Free Downloads & Power-Ups

Update September 15th, 2010: Please read this.

When we first started working on Bandcamp, we wondered whether it might be possible to always provide an unlimited number of “free” downloads* to artists for, well, free. Our hope was that free downloading might be highest amongst the artists who were also selling the most – for example, a band giving away a track or two in promotion of a paid album. That way, the revenue share on the artist’s sales would naturally cover the costs associated with the streaming, support and storage of their freebies.

What we’ve learned, however, is that most of the music being given away through the site is from a relative minority of bands who have decided not to sell anything at all. It’s obviously unfair to burden every Bandcamp artist with the costs of a few outliers giving away hundreds of thousands of free downloads, so we’re making some changes to button that up.

Starting today, new accounts come with 200 free downloads, and all existing accounts are granted 500. Your free download credits also refresh every month (meaning that if you have less than 200 downloads remaining, we’ll just bump you up to 200 again). Each time a fan downloads a track or album for free, it counts as 1 against your balance (an album, regardless of how many tracks it contains, still only counts as 1 download, and streaming is still unlimited). You can buy more downloads for a small fee from your Tools page. The pricing is the same as for download codes:

300 downloads for $9 USD (3¢ each)
1000 downloads for $20 USD (2¢ each)
5000 downloads for $75 USD (1.5¢ each)

But here’s the cool part: for every $500 USD you have in sales, we’ll give you another 1,000 free downloads (kind of like a power-up, but based on sales rather than say, eating a Super Mushroom**). The idea is that if you’re selling through Bandcamp, you’ll probably never run out of free promo downloads, and if you’re using the site to distribute your music for free, there’s still a cheap and easy way to keep doing that. (Actually, the cheapest way would be to head over to ZRapidShare, but if you’re reading this, you probably care about your fans too much for that.)

You can check your free download balance over on your Tools page, but you don’t need to check it obsessively. If you get low, we’ll notify you via email, as well as display a reminder up at the top of your account. And if your balance drops to zero, free tracks and albums won’t go away, they’ll just automatically switch to paid (at whatever price you last set, or the default if you never set the price). We won’t start decrementing your free download balance for another week (on September 16th), so anyone planning a big free promo has time to make sure their download needs are covered. Again, the above applies to free downloads only – there remain no download limits whatsoever on tracks or albums that you’re selling.

*By “free” downloads we just mean downloads of tracks or albums that you’ve set to free, free but email-required, or let-fan-name-price with no minimum and the fan enters zero. Download code redemptions don’t count, and neither does streaming.

**We’re extending this power-up idea to other parts of the site as well, with sales raising your upload limit and granting you more download codes, for starters. We’ve got plenty more power-ups in store too, all of them useful, fun, and in the spirit of helping to kick-start your success.

111 thoughts on “Free Downloads & Power-Ups

  1. While I understand the financial logic and thee need for this, my first and emotional response as a label and user of Bancamp is – boo!

    When the other changes were made (15% etc.) I was all for it. But I was also happy to see that we can still use the BC platform for free if we didn’t want to sell anything. It was brilliant for the fans and artists.

    Not anymore, I see. Well, that’s a BIG dissapointment for me.

    In the last year or so, while recommending BC like crazy to all my friends and artists, I often told them what I like most about you is that you “just did everything RIGHT”.
    But in my book, you’re starting to make some wrong steps.

    I’m not saying “think about the poor artists!”. I’m saying: from a revolutionary service, one that had the power to change to rules of the game (and did!), you are becoming more like an old fashioned record label. You’re still a long way from becoming big bad EMI or something, but the road is still a wrong road, if you ask me. Which sucks.

    1. Got any alternate ideas as to how we ought to cover the costs when a free album is downloaded 75,000 times? I suppose we could show every fan an exciting offer for 10 year term life insurance. That would be a start. We could also raise the revenue share rate on artists selling their music. That might get us a little closer. And we could stop answering the fans who write in with support issues. That would probably take us to the finish line, but all this sounds less attractive to us than just charging money for something that costs us money.

  2. I guess that sounds fair.. I’m one of those people who offers my music up in the pay what you want model and always loved that Bandcamp allowed me to do that (of offer it completely free). The prices to purchase additional downloads is reasonable enough though.

  3. @Ethan Thanks for answering me!

