EPT[Movie] Steal this film - Page 4
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
29 fps
United States5724 Posts
| ||
|
brambolius
Netherlands448 Posts
On October 04 2008 05:32 Excalibur_Z wrote: (every copy pirated is a copy not sold) this is just not true, most people download a shitload of games that they would never ever buy from a store. personaly me and my dad download our asses off, movies, games, music and so on BUT if we really think something is GOOD we always get it for real. imho the whole copying thing is mostly hurting the companies that produce mediocrity in first place. plz dont mind my spellings  | ||
|
Piste
6177 Posts
On October 04 2008 05:32 Excalibur_Z wrote:every copy pirated is a copy not sold That is not true. I can take a free copy, but it doesn't mean that I would have ever bought it. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10503 Posts
On October 04 2008 16:18 VIB wrote: HonestTea + others, I'm aware piracy harms a few people, which I specifically talk about in my first post. But that is the ONLY and single valid anti-piracy argument. I agree it's a valid argument, as I said in my first post, I won't argue against this. This is one CONS of piracy indeed. Now shall we measure the CONS against the PROS? Pro piracy / Anti Intellectual Property (IP) arguments: - Freedom, this one should be obvious. - IP hurts creativity in many different ways. Forbids you to create from/further develop existing content. - Consequently from the above, IP degrade final product quality. - Consequently again IP hurts the final consumers!! Which is the ~99% of the population. - IP hurts the final consumers again, but also economically - it's expensive. - Hurts costumers one more time when it comes to support longevity. Your X broke, but the company who produces and has the copyright over X bankrupt. Now similar companies cannot provide you support because their X is different due to copyrights. - IP largely contributes to economical imbalance absurds, how much does Britney Spears make again? - Social imbalances which derivates from economical imbalance - IP is the main support of a whole industry branch that is irrelevant/has no place in modern technology: The record industry. (Read Brainx's post in this thread) - Bad for economy, IP admittedly equals monopoly which is an anti-competitive behavior and against free market - IP is doomed to extinction, the chairman of the MPAA!!! admits they're aware of this on the movie! (Watch it if you haven't) Might take 50 or 100 years, but it's inevitable no matter how much you disagree with it. Anti piracy / Pro intellectual property - Piracy hurts that very few amount of the population who: 1) directly benefits economically from copyrights and 2) failed to adapt unlike many others. - ....hmm, can't think of anything else :S So yes. Piracy does harms some few people, I give you that. But intellectual property harms many more people and much more dramatically. Look at the above and now you tell me. What is right? What is immoral? Intellectual Property harms you? You walk into an electronics store, you go to a DVD aisle, you see movies that people have invested many millions of dollars into and are now offering to sell to you, and then what? They give you HIV? Bruce Willis pops out of a DVD case of Die Hard and throws you out the window of a skyscraper? Seriously, do you have any idea what you are talking about? | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
On October 04 2008 16:18 VIB wrote: HonestTea + others, I'm aware piracy harms a few people, which I specifically talk about in my first post. But that is the ONLY and single valid anti-piracy argument. I agree it's a valid argument, as I said in my first post, I won't argue against this. This is one CONS of piracy indeed. Now shall we measure the CONS against the PROS? Wait, before we measure the CONS against the PROS, can we stop here for a sec? Hi, I'm one of those people who are DIRECTLY HARMED by piracy. Piracy makes my investors reluctant to pay me, because some people who would have bought whatever I make are now finding ways to get it for free. With out funds to pay for my rent and food, I am unable to create. But no matter. The case of me and many of my brothers and sisters is merely the ONLY and single (?) valid anti-piracy argument. This is, indeed from my point of view, one of the CONS. So when you say we measure the CONS against the PROS, I shall take the liberty of translating this for you. "Now shall we measure the CONS against the PROS?" "Now shall we measure the fact that HonestTea cannot get paid to focus on his creative endeavors, and instead must find other ways to pay for rent and bread, which take away available time and effort to create, agsint the PROS?" Okay, lets! Pro piracy / Anti Intellectual Property (IP) arguments: - Freedom, this one should be obvious. Err, actually, it's not obvious. I'm not sure what you mean by freedom. Freedom to obtain intellectual property? You mean the freedom to get whatever you want? Is this sorta like the freedom to take a blind woman's purse whenever you want? It's actually not obvious to me. - IP hurts creativity in many different ways. Forbids you to