more valuable then the pirated version. Offer free content for legitimate users. Include a thank you note in the package from the designers / programmers. Allow users to submit content and become part of the games design and evolution (See 'Pirates of the Burning Seas Game'). Treat users like a family. A strong user base is more powerful than any protection mechanism or marketing ploy.
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dugg up for "They make the DRM free and protection free copies more valuable than the original." I have to say that is one of the most concise, rhetoric-free comments I've ever read on Digg.
      • andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You and I are in full agreement for once.
  • bovox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I would be in favor of "sharing" music if the person "giving" deleted the song and all other copies of that song before handing it off to another person. "Sharing" in the instance of piracy is an incorrect term. What you are doing is copying.

    I don't get how cheap people can be. It ONLY costs 99 cents to buy a song legitimately.
  • CCmachined, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2no piracy --> no DRM
    admit it!!! its just human nature. Somebody makes a product, people rip it off cuz thats just how humanity works, content creators then add whatever they can to stop the product from being copied, but it only inconveniences those who buy the music (this is just the limits of technology.).
    thanks, *****.
  • rgnl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1IT Crowd - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UYHXQPCPk
  • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here is a thought , within less then one half a century , the masses have paid the recording companies more then six times for the same piece of copyright music , due to a combination of format change and new advancing technologies and now they want more then a pound of flesh , lock it all up in copyright for one hundred years or more , shoot all who modify , mash or rearrange their precious commodity , merely because they do not earn one cent from that transaction ! Whilst time and technology march on , the greedy very few who profit from all musicians treating most as slaves and vassals become ever more greedy in their vile corruption ways !
    Sadly it is not piracy they fear the most , but a revolution from those they have down trodden , and continue to walk over , stealing from them and the general consuming public at the same time !
    The ever evolving power of the modern home computer and the Internet , is scaring the crap out of their single brain celled one track minds as their power ekes away chink by chink , and gives the musician direct access to their target audience and eliminating these greedy middlemen from the equation !
    Interestingly , chain media radio stations are monitoring pirate downloads of the new music , as it gives them a far better indication of what real people are listening to rather then the bogus claims of the major record companies , how sad is that !
  • broknman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is ironic they claim this is an anti-piracy advertisement. It is actually a commercial for the Microsoft Zune with a new audio track tossed on top of it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaOruj0dXc
  • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I would like a cookie...
  • aduzik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To hell with free music and movies, I want that chocolate chip cookie that regenerates into a whole cookie when you break it in half! Is anyone working on this?
  • bbliss17, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1haha that is awesome. Sharing is caring!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.