    I don’t think I have all the answers – I would gladly tell you my ideas if they were better. I’m just stating my immediate feelings and thoughts after reading this post.

    I think that charging money for giving away free downloads makes it harder for struggling musicians to feel they have the same options as an established one (which is the biggest thing Bandcamp did for musicians, IMHO). The field was finally leveled, and everyone got a fair and equal chance. Now they don’t.

    As I said in my first reply – I perfectly understand the financial thought behind this. And yes, the prices for more free downloads are reasonably low, and I guess for most musicians it won’t change things THAT MUCH. But when looking at the bigger picture for musicians, the thought remains.

  4. This is an interesting move. While decently thought-out and well-founded, this presents a few problems for artists like myself.

    My main problem is that I am a cover artist, and when negotiating licensing and/or permission, some artists straight-up require me to make the song a free download. This means I would not be able to use bandcamp for my download (without paying for codes) unless the “fallback” was expanded upon with options to disable downloading. Because, in those cases, I don’t have permission to sell the track, it’s free or bust.

    Of course, this begs the question, when a track automatically switches to pay — or if BC implemented my “download disabled” idea, that — will purchasing (or earning) more downloads make free tracks automatically switch *back* to free again, or are we going to have to go to each track we had set up that way and re-select that option? It would be irritating to have to reconfigure each time.

    Mostly, I think this is going to cause artists to be more stringent on what they offer for free. Which, while it may not necessarily be bad, is probably going to get us to pinch some pennies on what we give away with download codes. Is there any chance you guys can consider smaller denominations on download code assigning? I would very much like to generate a number less than 100 for giveaways. Even multiples of ten would make things a lot easier.

    And, lastly, you might want to let people know that you’re retroactively applying some of the powerups, but one sale will have to be made for the system to recognise that a landmark was hit (unless that’s a bug). That’s very nice of you guys. As a small artist, I really appreciate it.

    1. Hey there Inverse,
      We did consider providing an option to auto-switch to download disabled or paid, and your need for it makes complete sense, but we felt it complicated the UI quite a bit for what we suspected was an edge case. That said, we’re watching the feedback as always, and if enough people are in the boat of offering covers they can only distribute for free (but are otherwise fully licensed), we’ll definitely take another look.

  5. Now that I’ve had a chance to look at my stats and compare them to both the initial offerings and my powerups, I’m much more ready to accept the download allowances.

    And guyha, I am one of those struggling artists.

  6. you guys are awesome! a lot of great news today! with all the ways you guys let us do custom embeds, track our stats, and offer all kinds of really powerful tools for our use (download codes, discount codes, etc.) paying a couple $$ here and there is such a small, small price to pay! totally worth it!

    i’m also really excited about the improved facebook sharing, and also really excited about the new upload file size!! that’s going to be a really cool one!

    the biggest thing on my wishlist now is a shopping cart system of some sort. that would be beyond amazing.

    thanks again for the everything you do! it’s very appreciated and worth every cent!!

  7. You know, I really liked bandcamp. Then this happened. For a site that was so good to the artists, to bring down this real big hammer is a big hit. Most people who come to bandcamp did it with the idea of giving their music away free. It was a time changing thing, to get away from the label, and to have an artist-fan connection. This just punches that ideal in the face.

    I don’t see getting more downloads as “1.5 cents” per download, I see it as $75 that I don’t have at all. Now the people who download the music, AND the artists are getting hit.

    I realize your bandwidth needs are harsh, but really, you knew that your backer was going to run out eventually, and you didn’t plan ahead. You could have looked at the stats long ago, and seen what was going on while you were not in any financial need.

    Selling $500 worth of music isn’t easy. At all. I personally do a “pay-what-you-want” donation deal, with 0 as the minimum. You act as if the majority are going to spend money, but that’s not the case at all. In fact, the majority of people are people who download for free, and only a small percentage donate.

    1. > Most people who come to bandcamp did it with the idea of giving their music away free.

      That may be true of you, but take a look at the front page of the site — in the past 30 days alone, independent artists have made hundreds of thousands of dollars through Bandcamp.

      > It was a time changing thing, to get away from the label, and to have an artist-fan connection. This just punches that ideal in the face.

