Jail for MP3 Pirates?

[Prelude76]

Illustration: let's say you took a photo, and it turned out better than you ever hoped. You make it into a T-shirt, and your friends want some, so you start a home business making and selling these T-shirts. You sell a few dozen and you are happy, figuring you're off to a great start. Then one day you are walking through a mall, and there is a T-shirts booth - with YOUR T-shirt, specifically. You confront the owner of the booth, and he says "I thought it was a great design, so I copied it. Oh, and I'm not selling it, I am just sharing it with the world. Here, want one?" In a short time, you are nearly out of business, because almost no one will buy your T-shirts when they can go to the mall and get one for free. The people who are getting them for free tell you that you should be flattered they like the design well enough to want to wear it, even though they didn't pay you for it.

um, you're anagoly is not really a good example, as no one gives T-shirts away for 'FREE'. It'd be better anagoly if others Scanned your photo they liked, and went and paid to have it put on a T-shirt for themself. and this whole "put you out of business" end to you analogy? please. RIAA is pissed coz they want MORE than ...... billions of dollars a year. i doubt anyone, even RIAA, feel that music will go 'out of business' coz of mp3 piracy. so lets just try to keep analogies believable, k folks?

[Prelude76]

[if we allow ourselves to be deceived, if we allow ourselves to be used as a tool against our fellow citizens in name- calling, scapegoating, and overall blood letting, then I guess we deserve the bitter harvest we are going to reap. Look over there- one of the town's truly finest citizens just made a little mistake, and the local constable is getting ready to write him up for jaywalking. A crowd has gathered, and citizens are jeering and condemning his awful, illegal activity, and suggesting that he should be made to pay a stiff fine and spend a few days in jail. A block up the road, hardened criminals have just successfully robbed the bank, shot employees, and escaped without leaving any witnesses behind. All have been shot dead. The robbers have gotten away with millions in untraceable cash. And they did put a quarter in the parking meter. See, they are law- abiding. But that crowd down the road is on that poor citizen like a pit bull with a big mouthfull of ankle. Are you getting my drift at all? We're focusing on the wrong problems! We've been suckered. 

CLAP CLAP CLAP {standing ovation}EXACTLY my feelings deep down. we're concentrating on the wrong priorities as a society. who cares if companies spew chemicals into our stream?who cares if diary products are so full of growth hormones its affecting our health?who cares if we cant find a family doctor coz there's a huge shortage of them in Canada?who cares if our gas bill, hydro bill, dental bill, insurance bill, tax bill, cable bill, all go up, some cases 300% up, and we make the same $$ for the past 3 years with a pitiful 25 cent raise here and there?who cares that we have thousands of people dying around the world in unjust wars?who cares if Walmart, the world biggest company, resorts to hiring illegal workers to pay them below minium wage and to rip them off their benefits?who cares if Enron ran off with Billions and Billions of dollars that they STOLE from average joes?forget all those things, let's just go after the EVIL PIRATES THAT STEAL MUSIC AND MOVIES!you know, its a sad $%&^%^$# world we live in if Enron CEO, the biggest thief in the world, gets off free, while we're planning to sue 10 year olds who copy songs from the internet for $100,000 + 5 year jail term.

[Stryder]

Clutter and Prelude,OUTSTANDING!!!!!! That was my whole point in a earlier post in this thread. I applaud you both. It really shows who really runs this country when big business can commit true felonious atrocities and it can be so easily dismissed, but when a small infraction has been commited against a big business it is considered an atrocity. We are all on the road to ruin.

[BoardFlak]

Actually, no, the analogy would not be more correct as you had it, because what is happening is that people ARE putting the songs up "to share with the world." They aren't just making a copy for themselves, or there wouldn't be people with 1000+ songs on their computers for others to download. The problem isn't just "Joe and his friends" any more, as it was with cassette tapes. It's "Joe and thousands of people" now.As for the "out of business" - that's the indvidual musicians. One of the trends developing in the last couple of years is that the big music companies (for whom, by the way, I harbor no special fondness) have been signing and promoting fewer new acts. The musicians are indeed "going out of business" because big music sticks with acts they can be fairly confident will sell CDs, and not new, unproven acts who will probably be heavily downloaded because people aren't sure of them.