create from/further develop existing content. - Consequently from the above, IP degrade final product quality. - Consequently again IP hurts the final consumers!! Which is the ~99% of the population. You wish to argue that IP hurts the qualityof creative output. You say "many different ways" but fail to elaborate. Because I'm so kind, I'll make your argument for you. What you want to say is that because Evil Mega Record Labels make an investment into their musicians, an investment that is protected by copyright and IP laws, thus Evil Mega Record Labels demand that the output of the poor creative types that they are exploiting must conform in to some sort of sell-able final product. tl;dr - copyrights and IP forces musicians to "sell out." Yeah, it's too bad that The Ramones sold out. Too bad Prince sold out. Too bad Bob Dylan sold out. Too bad James Brown sold out. Too bad Bob Marley sold out. Too bad Nirvana sold out. Too Bad Wu Tang sold out. Baby, we could dance this dance forever. But hey, you know who never sold out? The Beatles. I mean The Beatles did have the production money to record their own album... wait, they didn't. Well at least it's not like major record labels paid the costs and funds for The Beatles to be promoted all over America so that they could reach millions of new listeners.... oh wait. Well, at least the major record labels didn't arrange for The Beatles to make their seminal appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show... wait, no, they did that. Well at least The Beatles never ended up selling out their music to car ads and shit like that. Why? Because they were living comfortably off their copyright-protected record sales, that's why. Do you think Bach and Beethoven wrote for free? Hell no. They were sponsored by patrons - rich, white, inbred dudes who paid for the rent and for the sausages so that the musicians could focus on music. Do you know who sponsors the Great Musicians of today? YOU. That's right. YOU are now the patrons of mondern music, because YOU can choose who is worth sponsoring, with the money you choose to spend on music. So I could even argue that IP and copyright has lead to the democratization of creative patronage. (I won't, but I could. It's like American Idol except you vote with your money.) IP hurts the final consumers again, but also economically - it's expensive. IP hurts the final consumer by giving them an option by which to spend their disposable income. In other words, IP "hurts" you economically by presenting a potential way to exchange your cash for some goods - IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER you exchange some cash for a car, or for a sandwich. ARE YOU SAYING THAT SANDWICHES HURT YOU ECONOMICALLY? Besides, the LACK of IP hurts me much more because I CAN'T GET A JOB when my creative output is not compensated. Do you know what it's like to not have a job? - Hurts costumers one more time when it comes to support longevity. Your X broke, but the company who produces and has the copyright over X bankrupt. Now similar companies cannot provide you support because their X is different due to copyrights. This one really, really blew my mind. Why don't you just tell me that the sky is yellow and get over it. WHO is going to archive all the creative property if nobody gets to own it? You know who has the best kept archives in the movie industry? The Major Hollywood Studios. Universal, MGM, Disney - they keep great archives, so when it comes time to make that wonderful Audrey Hepburn box set DVD, they can restore old film and put it on sale so I can enjoy otherwise difficult-to-get movies starring The Most Beautiful Film Star Ever. They take such good care of it because they own it! Copyright SUPPORTS longevity! I will now put this into retardese for you: Your X broke, but there never was any company who produced or had copyright over X. So no one had any reason to spend the time and money to properly archive and preserve X. So you can't ever watch it again and it is lost to all of humanity. Sad face. - IP largely contributes to economical imbalance absurds, how much does Britney Spears make again? - Social imbalances which derivates from economical imbalance Wait, are you saying copyright laws contribute to social imbalances? ashdl;fahk;wlieha;lwskdfhaw;oilths;ldikfajw;elktawstaekwlae;j;lsiddahgw *two hours later* Sorry, I passed out on my keyboard. Anyways, Britney Spears is rich, and you're not. Get over it. And yes, I have the record industry to blame for Britney Spears, but you know who else I have to blame? EVERYBODY WHO BOUGHT HER SHIT. - IP is the main support of a whole industry branch that is irrelevant/has no place in modern technology: The record industry. (Read Brainx's post in this thread) This is what the record industry does: - finds talent - for better or for worse, "develops" the talent. - produces talent's creative output - advertises that output so that the public knows about it and gets a chance to hear it. - recieves a commision for its efforts = profit. If you have the time and money to do all that by yourself, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Let's see how many new bands you discover within a week. Let's