      I’m not sure how charging a fan for an artist’s hard work weakens the artist-fan connection. Regardless, if you choose not to charge, there’s still an easy way for you to do that through Bandcamp. If you prefer not to cover those costs, if you think that distributing your downloads next to ads for hot-singles-in-the-area-looking-for-love-tonight is better for the artist-fan connection, then you have several excellent options.

      > you didn’t plan ahead. You could have looked at the stats long ago, and seen what was going on while you were not in any financial need.

      Not true. As the site gained popularity, usage patterns changed. More artists started using Bandcamp to do large-scale free campaigns, and we acted (as quickly as we were able) to make sure the associated costs were covered. Furthermore, we’ve done so in a way that doesn’t unfairly pass those costs on to the people selling through the site, or giving away a more modest number of downloads.

      Again, if you’ve got a better plan, we’re all ears!

  8. We’re in the same camp as #8. Our roster changes a lot and we all come from different countries, so we decided from the start to just offer everything online for free to avoid the hassle of having to deal with money and how to redistribute it.
    So far we haven’t had much downloads but, should we ever get noticed, that would mean we would have to pay money in order to avoid receiving money – such a nice paradox!

    I understand that we’re kind of a fringe case, but when we signed up we felt that BC would be a perfect home for noncommercial artists as well as commercial (let’s admit it, “it’s free” was a major selling point with everyone) and now it feels that you guys just don’t really love us any more unless we start charging people.

  9. I was initially upset to see this, but then read through the article and am glad you’ve taken this approach. It’s fair, it’s relatively cheap*, and it’s easy (I’m not surprised, Bandcamp is so easy to use!)

    My biggest concern is whether I’ll be able to reach the $500 mark in order to get my 1,000 downloads power-up.

    *Loyalty can’t be bought, but 1.5¢ per download is a reasonable way to build a fanbase via mailing list.

  10. As someone who gives all my music away for free I find this disappointing. Id much rather someone listen to / download my music for free than have it sit unlistened to for a price. But that’s just me.
    Discovering bandcamp was an exciting time for me, as it made myspace look like the distant and very poor relation. Luckily for me, it’ll take an age before my freebies run out as I get very few downloads! It is a shame though.
    Perhaps I’m very naive, but with the saturation of the music industry, I struggle to see how any relative unknown bands can make any decent money through selling to cover studio costs. Maybe I’m just naive.
    I suppose from the business side of things, this makes sense for bandcamp which is obviously a business and needs to survive profitably, but from the position of someone such as myself, this is a blow.


  11. Hey Inverse Phrase– read about Compulsory Licensing. They can’t require you to make something free, unless you’re asking them to waive the 9.3 cents-per-track you generally need to pay for a cover. If you pay upfront for, say, 500 track downloads you can just keep an eye on your sales and pay again if sales start to approach that number.

    Not a lawyer, so read the stuff yourself. It takes some very specific letter-sending and monitoring, but it sounds like it might be worth it to you to figure out exactly what protections the law guards for you.

  12. Makes sense to me.

    I hope this encourages artists to value their music more and have the confidence to charge for their work.

    If people can’t pay a dollar for a track then do they really value it?

    If artists want to give their music away then just email folk the track.

    I am guessing that the next change might be a minimum pricing policy, yes?

  13. I wanted to step in and say that while I understand BC’s logic in doing this, it’s still a bit disappointing to think about it. Basically, I am one of two people running an independent label and after we discovered Bandcamp this summer, we decided to start an all-free archive of promotional only releases by artists on our roster. Eventually, our downloads will inevitably run out and I just don’t see us reconciling an additional cost to give something away for free. Understandably, Bandcamp sees it that way too, but from our end this will probably just lead to a parting of ways. Thanks for everything cool Bandcamp, we appreciated it.

  14. Initial reaction is “you fucking sellout bastards”
    if you can give away 500 downloads then you have a big enough fanbase to charge for something. So I cant really argue.

    I used to love bandcamp and tried to promote it because it seemed perfect. Let a band rise to the top and then everyone makes money. But instead its gone short term. Which may be the more realistic business model. But for me its no use.

  15. I’ve never met a ‘struggling musician’ who couldn’t afford a few beers and a bag of chips at the end of a gig.

    Some people need to get real.

  16. I’m sorry, but there is no way $75 for 5000 downloads will work for me or my label. I’d MUCH rather have ads. I think this is a dangerous road to go down – you do things right with the players and service, but to shift the cost of ads onto the musicians is not a good idea. There’s no way most artists are going to be able to reach the $500 to get 1000 free downloads.

