So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you
Truth...@hope.com
some are confused over or simply choose to ignore.
Q. Is it "legal" for any person using his personal computer to "burn"
a "video" DVD under the de facto MPEG-2 specification using a non
licensed encoder (CODEC)?
A. No! There really isn't any wiggle room. The reason is the MPEG
(Motion Picture Experts Group) holds the patent and licenses it's
use through small licensing fees. You as the USER of the CODEC
don't pay a dime, however whoever included ANY MPEG-2 encoder is
required under international law to pay the license free to the
legal owners.
Q. I'm confused, the "freeware" I use claims it is covered under the
GNU or the General Public License, which implies the software is
free to use as long as the terms of the GNU are followed.
A. Apples and oranges. The GNU, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
is a license to use the freeware itself, not any pirated or
unauthorized CODEC the freeware author includes or tells you to
obtain on your own. Even if it is called something else... IF it
creates a MPEG-2 compliant file and you use the result to burn a
DVD it is ILLEGAL unless it was licensed for use.
Q. Why is the MPEG group such a bunch of up tight crybabies about
this, I'm only making a few DVD's for private use.
A. Ask Microsoft why it protects it's patents and ask Apple while
you're at it. They like the MPEG group vigorously protect CODECS
they have developed and have successfully defended that right
and continue to threaten legal action against software developers
that attempt to misuse their intellectual property or try to get
around licensing requirements.
Q. OK, I get it, using freeware to burn DVD's legally might be wrong,
but I don't care. Any other reasons not to use it?
A. Many! One of the common reasons many files don't open or play
correctly in main stream software like Microsoft's Movie Maker,
Media Player, much commercial software, some free standing DVD
Players is the file was encoded with a hacked CODEC that was
changed just enough to not make it a mirror image of a genuine
CODEC. This also can and does mess up the generation of thumbnails,
causes files to not play correctly, stop, sputter, get out of
sync etc..
Besides, running the risk of messing up your computer causing other
software to malfunction the quality of hacked codecs is inferior
to REAL MPEG-2 codecs. That said, their are good and not so good
licensed codecs. Just like everything else, you get what you pay
for... or don't.
Q. Forget the licensing issues, how does freeware video software
compare to commercial grade?
A. With a few exceptions, it simply doesn't. Just like there will
always be people that refuse to buckle up when driving or never
check the air pressure in their tires, they're usually the first
to bitch and moan when something goes wrong.
Newsgroups like this are filled with people that for lack of a better
phase are too damn cheap to buy the software they need to do a decent
job. They much prefer to break the law, slide by with inferior
results, then puff out their chests and fake being expert on all
things video. Well, the good news is I doubt any of that crowd read
this far. ;-)
Remember you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
People will continue to bitch and moan and keep making the same dumb
mistakes then blame the blank media, or the DVD burner or the software
they found somewhere on the web, never the nut sitting behind the
keyboard. The funny thing is all the money they think they saved they
more that lost in time wasted. Oh well, that's human nature. ;-)
John Stubbings
> Newsgroups like this are filled with people that for lack of a better
> phase are too damn cheap to buy the software they need to do a decent
> job.
Dear Mr Truth, I have zero interest in producing DVD's, but listening to
you gobbing off is mildly amusing. If you STFU and watched a while you
*might* learn something. I do think however that you have stated your case
about MPEG quite enough. Thank you. Noted. You are a God.
--
You gotta fight, for your right, to party...
The best of the best in Freeware
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
There is no ACF FAQ...
Ari©
> This post is offered in FAQ format to answer
Hey there, AssClown, see you like posting to show off your AssClown ass.
Go right ahead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG =2EPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ari©
> This post is offered
Hey, AssClown, did you enjoy your entree' into alt.comp.freeware, you
know, the posts where everyone claimed you are an assclown, AssClown?
lol
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG=2EPtASSCLOWNISANASSSCLOWN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Cohen
It's very possible that any of us might inadvertently or otherwise
engage in practices bordering on the illegal from time to time.
Thus we are indebted to the op and other well intentioned busybodies
willing to remind us of our possible failings.
You're a good boy, we've got the message, now fuck off.
Dave Cohen
Ari©
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:56:03 -0500, Ari© <TheJoos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:15:06 -0600, Truth...@hope.com wrote:
>>
>>> This post is offered
>>
>>Hey, AssClown, did you enjoy your entree' into alt.comp.freeware, you
>>know, the posts where everyone claimed you are an assclown, AssClown?
>
> Oh for sure... I enjoyed pissing on Euro trash assholes like you.
lol
> That's a given you brainless little turd.
You shit brained turds? Put one aside for freeware science, will ya',
AssClown?
> Maybe one of these days
> you'll sober up. Second thought, I doubt it. Consider yourself shit
> on.