see how many new bands outside of your country you discover. "But HonestTea," you say "with the INTERNET, I can see any new band anywhere! WOW!" This is true. But you know what the problem with the Internet is? QUANTITY OVERFLOW. So because of the magical wonders of the internet you come back and say "Hey HonestTea I found myself 5,000 new bands, in 140 different countries over the past week!" To which I say: Well which of them are good? Which of them make music I like to listen to? Hmm That's a lot of bands and a lot of songs. I wish I had the time to hear them all, but I don't. Hmm maybe I'll pay someone, someone who has a lot of experience with music, to listen to them all and take away the shitty bands, and make some suggestions for the new bands I should check out. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Without record labels I would have never been introduced to the following modern day musicans: Kanye, Slum Village, or Blue Scholar, or Snow Patrol, or The Go! Team, or Angelique Kidjo, or The White Stripes... and those are all musicians that came to notice AFTER the dawn of the internet age. Meanwhile, the internet has introduced me to Tay Zonday and Rick Astley. I'll stick with the labels thankyouverymuch. - Bad for economy, IP admittedly equals monopoly which is an anti-competitive behavior and against free market Please study the phrases "economy" "monopoly" "anti-competitive" and "free market" before you ever string them together in a sentance like this again. Before you even use those words again. Like, I mean, really study that shit. Or you can just study the word "bad." But I think you grasp the concept of "bad." I think. - IP is doomed to extinction, the chairman of the MPAA!!! admits they're aware of this on the movie! (Watch it if you haven't) Might take 50 or 100 years, but it's inevitable no matter how much you disagree with it. Yay! After 3000 words, I agree with you once! Anti piracy / Pro intellectual property - Piracy hurts that very few amount of the population who: 1) directly benefits economically from copyrights and 2) failed to adapt unlike many others. - ....hmm, can't think of anything else :S Piracy hurts that very few amount of the population who: 1) CREATE THE STUFF FOR THE REST OF THE POPULATION and 2) failed to adapt unlike many others. ... hmm, so I guess this doesn't affect the rest of the population at all. :S So yes. Piracy does harms some few people, I give you that. But intellectual property harms many more people and much more dramatically. Look at the above and now you tell me. What is right? What is immoral? Listen. Read carefully. Try to forget about your hurt feelings up to now, because I am about to teach you something very basic and important. I'm even squinting. That's how serious I am. Now: When you fail to protect those who produce goods, then they will stop producing them goods. If you fail to protect sandwich guy, if everyone can just come up to sandwich store and grabbed any thing they want, any time they want, then sandwich guy will stop making sandwiches. And no more classic Italian subs for you. Maybe he is not just a simple sandwich guy. Maybe he is an artist. Maybe he will continue to make sandwiches in his free time, because his pursuit of The Perfect Sandwich will go on, it is is his holy mission. Good. Except sandwich guy can only make sandwichs in the down time when he's not farming sheep. Because people pay him money for sheep. Money that he uses to pay for his clothes, his house, his food, and his kids and his family. Now, only with the leftover money after paying for all that can he find the funds to make sandwiches. Only with the leftover time from sheep farming can he find the time to make sandwiches. Only with the leftover energy after a whole day of doing a job he doesn't enjoy, can he find the strenght and creativity to make sandwiches. So instead of making many imaginative super-sandwiches, every day, with premium ham and cheese, our hero is only making one dull soso-sandwich in a week, with the low-quality ham and soggy, moldy bread. WHO SUFFERS? BOTH SANDWICH MAN AND SANDWICH FAN. What is right? What is immoral? Answer: Who gives a shit? (although you should also study "right" and "immoral" while you're at it) What I care about is: What works? What makes it so that both Sandwich Man and Sandwich Fan are happy? Answer: PAYING THE SANDWICH MAN TO MAKE SANDWICHES I will concede only one point: In the modern day, Copyright and Intellectual Property laws are not the best way to pay the sandwich man for making sandwiches. Clearly, we need a business model that can work in our current environment. If you are going to continue to champion anti-copyright, do yourself a favor and at least go from that angle. But in no way can we not pay the sandwich man. PAY THE SANDWICH MAN! | ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
(every copy pirated is a copy not sold) This is a bad argument. I believe many people would not even care about a certain product if they had to buy it. By copying it, the product will reach more people. If it is good, they will most likelly tell their friends about it eventually leading to more people buying it. Edit: I obviously wasnt the first to react on that statement... | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