[Prelude76]

Boardflak, i was just saying that you're analogy was about 'selling' T-shirt, compared to 'sharing' mp3s. but about the 'going out of business', whats to say that RIAA is signing less artists on purpose to make their year-to-year loss of sales that much more pronounced, and give them a massive firepower when they go to congress to 'get tough with file-sharing' to pass sweeping new laws? "look here senator, our sales dropped by 12%!!!" when really, they realeased 15% less CDs at the same time. and if you factor in this massive economic downturn that is still with us, and how bad music is getting these days too (its all producer-engineered boy-band crap, not so many 'real' artists anymore), plus the growing trend of European techno/DJ music (at least in my area and in my age group), much of which is available only thru bootleg live recordings or European CD sales, all that together greatly over-inflates the RIAA's "we're losing money" arguement. I had to order some CDs from Belgium and some from Germany because NO MUSIC STORE in Canada carried it.Does anyone have any numbers of how much better independent artists are doing nowawadays, compared to 10 years ago? It'd be interesting to see if their sales are up thanks to napster/kazaa network sharing hard-to-get songs.edit: just want to point out, YES, i believe that sales have dropped somewhat, but i also believe that amount lost to piracy is nowhere near the millions and millions the RIAA is claiming. just my opinion though.

[nlinecomputers]

Does anyone have any numbers of how much better independent artists are doing nowawadays, compared to 10 years ago? It'd be interesting to see if their sales are up thanks to napster/kazaa network sharing hard-to-get songs.

I too would also like to hear more about how some Indies feel about P2P. Does it help sales or are they getting hurt bad because people that file share don't buy anything.

[Prelude76]

I too would also like to hear more about how some Indies feel about P2P.  Does it help sales or are they getting hurt bad because people that file share don't buy anything.

i'm just guessing that before, they had very little exposure, yet their CDs werent copied, and now they have huge exposure, and out of thousands that might get their songs for free, maybe 5% (pure guessing), go out and try to find their CDs to buy. So basically, the more obscure they were before, the better chance their sales would go up? i think its a hard statistic to get, especially with so many variables (such as what if an indie group sucked before, and now their hitting their peak )and i also think they're getting plenty of good exposure from internet radio stations, since conventional radio might not play indie stuff at all.

[BoardFlak]

Well, I fully believe the reduction in signing new artists is deliberate, although I can't make an informed statement as to why. However, I would not be seriously surprised to find out that some of it was to enhance the "whine" factor (I said I wasn't especially fond of the music companies). And I structured my analogy deliberately to have the T-shirt booth giving away the copied shirts to parallel the giving away of copied music - in either case, the person involved isn't making money off of the deal, but it's not really a no-harm situation. It's just an illustration, and not a perfect one; I did say I was using it to illustrate my personal "take" on things, so it's got any flaws my viewpoint has for you. For me, it's the way I believe and the way I conduct my affairs. I'm not out to try to change the world, because I've found that such things are rare, indeed, and I doubt that I have ever been or will ever be that persuasive. In fact, in a debate like this one, it's my opinion that we will have a great victory if all sides simply say "I see your logic and understand how it works for you even if I don't agree with it" and we all agree to cordially disagree.I, for one, am nowhere near saying "I'm a goody-two-shoes and you're criminal scum" because I can see that the issues are NOT that black-and-white by a long shot. IF they were, I expect many people would abruptly change positions on the matter. That's why, again, all I can do is establish what it is for me, and behave accordingly. If we had perfect knowledge and complete understanding, we could make absolute statements...that leaves me out, for sure.

[Ragnar Paulson]

well said boardflak.I hope this doesn't indicate that you are bowing out of this debate ... I've enjoyed the repartee and you've expressed my views fine and in a well reasoned tone (as has everyone). But of course you are right, no one is likely to change their view in these matters. Ragnar

[Prelude76]

i know its hard to change sides, but its good to debate as you can at least have both sides arguement in back of head, that's all. and i wasn't really meaning to dispute the analogy, its just the 'giving away free t-shirts' was a bit off-base for me. unless you know of a place that does that, in which case, let me know, as i'm broke and need some new shirts. actually, about the tshirt idea, could it not be argued that places that nearly give away t-shirts for free, such as Goodwill or Salvation army, isnt it taking business away from Walmart? technically it is, right? well, along those similar thoughts, what would we say to the arguement that RIAA isnt really 'losing' sales from file-swapping, its more like people that could only affordone or two CDs a month at the most are now able to get 50+ CDs worth of music in a short week? and maybe they like 1 or 2 of those 50 CDs very much, and next time they get cash, go and buy the CD of the artist they want to support the most? so in the end, everything is still the same status quo, yet music is a LOT more popular now than it ever was due to its abundance.or should i just go smoke another one as i'm just hallucinating a 'perfect' vision of the world?