    I understand you need to cover server costs – that’s obvious. I just can’t see this as the right way to get those funds.

    P.S. If we DO end up paying money for free downloads, could we transfer some of those into download codes? If we’re paying the same amount for them, and they cost you the same amount of resources, it would be great to transfer the two, or let one eat up the other.

  17. I understand the fact your trying to cover the cost of something FREE being downloaded over a thousand sumodd times.

    But why can’t you force these limitations onto those users who are actually GETTING thousands of of downloads and are MAKING more than $30 a year off of this site – instead of flushing out those of us not fortunate enough to have that kind of success?

    1. Hey DJ EAR, that’s actually the first thing we looked at — how many “free” downloads could each account come with such that the fewest number of artists would be affected. The above plan only impacts a couple hundred artists (out of tens of thousands).

  18. Interesting.
    Like others my initial emotional responce was ‘oh poo’ But having had a bit of a think on it, it doesnt seem so bad. The service offered is still excellent and piddles on the competition from a great hight. For a niche within a niche band like ourselves there is no way we will make $500 through sales even in a year, but then our download count is fairly low so spending $20 for 1000 is really not that bad.
    I may have missed a point in the post but what would happen if an artist was to set $0.01 as the minimum?

  19. I have six-going-on-seven albums, all of which I have been giving away free for years. THIS SITE IS A DREAM COME TRUE!

    The download costs are unfortunate but completely understandable. Bandcamp is not trying to rape anyone (like certain other sites I could mention but choose not to).

    If it ever becomes neccesary to “ReUp”, I have no problem whatsoever doing it at the numbers presented here.

    I do have one question – If I “disable downloads” on the INDIVIDUAL songs, is it still possible to donload an ALBUM and are all the songs included???

    This is important because I don’t want to use up my quota on people who simply want to check out a tune. They can just press the PLAY button. If they like it enough, then OK download the album, enjoy the tunes, covers art, added content/videos etc.

  20. I would like to see one more feature allowed. I would like to release an album that includes videos. However, the 100MB that is currently available is not nearly enough. If an option to purchase more space (similar to the purchase of the download promo codes or the purchase of free downloads) were available, I would certainly use it. My release is for an anthology digital rerelease, and we would like to include almost a DVD worth (length, not size) of videos as extras.


  21. I find no problem with this, I’ll just charge a small fee for things I would have offered for free – we’ve all got to earn a living.

    I think the only people who’ll suffer from this are bootleggers and people who remake other peoples music for a living instead of touching on their creative/artistic side and making their own music… Hobbyists should just upload their covers to YouTube or something! You get paid there if you’ve enough followings anyway.

    Bandcamp, you definitely made a controversial decision… But as always as an artist, we just need to move with the times and make sure no little changes can affect our business.

  22. I see this change as perfectly reasonable.

    The way I see it, if an artist is not able to make $20 from their music in the time it takes them to distribute 500 free downloads and need another code, there are greater problems going on than Bandcamp’s policies.

    If you’ve got such a huge online draw that your fans are downloading your stuff thousands of times per month, you need to figure out how to make money from that.

    Either that, or cough up the cost of a movie and popcorn to get another 1000 free downloads.

  23. I was wondering how long Bandcamp could afford to give away so much for free. The price seems fair to me, especially when compared to the limitations of other music sites.

    I’m curious whether or not there are any plans of limiting the number of times a free artist can stream a song?

  24. > If you prefer not to cover those costs, if you think that distributing your downloads next to ads for hot-singles-in-the-area-looking-for-love-tonight is better for the artist-fan connection, then you have several excellent options.

    Ha, that’s rubbish and you know it. There are several good sites ( is one) that provide free distribution for music. Even And then there’s a little website called Youtube that doesn’t charge.

    1. Hey displatypus, streaming is still unlimited. This change is about downloads — YouTube does not, as far as I know, provide fans with free, unlimited, high-quality audio downloads.

  25. As I see it, this move is not about limiting musicians’ ability to give away free music. It is about encouraging them to sell their music, so that both they and Bandcamp can make some freakin’ money already.

    It’s all very groovy to give your music away for free forever, but that is a hippie ideal. The fact is, it’s never free. It costs MONEY to host content.