piracy = not paying the sandwich man at least, this is true in the year 2008. And it must change. It has to change. But for now, please pay the sandwich man? | ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
On October 04 2008 23:11 HonestTea wrote: If there were a magical cloning device that could clone sandwiches, and people would clone sandwiches and distribute them free in the streets, then you are NOT PAYING THE SANDWICH MAN TO MAKE SANDWICHES piracy = not paying the sandwich man at least, this is true in the year 2008. And it must change. It has to change. But for now, please pay the sandwich man? Absolutelly. As far as im able too. VIB said: Like I said in my first post, both Excalibur and Merz are using the only pro-copyright argument I know that exists: it makes money for a few people (very very few people). Well, this is also unfortunatelly insanelly stupid. If you look at it, it is also only a few people who is actually making the stuff. What you are saying is basically that you should have right to tell these people to make stuff without you paying for it. I doubt you would go and create a videogame or a record for someone else without getting payed for it. Or mabye you would. One time. Before you realized the amount of work you put on it without even getting so much as a thanks. | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
Simply put, if it wasnt for piracy, I wouldnt consume a fraction of the bullcrap the film or gaming industry sells some idiots for a load of money. Zohan topping cinema charts? Oh yeah, it really was teh funn!!1!1 Or like somebody said, Spore. That game was just ridiculously bad for the hype created (like 99% of all hyped games i pirate and play for 2 days). If I had to spent money for that shit, I simply wouldnt. I sincerely hope my behaviour supports the dying of mediocre to bullshit gaming companies and Hollywood and I have no issue with that. In fact I believe it would make the world a better place (although I know there are too many idiots who will keep these industries alive). | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
Of cus, I take it all back if you work for an independent film company which really does good movies with a meaning to it. Are there any available in english or even german which u think are good u helped producing? I would really give it a try and judge for myself. If I think its worth it, I assure you I will go and buy it afterwards. | ||
|
Lenwe
Netherlands757 Posts
Compare it to cars. Let's say person A thinks all Volvo cars are crap. In fact, every car made a big company is crap. The only decent cars are the ones made by Spyker, a small indepent company. Does that give him the right to steal any car found on the street, just because he thinks they are crap? Piracy is stealing. You are not paying for a product you should pay for. Just because it is fast, easy and through the anonymity of the internet doesn't make it any diffirent. | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On October 05 2008 01:00 Lenwe wrote: Seriously damenmofa, does it matter wether you steal from the big or small company? It is still the same, stealing. Whatever your opinion on the production value, people spend time and money towards producing that so it doesn't give you any right to just steal it (yes, piracy is stealing imo). Compare it to cars. Let's say person A thinks all Volvo cars are crap. In fact, every car made a big company is crap. The only decent cars are the ones made by Spyker, a small indepent company. Does that give him the right to steal any car found on the street, just because he thinks they are crap? Piracy is stealing. You are not paying for a product you should pay for. Just because it is fast, easy and through the anonymity of the internet doesn't make it any diffirent. I just wouldnt buy the product man. If it wasnt for piracy I would NEVER consider to even buy the product. At least these companies have a chance to make money off me by making a good product which I notice through things like user reviews on certain pages or prizes from critics. If I couldnt pirate it and had to buy smth I wouldnt know if it lives up to my expectations, I wouldnt buy it. So thats a grand total of 0$ filming or gaming industry would ever make off me. Also a comparison to cars is bs. Cars are no intellectual work which some people like or not. Its rock solid quality in objectively measurable tests (like crash tests and endurance tests and shit). U can like or dislike the design of the car, but the overall quality is very much objectively measurable. Also your argument backfires hard cus actually yes, you can test drive any car u think about buying _for free_ just like that. Its essentially what I do with pirating. Try before you buy. With films, I, for myself, made the discovery I dont like 99% of the stuff the big industry sells or the films that top the cinema charts. On the other hand, films u never heard of with small budgets sometimes are far better in my opinion because they have to make up the lack of famous actors and special effects and stuff with