[Ragnar Paulson]

Well for Salvation Army to give away that T-shirt, someone has to give it up. There is still only one T-shirt. Not so with music sharing. Now if we had Captain Picard's replicator maybe you could argue the same thing ... but in the 25th century there appears to be no need for commerce (no one has yet explained how you motivate people to build starships, invent new things or get out of bed when every whim is a voice command away ... but that's another topic :-))On the flip side, gutenberg's press was met with scepticism if not hostility in its day. The end of artisans due to manufacturing (industrialization) caused angry revolts, libraries and photo-copiers were foretold to be the end if intellectual property (and by extension advancement) in the last century. Somehow it never came to pass to be as bad as predicted. I think that software and music "sharing" (piracy) is at another extreme entirely ... but stuck in my time without a crystal ball who's to say its any different than copy/duplication mechanisms of the past. Five hundred years ago I'd have been the monk with quill predicting the end of rational thought due to gutenberg bible. :-)Ragnar

[Guest LilBambi]

There are an amazing number of sides to this whole issue, and they only start with the RIAA, and now the MPAA.I personally believe they have every right to do what they think is best with their own stuff. As I have stated previously, I do not and have not done any filesharing for years (since Napster was taken down in fact) because I know that the RIAA/Big 5 Labels do have the 'right' to not want to have it there, especially in light of the current DMCA. I have never questioned that side of it.I do think they are cutting off their nose to spite themselves and they, and more importantly all artists (theirs and Indys), will suffer for this long term.But the RIAA, MPAA, Disney (who stand by themselves in my book as one of the most imfamous offenders), and others who pushed for this all encompassing and conflicting DMCA, coupled with the Copyright extension -- whose 'courtship' with our congress was funded by their lobbyists, and made real with our tax dollars -- have effectively caused a total cross-section of stifling of innovation and discovery, research and competition. Much of which we have not even begun to feel the effects of.With these tools in hand, by the time all the lawyers are done, there will be nothing left.And by the time the ramifications of how much we have truly lost is totally understood, it will be too late.

[Cluttermagnet]

In fact, in a debate like this one, it's my opinion that we will have a great victory if all sides simply say "I see your logic and understand how it works for you even if I don't agree with it" and we all agree to cordially disagree.I, for one, am nowhere near saying "I'm a goody-two-shoes and you're criminal scum" because I can see that the issues are NOT that black-and-white by a long shot. IF they were, I expect many people would abruptly change positions on the matter. That's why, again, all I can do is establish what it is for me, and behave accordingly. If we had perfect knowledge and complete understanding, we could make absolute statements...that leaves me out, for sure.

Hi, BoardFlak-Your input to this multi-faceted debate has been very good. I believe the dialog in this thread has been quite productive and enlightening for us all. My own posts here may have been a little over the top at times, but as I explained, I wanted to try to reframe the debate because of an undercurrent of villification that we do see even in this very friendly forum on occasion. We have at times had some writings similar to the position you describe:

"I'm a goody-two-shoes and you're criminal scum",

although not in this particular thread (I acknowledge that position is not your own attitude).I'm a very strong supporter of free speech. People have a perfect right to express their strongly- held beliefs, even unpopular beliefs. When I run across speech or writing like the kind you mentioned, sometimes I allow myself to be drawn into the debate, because I have very contrary beliefs. I have it on good authority that backbiting is about one of the worst things people can do with each other. It is absolutely the opposite of working to support unity and promote the common good. These are interesting times. Things like this particular issue will likely come up often. I think we do need to be on guard when we encounter speech that tries to divide us. As evenly divided as the nation is today, with all evidence pointing towards ever- increasing polarization politically, the times are particularly ripe for opportunistic ne'er- do- wells to jump in and stir dissention. We can ill afford to allow that to happen. I think we ought to remember overall to resist the influence of those who would 'divide and conquer'. There is still plenty of room for debate, even if we do go foreward trying to remember to avoid shattering our unity. That is my humble suggestion to the group- to remember we have far more in common than we have dividing us. I'm going to be an optomist and say that I think we can keep it that way.