    Freebie musicians need to grow up. If your music is worth anything, sell it (at a reasonable, fair price). There is no reason why you shouldn’t make a living from making music. Your insistence that it should, like, all be free, man, undermines the ability of working musicians to make money, because it creates an expectation from consumers that music SHOULD be free.

    Music should be *affordable*. But implying that it costs nothing to create or host is naive. Getting pissy when hosting costs are passed to you is stupid.

  26. I assure you I am quite grown up.
    Know how you can tell? No inflammatory remarks in a civil discussion, for one. Still, I choose to give my tunes away free. As stated before I have no problem paying for the additional downloads when it becomes neccesary, so it shouldn’t make a bit of difference to anyone here. And, since my tunes are nothing short of awesome, everybody wins. 😉

  27. I understand the needs of what you’re doing because you’re offering a good service, but I think this move is kind of forcing artists to sell their music, I know it’s expensive for you, but there are plenty of musicians out there who (like in my case) doesn’t have the financial power to buy more free downloads, and I think charging is fair for you as a service provider, the thing that bothers me is that there are many people in bandcamp that do not have good equipment and make homemade recordings, which are in most cases very very good, but most people wouldn’t pay for them because they usually expect more quality (soundwise not in music because as I said there are many good musicians with not so good equipment) for their money, so I think this measure limits the reaching of the music that was growing in your site, I’ve heard too many artists here that are Really Really independents and I’ve downloaded a lot of albums that I wouldn’t had the opportunity to download if they weren’t for free, I know there are other options for free downloads but again, a lot of people are not really going to go for that,I think the things you’ve done for music community all over the world are great, and I’m very thankful for what you’ve done for me and to spread my music, I think the service is worth it because you spend a lot of time and efforts developing the service (I’m a Telematic Student and I know how hard it is to develop a system that is as good as bandcamp) also not to mention the host and traffic fees that you must pay, I only wanted to express that is sad that this free model didn’t work too well because it gave people who do music for the love of it and not for business a way to spread their music with a direct artist – fan connection, but that might change now because most of the artist who work in that way (not giving free music as promotion to sell a product, but as their only mean to be listened) will have to charge and the wrong part of the idea, is that charging wasn’t even in their plans ever, but they’ll be forced because of your needs, not theirs. Which I think is fair because you have covered our needs with your service, but is still sad that thinks didn’t work out in the way you initially planned.

  28. Music and musicians should or shouldn’t BE anything of one sort or the other. Music is a creative art and as such will vary from group to group. We can’t go on judging it by popularity or by what I personally like and YOU don’t. That’s a recipe for bad policies all around.

    These policy changes are well thought out and seemingly fair. If you wish to support music and musicians get out there and get people to their gigs. Be a part of their audiences yourself and buy their damn t-shirts. Buy them a beer, put them up on your sofa when they come through your town, feed them. And tell people about their great music by directing them to their BANDCAMP site where they can hear their music and perhaps spend some money to have it for themselves.

    That’s what supporting new music looks like. I dare you to find a musician who will disagree with that.

    So keep this site alive by making necessary changes. And if your favorite musicians can’t afford that $20 then help them raise it for the next level of free downloads they need. xo

  29. It’s okay, but I think you should set the maximum to 250 downloads (100 for new accounts) and reset it every three months or so. So the artists, who don’t sell so much can offer the free downloads at least on a regular base.

  30. has now decided to charge me for each person that downloads my music for free? What the?… Everyone is trying to make a buck these days.

    As a newbe and after the initial shock I too think it’s ok as there is a lot of value in the service provides. So I’ll hang in there with them and see how it all pans out.

  31. I got a question about all of this.

    It says on the blog post that the tracks automatically switch to paid once the free download tickets have been depleted. Is the only option after that to have the tracks automatically switch to paid, even if the artist has no paypal account and cannot accept any extra income from something like music sold on bandcamp for whatever reason(income restrictions on certain gov’t benefits due to sickness/eunemployment etc.)?
    In other words, is it possible to just have the download become disabled until more download codes have been purchased if the artist cannot accept any payment(which would be the reason for the music being free in the first place) ?

    1. Hi Niko, right now we don’t offer an option to just switch off downloads if you run out. However, we do notify you if you get low, so if for some reason you’re not in a position to accept money, you can log-in and disable downloading manually.