actual content. "The Sea Inside", my favorite movie, is by no means a small independent film. The director was already well known and even produced a Hollywood film already (Vanilla Sky - bad copy of the originally great film "Open your eyes") at the time he made "The Sea inside". He is just good at making movies and therefore I support him by buying some of his products. Unfortunately this does not hold true for me for the vast majority of other people in the industry. I even give Hollywood Movies chance after chance if I hear about something that is supposed to be good, but nothing truly great comes to my mind from the last 10 years except for some very rare films like "Dark City", which is older than that. Another good film was "Gomorra", a film about south-italian mafia. Although I normally dont like action films this film was actually good to me and I will buy it on DVD because if you have some knowledge about the theme, you will find it a shockingly realistic portrait of some of the worst every-day living conditions in a modern "first world" country. | ||
|
Lenwe
Netherlands757 Posts
And it's great that the indepent movie studio sold one more copy to you after you stole their movie from some torrent site. Too bad your indepent movie company has a hard time selling more copy's cause everyone else that downloaded that torrent isn't going to the store. Yes, there's is always the risk that you go to a movie theather and don't like the movie, or that you buy a game and don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to steal them. | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On October 05 2008 01:55 Lenwe wrote: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for the product. If you don't like Hollywood movies then that's allright. Don't go to the movie theater to see them or don't get the DVD. However, if you download them then you are stealing them and it doesn't matter wether you like them or not. Buy the DVD, watch it and if you don't like it go back to the store and trade it for a diffirent movie. And it's great that the indepent movie studio sold one more copy to you after you stole their movie from some torrent site. Too bad your indepent movie company has a hard time selling more copy's cause everyone else that downloaded that torrent isn't going to the store. Yes, there's is always the risk that you go to a movie theather and don't like the movie, or that you buy a game and don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to steal them. Dont you think its a lil ignorant to keep on going about pirating is "stealing" in all cases when this topic is all about discussing this? Just because something is deemed "stealing" by law doesnt mean everybody has to agree with it. It is the very essence of this discussion which u conveniently ignore by just throwing around the term "stealing" as often as you can to make sure you get ur standpoint across. btw newsflash: i also dont go to movie theaters, as you could have imagined with somebody who doesnt even own a TV. Just because many people abuse piracy also is no argument that its bad in itself. Also I dont know how its in the Netherlands but in Germany u cant just go and buy a DVD, rip open the sealed container and watch it, then bring it back and claim your money back. This is what I consider far more immoral than pirating, forcing people to buy something they cant legally fully test before they buy it, and even doing deceiving "trailers" which basically make every shitty movie make seem funny or intelligent or whatever agenda they are trying to push. Especially since there is not much reuse value in a movie. If u buy a Sandwich (thx honesttea) u pay the shop once and then u can decide whether u want sandwich from that particular restaurant/diner again. U can't deny that you most likely will more often need to eat something (or even sandwich if u love it that much) than u will watch the same film over and over again. | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On October 05 2008 02:31 Makhno wrote: Does it matter if it's right or wrong? It's not going to go away because people can argue against it. Well this thread would be pointless then. I think u can as well argue for pirating from a perfectly morally acceptable point of view, as well as u can argue against it. | ||
|
Lenwe
Netherlands757 Posts
And forcing people to buy something before they test it. You do that with the sandwhich as well, although there can be ofcourse be the exception where you can taste the sandwhich first, but I don't know of a lot of places where that happens. I do know however that when buying a music CD in the store I can listen to it first before buying it. Online I can listen to parts of it as well and usually a band's site features several complete songs that I can listen to. Game company's often give out demo's and there are so many gaming websites out there that I can usually get a good image from a game before buying them. The same goes for websites and persons that review movies. | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On October 05 2008 02:36 Lenwe wrote: However, you don't go to the sandwhich store, take a sandwhich without paying for it and