Brained or brainless, AssClown?
Hey, AssClown, I reinstated your original Xpost, I am sure you omitted
it by mistake. lol Surely you meant for everyone to see the wittiness of
your assclownish response.
AssClown that you are. You silly little "no nothing" lol
Regards,
Ari from "Europe" lol
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG
=2EPtTHEASSCLOWNCAN'TREADAHEADER
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ari©
I see you have met the Wandering AssClown, Dave. One Jew to another, you
think he's a k'vatsh yatebedam or a tandaitneh little shnorrer.
Me?
I know he's an AssClown.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG
=2EPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ARACari, Ph.D.
> This post is offered
Do not let the naggers like Stubbles/AriSlime, European excrements, put
you off your course, Truth. One must have a giant sized ego and
elephantititical balls to withstand the Haters Of Freeware Research.
I can see that you have both.
Welcommen!
--
Doctorate from and Graduate of FreeBeArSciEnce University
(FreeBASE U)
Ken Maltby
<Truth...@hope.com> wrote in message
news:vp3fo4190okj9u4ti...@4ax.com...
> This post is offered in FAQ format to answer some question OBVIOUSLY
> some are confused over or simply choose to ignore.
>
> Q. Is it "legal" for any person using his personal computer to "burn"
> a "video" DVD under the de facto MPEG-2 specification using a non
> licensed encoder (CODEC)?
>
> A. No! There really isn't any wiggle room. The reason is the MPEG
> (Motion Picture Experts Group) holds the patent and licenses it's
> use through small licensing fees. You as the USER of the CODEC
> don't pay a dime, however whoever included ANY MPEG-2 encoder is
> required under international law to pay the license free to the
> legal owners.
>
Wrong, The MPEG holds no patent. The MPEG just publishes
a standard. The licencing of the technology mentioned in the
standard is accomplished through a pool that the individual patent
holders have signed onto. Most of them also offer various
adaptations as licences of their technolgy to software developers.
It is quite practical to create a CODEC that can make video that
complies with the MPEG standard, using technology not mentioned
in the standard. You see you can't patent an outcome or the product
of a technology/process, only the technology/process itself.
> Q. I'm confused, the "freeware" I use claims it is covered under the
> GNU or the General Public License, which implies the software is
> free to use as long as the terms of the GNU are followed.
>
> A. Apples and oranges. The GNU, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> is a license to use the freeware itself, not any pirated or
> unauthorized CODEC the freeware author includes or tells you to
> obtain on your own. Even if it is called something else... IF it
> creates a MPEG-2 compliant file and you use the result to burn a
> DVD it is ILLEGAL unless it was licensed for use.
>
Wrong again, see above. Also, what's legal in civil law .vs criminal
law is just a proponderance of court ruleings decided on a case by
case basis (and it is still up to the judge). You can't just go by the
position one side or the other takes, as to "what's legal".
Then there is the fact that this NG is read all over the world, what's
legal in one contry may be a hanging offense in another, and vice versa.
> Q. Why is the MPEG group such a bunch of up tight crybabies about
> this, I'm only making a few DVD's for private use.
>
> A. Ask Microsoft why it protects it's patents and ask Apple while
> you're at it. They like the MPEG group vigorously protect CODECS
> they have developed and have successfully defended that right
> and continue to threaten legal action against software developers
> that attempt to misuse their intellectual property or try to get
> around licensing requirements.
>
The legal sys is a fantasy land with its own perverted logic,
basicly perverted by money (in the form of overpaid lawyers)
when it comes to ownership issues. That said, Microsoft,
Apple, Adobe, are all fighting the use of their technolgy, not
the ability to create the resulting media format. If you can
create a playable .wmv, .mov, or .pdf file, without using
their technology, it wouldn't be illegal. (That wouldn't
neccessarlly prevent a swarm of lawyers from claiming
otherwise, and in the end would be up to the judge on a
case by case basis.)
> Q. OK, I get it, using freeware to burn DVD's legally might be wrong,
> but I don't care. Any other reasons not to use it?
>
> A. Many! One of the common reasons many files don't open or play
> correctly in main stream software like Microsoft's Movie Maker,
> Media Player, much commercial software, some free standing DVD
> Players is the file was encoded with a hacked CODEC that was
> changed just enough to not make it a mirror image of a genuine
> CODEC. This also can and does mess up the generation of thumbnails,
> causes files to not play correctly, stop, sputter, get out of
> sync etc..
>
Almost total BS, the tiny grain of truth that there may be in that
paragraph is swamped by many other, much more likely causes of
any such problems. There have been plenty of examples where
independently developed CODEC out perform the more
established commercial ones.