  32. gotta say guys – this hurts. my entire angle is that music should be free and artists should make it for no other reason. I understand logistically why you have to do this but I must say it hurts my faith in your original mission statement.

    artists who feel they NEED to be paid for their music lose sight of why they make music at all. Its not a trade, its an art. Maybe there should be a one time distinction for those of us who feel its a priority to give away art rather than be forced to sell it.

  33. Hey guys –

    I’m one of those artists sitting on the edge here with just under $1k total revenue from bandcamp, all from donations on the pay-what-you-want scale.

    As was mentioned, most of my downloads are free – only a percentage of consumers actually donate. But these numbers make a lot of sense.

    If I’m getting 1,000 downloads per $500, and I’ve received $1,000 just at 2,000 downloads, then the amount is really going to come full-circle at some point and my downloads will sustain themselves.

    If I put a little notifier to my fans out when my download count gets low, I’m sure people will start pitching in to keep the music free. And hey, as someone said, this does give me a reason to charge a small minimum where I otherwise wouldn’t, and that comes back to me in a good way. Keep the hot releases free, the older ones charge a dime for – no big deal at all. (:

  34. I also think that the free-download counter should be reset every 1-3 months.

    Bandcamp should charge the artists that are giving away 75.000 downloads for free, they are the ones draining the bandwidth.

    Anyway, I support this new idea because i don’t want Bandcamp to disappear. They do a great job!

  35. I can’t believe people are upset about this.

    If you want to give away your music and not sell anything to back that up, get a hosting account and do it yourself. Bandwidth, hosting, all of that costs money. And despite this, streaming is still unlimited on Bandcamp.

    To everyone who’s disappointed and upset about this, good riddance. I’d much rather see Bandcamp address issues like this, issues that could harm them in the long term, rather than cater to artists who think everything’s free, ultimately crippling what’s otherwise a good thing.

    If you really want everything to be ‘free’ then be prepared for ads on your Bandcamp pages, followed by the collapse of what used to be a good service.

    Quit whining.

    Keep up the good work, team Bandcamp 🙂

  36. I have absolutely no problem with this. You guys do an amazing job of allowing the little guy an fantastic site and platform to sell music. I have nothing but praise for BC and constantly recommend it.

    For everyone crying about this, i.e. John Gilliant, do you think everything is free? Like BC just spontaneously created itself with no overhead? It sounds like you just want everything handed to you for free, and unfortunately that’s not how the world works.

    However, if I could change anything it would be the name. (And yes I am completely aware that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s just a thought.) When I tell people the name of the site, they chuckle, cause obviously the whole Apple Pie thing comes to mind. And I often feel like they take it a little less seriously there after. Just a thought. But keep up the fantastic work! I appreciate what you do.

  37. Personally, I still want to give my music for free because I don’t care to gain money spreading the messages I want to send. I want to continue to do that rather than pay to send out the message and to continue selling it, I would have to buy more tracks or sell the album itself.

    I am not supporting this to complete work. I will continue to use this for a while, but I am probably going to go somewhere else. Sorry Bandcamp…

  38. Hey Ethan,

    My first response to this is — AWESOME! Anything that benefits Bandcamp financially, but is still fair to artists is a great thing. This is a free market, and Bandcamp is the best music site out there. If charging us “rent” for your bandwidth can help you recoop your costs and avoid our Bandcamp websites from being shutdown forever… then do it! Sounds like a great idea and I apologize for these losers who don’t get it…

    PS I AM A STARVING MUSICIAN TOO… (okay maybe not starving)


  39. I remember when I first signed up for Bandcamp, one of the lines in the literature that helped sell it to me was something along the lines of “it only makes sense for Bandcamp to make money if the artist is making money”. This new change seems contrary to that — if I’m giving away everything for free, I now have to pay for it.

    I love the service Bandcamp provides, but I’m not sure how I feel about paying to give something away.

    1. We still feel the same way Yazan. This change isn’t about profiting from artists who choose to give their music away, it’s about continuing to support that usage in a way that at least covers the costs.

  40. Our label is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but this is very much a disappointment for those like me who wish to share their music. Very saddened by this. Bandcamp was the best venue for my music. Its becoming increasingly clear that I need to find another hobby…

Comments are closed.