[Cluttermagnet]

There are an amazing number of sides to this whole issue, and they only start with the RIAA, and now the MPAA.I personally believe they have every right to do what they think is best with their own stuff. As I have stated previously, I do not and have not done any filesharing for years (since Napster was taken down in fact) because I know that the RIAA/Big 5 Labels do have the 'right' to not want to have it there, especially in light of the current DMCA. I have never questioned that side of it.I do think they are cutting off their nose to spite themselves and they, and more importantly all artists (theirs and Indys), will suffer for this long term.But the RIAA, MPAA, Disney (who stand by themselves in my book as one of the most imfamous offenders), and others who pushed for this all encompassing and conflicting DMCA, coupled with the Copyright extension -- whose 'courtship' with our congress was funded by their lobbyists, and made real with our tax dollars -- have effectively caused a total cross-section of stifling of innovation and discovery, research and competition. Much of which we have not even begun to feel the effects of.With these tools in hand, by the time all the lawyers are done, there will be nothing left.And by the time the ramifications of how much we have truly lost is totally understood, it will be too late.

Amen, Fran-I could not have said it better. It's a bitter harvest that's coming, and yes, most folks have not even begun to understand all the ramifications of this ill-considered, anti- citizen legislation. Here's an interesting site that shows how far- reaching the DCMA has already become. You might have to poke around this page for a few minutes to understand where they guy is coming from. DCMA is overly broad and is already interfering with the ability of webmasters to screw with the 'spambot' robots that scour the net looking for 'mailto' references so they can increase our allocations of spam. The state of Illinois has now made it illegal to resist the spammers, in effect:Hackbusters

[Jeber]

unless you know of a place that does that, in which case, let me know, as i'm broke and need some new shirts.

You should have worked at Sam Goody with me. I have over 75 tshirts given away by the record labels to celebrate record releases. I even won a Levi jacket in a sales contest when Independence Day was released on video.So free tshirts are a reality, you just have to be in the right place at the right time.

[Guest LilBambi]

LOL! Good one Jeber!Everyone has done a great job of voicing thoughts on this subject!Cluttermagnet thanks for the Hackbuster link ... that link and the links and links within those links go a long way to explaining so much about my own personal concerns about this whole issue.

[BoardFlak]

I think we do need to be on guard when we encounter speech that tries to divide us. As evenly divided as the nation is today, with all evidence pointing towards ever- increasing polarization politically, the times are particularly ripe for opportunistic ne'er- do- wells to jump in and stir dissention. We can ill afford to allow that to happen. I think we ought to remember overall to resist the influence of those who would 'divide and conquer'. There is still plenty of room for debate, even if we do go foreward trying to remember to avoid shattering our unity. That is my humble suggestion to the group- to remember we have far more in common than we have dividing us. I'm going to be an optomist and say that I think we can keep it that way.

Right ON!! We may be a quarrelsome lot, but we are still here because there is more reason to talk than to throw stones - and may anyone who tries to exploit our differences find that out to their detriment. To paraphrase the famous saying: I may not agree with all you have to say, but I will acknowledge and defend your right to say it. If I can present an inescapable and inarguable sequence of logic and facts leading to a conclusion which commands assent, that's one thing. However, as long as we are exchanging opinions, anyone else's opinion is as important and has as much right to be heard as mine. With that, I offer everyone here a virtual handshake and salute you all.

[Guest LilBambi]

Amen! BoardFlak!

[Prelude76]

unless you know of a place that does that, in which case, let me know, as i'm broke and need some new shirts.

You should have worked at Sam Goody with me. I have over 75 tshirts given away by the record labels to celebrate record releases. I even won a Levi jacket in a sales contest when Independence Day was released on video.So free tshirts are a reality, you just have to be in the right place at the right time.

with that said, the RIAA and MPAA give free stuff away (t-shirts, posters, etc..) as 'promotion', yet they somehow cant get it thru their thick skulls to see mp3 free giveaway on the internet as a potential for the strongest free promotion ever.hmm, maybe they should bundle CDs with a free tshirt of the band, and since theres no mass-market t-shirt replicator out there, CD sales would go up and mp3 file sharing would be reduced to a free form of try-before-you-buy.