> Besides, running the risk of messing up your computer causing other
> software to malfunction the quality of hacked codecs is inferior
> to REAL MPEG-2 codecs. That said, their are good and not so good
> licensed codecs. Just like everything else, you get what you pay
> for... or don't.
>
The "REAL" ones, and which would those be? I own many
most came with commercial software, some I purchased directly
from the CODEC developers. I also have the Free Libmpeg2 and
Libavcodec which perform very well. All encode or decode MPEG
using very different code and their own technology.
> Q. Forget the licensing issues, how does freeware video software
> compare to commercial grade?
>
> A. With a few exceptions, it simply doesn't. Just like there will
> always be people that refuse to buckle up when driving or never
> check the air pressure in their tires, they're usually the first
> to bitch and moan when something goes wrong.
>
Total BS, and more of this poster's own halfbaked philosophy.
> Newsgroups like this are filled with people that for lack of a better
> phase are too damn cheap to buy the software they need to do a decent
> job. They much prefer to break the law, slide by with inferior
> results, then puff out their chests and fake being expert on all
> things video. Well, the good news is I doubt any of that crowd read
> this far. ;-)
>
> Remember you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
> People will continue to bitch and moan and keep making the same dumb
> mistakes then blame the blank media, or the DVD burner or the software
> they found somewhere on the web, never the nut sitting behind the
> keyboard. The funny thing is all the money they think they saved they
> more that lost in time wasted. Oh well, that's human nature. ;-)
>
While I know this poster reacts badly to anyone, other than himself,
expressing an opinion - I feel it safe to say his constant harping on
how he has to put up with "human nature" and other posters who
can't recognize how HE is so much above the rest of us, is a little
hard to take seriously.
Luck;
Ken
Truth...@hope.com
<kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
><Truth...@hope.com> wrote in message
>news:vp3fo4190okj9u4ti...@4ax.com...
>> This post is offered in FAQ format to answer some question OBVIOUSLY
>> some are confused over or simply choose to ignore.
>>
>> Q. Is it "legal" for any person using his personal computer to "burn"
>> a "video" DVD under the de facto MPEG-2 specification using a non
>> licensed encoder (CODEC)?
>>
>> A. No! There really isn't any wiggle room. The reason is the MPEG
>> (Motion Picture Experts Group) holds the patent and licenses it's
>> use through small licensing fees. You as the USER of the CODEC
>> don't pay a dime, however whoever included ANY MPEG-2 encoder is
>> required under international law to pay the license free to the
>> legal owners.
>>
>
> Wrong, The MPEG holds no patent. The MPEG just publishes
>a standard. The licencing of the technology mentioned in the
>standard is accomplished through a pool that the individual patent
>holders have signed onto. Most of them also offer various
>adaptations as licences of their technolgy to software developers.
Nice try at attempting to muddy the waters Ken. I'm not going to get
into a debate who as a class or individual holds what patent.
Technically there are several, but that's far beyond the scope of
what's being discussed in this thread.
The bullet you can't dodge is freeware encoders that result in
creating a de facto "video DVD" violate the MPEG-2 patent because
making a TRUE DVD (one that should play on ANY DVD player) requires
spec compliant MPEG-2 encoding which is a licensed technology. So all
freeware that either includes or points to some pirated codec that
isn't licensed by the appropriate authority is a violation of one or
more MPEG-2 patents. Period. So if you must, go ahead and continue to
flap your gums, but no matter how much you do, you still end up with
the short stick.
Still, I'll give you kudos for your feeble attempt to tap dance past
the obvious. That IS the issue as it always is when "freeware" gets
discussed. Those that blindly support freeware without regard to the
legal issues ALWAYS attempt to rationalize and legitimatize whatever
illegal means are used to avoid paying for something either directly
or indirectly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
> It is quite practical to create a CODEC that can make video that
>complies with the MPEG standard, using technology not mentioned
>in the standard. You see you can't patent an outcome or the product
>of a technology/process, only the technology/process itself.
100% self-serving, pure horse shit to attempt to prompt up thievery.
> The legal sys is a fantasy land with its own perverted logic,
>basicly perverted by money (in the form of overpaid lawyers)
>when it comes to ownership issues. That said, Microsoft,
>Apple, Adobe, are all fighting the use of their technolgy, not
>the ability to create the resulting media format. If you can
>create a playable .wmv, .mov, or .pdf file, without using
>their technology, it wouldn't be illegal. (That wouldn't
>neccessarlly prevent a swarm of lawyers from claiming
>otherwise, and in the end would be up to the judge on a
>case by case basis.)
Shame you can't hear me laughing at you. Your entire "argument" is the
flimsy and often over stated smoke screen that the big boys can afford
to hire fat cat attorneys so, that alone makes what they claim legal
and they always win. Well no. While we all know money talks, in
general the legal system MOST of time is fair even if it takes years
for justice to win out.