then if you decide you liked it, pay for it afterwards. You pay for the product in advance in the hope that you will like it. If you don't like it you don't go there again and find a diffirent sandwhich store. So why not do the same for movies, songs or games? Don't buy from companies that you know won't produce stuff that you like. And if a new company comes along and online reviews, opinions from friends/people with the same taste as you tell it is good, buy one product and check that out. And forcing people to buy something before they test it. You do that with the sandwhich as well, although there can be ofcourse be the exception where you can taste the sandwhich first, but I don't know of a lot of places where that happens. I do know however that when buying a music CD in the store I can listen to it first before buying it. Online I can listen to parts of it as well and usually a band's site features several complete songs that I can listen to. Game company's often give out demo's and there are so many gaming websites out there that I can usually get a good image from a game before buying them. The same goes for websites and persons that review movies. dude i am a drum and bass DJ and believe it or not, there is no copyright on drum and bass. So basically I dont pirate music ever, and still i spent thousands of bux in support of the producers/labels because when I like a tune I buy the vinyl to be able to play it at the club. I think CD-DJs are retarded but hey, if they want to, they can download all kinds of dnb tracks and play them at the club on their no-skill cd decks without fear of any legal investigation. also the sandwich comparison lacks in term of reusability as i tried to explain in the post before. The sandwich guys dont make the majority of their money by selling one sandwich to everyone, but by creating a good product which makes people come back and buy the same sandwich again (or another if they feel comfortable with the overall quality of the shop). If they dont make a good product, they are bound to go down the shitter cus nobody will come back. This is unfortunately not true for the film industry, just look at Uwe Boll for christs sake. They couldnt care less what quality their product has cus once u spent the 10 bucks for the cinema or DVD, u spent all the money on this product they wanted to get out of you. Only a tiny tiny minority buys the same DVD twice or watches the same movie more than once in a theatre. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
I would expect that's in no small part due to piracy, only MMOs are safe. Less money for the developers, less and worse games, and less 'gambles'. So even though it might only directly hurt one person or entity to pirate their works, if it stops them from making the same quality or quantity of works, everyone who enjoys their stuff is hurt. | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
If you wanted to make a comparison, you should say the sandwich man made up a sandwich (which he is unable to produce by himself, btw), then tells other people (managers) how to make it, who in turn hire people to produce it, sell it, and he gets tons of money (th managers as well, while the people physically preparing it get payed significantly less). For the one-time work of making up a new form of sandwich a "sandwich artist" gets payed a lot. Nobody else is allowed to make that same sandwich, because he owns it. Whenever you decide you want to make such a sandwich, you have to pay the sandwich guy, else you are stealing. Even though you buy and pay for all the ingredients (lettuce, tomato, CD, whatever) and do all the physical work (prepare the sandwich, download the movie, burn the CD) you are still stealing, because that type of sandwich (music, movie) is copyrighted. And if you dare make the same sandwich at home you risk the police bursting in and seizing you for "stealing". Doesn't that sound a bit off to you? So no, you can't do it with sandwiches, then why can you do it with movies and CDs? If you want a super-professionally done sandwich with little hassle, super ingredients, and right then and there, you pay extra for that (as opposed to making it yourself, at home). If you want to see a movie on big screen with super sound, you pay extra for it (as opposed to watching it on 14" screen, with laptop sound, at home). If you want a pretty cover, a complimentary poster, a nice looking box on your shelf, you pay extra (as opposed to just a plain old CD written on by a magic marker, and nothing else to go with it). This is the reason people are still (as was customary throughout ages past as well) spending time on "art", since it's a good way to become very rich with very little effort. Sure, it's difficult to get everything right, but once you do, you can become disproportionally wealthy. So if you want to, pay the sandwich man, but don't get carried away with it - he doesn't "own" the idea of the sandwich. If you want HIM (the master) to make the sandwich, and wrap it in gift-wrap and eat it at his fancy sandwich restaurant, pay him extra. If you make the sandwich at home, just mentally thank the sandwich man for the nice idea, that's it. | ||
| ||