[ibe98765]

with that said, the RIAA and MPAA give free stuff away (t-shirts, posters, etc..) as 'promotion', yet they somehow cant get it thru their thick skulls to see mp3 free giveaway on the internet as a potential for the strongest free promotion ever.hmm, maybe they should bundle CDs with a free tshirt of the band, and since theres no mass-market t-shirt replicator out there, CD sales would go up and mp3 file sharing would be reduced to a free form of try-before-you-buy. 

Unless a band has a lot of CD's on the market, I am at a loss to understand how giving away a CD, as you propose, is going to encourage anyone to go out and buy it? Most bands come out with a new CD every year or two. Let's say, for the sake of this example, you give away an older one. But a bands music, style and members often change with time. What you hear in the old one may not represent the style or same band members that are playing now. So that might not encourage many people to buy the latest CD.T-shirts and SWAG are given away because they are not easy to duplicate. If anything, as a marketer for a music company or band, I might include/give away a CD with one or two tracks from the current CD on it along with some other SWAG. That might encourage some sales.

[Marsden11]

We often hear many reasons for P2P...<< A few mouse clicks, provides the removal. But it is removal of "property" from a guys hard drive who is freely offering it up. (no theft there). >>The guy "offering it up" has no right to do so. It's not his to give. If I steal something and then give it to you - does that make it "ok"?!?!? If some gang-banger breaks into your house and takes your TV and then gives it to his friend - does that make the act ok? EITHER of the acts? It's still theft. Even if he bought the album, only the physical medium is his to give. That's the agreement when you buy it. No public display, rebroadcast, etc. The "song" isn't being stolen. The CONTENT is being stolen. The removal in this instance is the removal of value. See "Fair Use" in the US Copyright laws. If you are changing the value of the piece you are stealing it. You are stealing the livlihood of *everyone* in the chain. << As for the "rightful owner" they aren't deprived of it, they still have a copy. lol >>They are deprived of the value of the sales stolen from them. << I daresay the version I have taken from someone who expressly offered it was a copy of a copy of a copy. >>So a theft on a larceny on a stolen item makes it all go rosey?!?!? << Once it gets downloaded my hard drive the original copy is still residing on the other guys Hard drive. >> Again - it's not about the original medium. It's about theft of value. << I haven't deprived anyone! Heck, I'll leave it on my drive for someone else to copy... >>So you start off as an accessory to petty larceny and then turn it into felonious conspiracy to commit grand theft. Youch. Current laws, WITHOUT THE DMCA (which is STOOOPID imho), would still make that a 20+ year gambit. With a little honey you could make a three strike case. << You can't steal something that reproduces indefinitely (smirk) >>You can put all the "lol" and all the "smirk" on it you want. You are still depriving value, still stealing a thousand peoples' ability to survive and WORSE - their rightful earnings for the work they performed in good faith. That there is a good and valuable exchange. The very principal of capitalism from the start to the end. I produce something of value and you buy it. You produce something of value and I buy it. The cycle is complete and the system not only survives, but flourishes. You're breaking the cycle - the one thing that can kill it. It's easy to hide behind "everyone else is doing it they should change their business models." Should they? Probably. Should you steal hard earned money from the hands of the laborer - puhlease. Look - if Mr. Enron or Mr. Worldcon are proven guilty - I will happily line up to blow the jerks away. They violated the first rule of capitalism. The people that put you where you are prosper (in their relative percentage) the same as you. << I'll give you that, the massive expenditure of capital would, not could not be done without a hope of a return in profit. >>Duh! Other than socialism - a dead and unsuccessful experiment in stupidity - why else would ANY of them do it?!?! << Everyone is going to have to adjust to the reality of an internet-connected world. >>And that somehow makes it ok? << Oh, by the way a Britney CD is wide open to theft, but your material is a little harder to come by? >>If I don't lock my door tomorrow, it makes it ok for people to come into my house and steal what belongs to me? You'd support that? It's a straw man argument anyway - no door lock will keep a dishonest person at bay, and no copy protection scheme will either. As my daddy used to say - "Locks keep honest people honest" As my boss used to say "there are three kinds of people: Those that would never steal from you. Those that will steal from you no matter what you do. And those that will steal from you given opportunity." - By lessening the opportunity, they can cut this theft by 25-50%. But that's still a huuuge theft, and infinitely more than what is "right" << In the past I wouldn't afford to purchase the two thousand songs I currently have. They didn't have that much value to me. >>Again with the contradiction! If they have no value to you then don't listen to/steal them. If they had value - pay for them. If they had less value than the asking price, don't buy them and don't steal them. It's theft, plain and simple. And if you find the asking price to high, stealing them doesn't change the asking price. Refusing to buy them and walking away does. Remember that little system of capitalism? Giving the people what they want? << I listened to them on the radio for free for over three decades. >>ERRRT! Wrong-o! No you did not listen to them for free unless you were incredibly fast on the power switch. You're telling me that you listened to a radio for thirty years and never once heard a commercial? What do you think those are if not a source of revenue, income and the payment for delivering that music? << Now they are available for "free." >>No they are not. Hot goods are available at the cost to the remainder of the food chain. << And their value "to me" has increased immensely. >>AHA! If that's the case PAY FOR THEM. << But if I had to pay even one thin dime a piece for them they would again become valueless to me. I would simply wipe them from my drive "with a few mouse clicks." >> Then do so and stop being a petty thief bucking for a grand larceny and conspiracy to commit! << The brave new world will require a brave new business model. >>BS! ALL successful business models are identical. I produce something (or offer a service) that a significant number of people (my customers) want. I produce it as a product or service at a better price, a better product, better customer service or some combination there of. It costs me something to produce or serve that. I price it above what it costs me (margin). People pay that price and I have more income than outflow. Period. That's THE successful business model in a nutshell. Everything else is GAAP-Speak to keep the riffraff at bay.The morons in the dotGone bubble learned the hard way that that's how business has always and will always work. The sad part is, the majority never did learn. << Long live freedom of information interchange >>BS! What you're saying there is "long live level flat driveways and walkways and freight elevators - they make it so I can transport my stolen goods with the least amount of effort". << Do ya know parts of DSLReports cost money now. Ha Ha Ha >>Don't like it? Don't buy it. If the majority of qualified consumers feel the same either the service will go away, or they'll learn to saturate you with advertising to pay for it. If you have a better way to do business, DO IT and stop whining, and stop using petty jusitications to legitimize your theft.

[havnblast]

<< I listened to them on the radio for free for over three decades. >>ERRRT! Wrong-o! No you did not listen to them for free unless you were incredibly fast on the power switch. You're telling me that you listened to a radio for thirty years and never once heard a commercial? What do you think those are if not a source of revenue, income and the payment for delivering that music?

Still free for me to listen to and record - commercials pay the radio's licenses, employess and operational costs, I can edit the commercials out and still have the song. I didn't pay the radio station one cent.

[Marsden11]

LOL... Yes, you did pay; you have paid in the past; and you will pay in the future... in the cost of everday goods you puchase and consume. Advertising is part of the price! Advertising found in print, broadcast TV, radio, and on the Internet.Or do you make and manufacture everything you consume?

[havnblast]

I don't see how you think I paid the radio to play the songs. I don't drop money off at the radio station and if am thinking what your trying to say than the radio station is actually paying me to listen to their station.

[Marsden11]

The radio station sells "air time" to advertisers to play their "spots." (Not done for free) The manufacturers pay addvertising companies to make these spots for them. (Not done for free) The product manufacturer then passes along the cost of this advertising to you, the consumer.You do not write a check directly to the radio station, but you do pay for the advertising they air and on every other medium they use. It is indirect but you pay nevertheless. Nothing is "free."

[havnblast]

Like I said than they are paying me to listen to them if that is the round about way - big circle - radio station also pays for item I purchase so that logic throws that all out the window

[Marsden11]

You don't get it...The radio station only provides a service. You pay indirectly for that service through the cost of goods you purchase.How exactly are they paying you? What form is the payment in?

[Guest LilBambi]

In actuality, the advertisers themselves are paying IN HOPES THAT YOU WILL BUY THEIR PRODUCT BY LISTENING TO THEIR ADS.Unless a person actually buys their product, the person IS NOT paying for it.

[Marsden11]

Show me products that have zero advertising. Everyone is familiar with the Got Milk? ads. That ad represents the entire milk industry. When you purchase milk you are paying into that association of dairy producers for the cost of producing and renting add space to stick those ads in front of your eyes or ears. Choose any brand you like... you still pay!

[Guest LilBambi]

An overly broad generalization for the specific that havnblast mentioned.