A classic example is an individual named Robert Kearms, who invented a
device most of us use (intermittent windshield wipers) who took on the
giants of the auto industry for patent infringement and won. A brief
summary. Several good books on his story. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
> While I know this poster reacts badly to anyone, other than himself,
>expressing an opinion - I feel it safe to say his constant harping on
>how he has to put up with "human nature" and other posters who
>can't recognize how HE is so much above the rest of us, is a little
>hard to take seriously.
Yeah, I heard that all before. Just face reality. I argue better than
you do and have the law on my side. The bottom line is you and others
attempt to justify some illegal means to avoid paying for the software
technology you want to use WITHOUT paying for it. You repeatedly
attempt to argue you're not. <giggles>
Bob S.
ask - what is the source you're quoting? You're post is more about
movies but since I've been doing a little work in the RIAA area, I'll
use their site as reference. I don't see a difference in what content
is being stolen, music or video, stealing is stealing but copying a
CD/DVD may not be illegal as you suggest.
Any legal references (not Wiki notes) to current case law? Otherwise,
this is all fabricated opinion. It may or may not be fact and may not
be applicable under all circumstances.
For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm
I'm not about to do your research for you but without proof, this is
just a lot of "so what...".
Take a read on this http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php You'll
note that the RIAA doesn't even mention end-user copying in that blurb
but does here:
http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
...............................................................................................................
11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD
for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought
legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music
illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for
their work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue,
they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists from their rosters,
and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the music industry, but
ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all benefit from a vibrant
music industry committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.
For more on what the law says about copying CDs, click HERE
...............................................................................................................
I think this kind of blows a hole in your FAQ don'tcha think?
So while your intentions to inform may have been honorable, your
presentation leaves a bit to be desired.
Take another whack at it but this time, take it to the newsgroups in
China and Russia where counterfeiting CD's and DVD's is big business
and they do them all, Audio, video, programs, databases and whatever
else they can make a buck copying.
Bob S.
Truth...@hope.com
>Not to point out the obvious but when I read posts like this, I have to
>ask - what is the source you're quoting? You're post is more about
>movies but since I've been doing a little work in the RIAA area, I'll
>use their site as reference. I don't see a difference in what content
>is being stolen, music or video, stealing is stealing but copying a
>CD/DVD may not be illegal as you suggest.
>
>Any legal references (not Wiki notes) to current case law? Otherwise,
>this is all fabricated opinion. It may or may not be fact and may not
>be applicable under all circumstances.
The obvious is this newsgroup is invested with rank amateurs that
don't know squat about the topic and are pissed-off over being
educated regarding their breaking of the law mostly because they're
such penny pinchers they're too damn cheap to buy decent software
which includes the required MPEG-2 encoder that's properly licensed to
make legal DVD's. Oh what the heck... I'll given anyone the benefit of
the doubt and <wink> accept they didn't know what they're doing was
illegal. Now that you do, it seems the prevailing response is so what,
you'll just keep doing it anyway. I always have fun poking a stick at
people that SELECTIVELY follow the law, picking and choosing which
laws they obey and thumbing their nose and ones they don't like.
For sake of clarification the acronym "CODEC" stands for a
device/program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data
stream or signal. Codec is a portmanteau of 'compressor-decompressor'
or most commonly referred to as either, 'coder-decoder', often both. I
use the words interchangeably.
Sorry, you guys don't know the first thing about copyright or patent
law, so don't try to get high and mighty with me. You're out of your
league.
It boils down to this. Any video that's put on a DVD if it is intended
to be compliant with the accepted standard requires MPEG-2 encoding SO
is may be decoded by any DVD player. Period. There's no getting away
from that no matter how hard some try to distort facts or attempts to
go off in another direction or play word games.
This includes slideshows since a slideshow is nothing more than an
series of still images linked together and again encoded to MPEG-2
format, if the target is a DVD. That isn't to say a DVD or CD for that
matter can't be encoded to some other file format such as DivX, if
that's done, they might play in a handful of DVD players that support
such a file type. The point that seems to zoom over so many heads is
the MPEG-2 standard is designed to allow ANY DVD player to play the
contents. That's why we have standards.
Since ALL DVD players have a hardware based MPEG-2 encoder in their
circuitry, the ONLY way to get it to work correctly is to use either
hardware or software to encode to the same specification. THAT is the
stumbling block. You can't do that without a licensed CODEC and NO
freeware has it. They all either use some hacked codec or point you to
get a codec somewhere on the Web.
We can argue till we're blue in the face the merits if that's morally
right or not, but legally your crowd doesn't have a foot to stand on.
Right now, world wide, MPEG-2 technology is protected by patent. So
anyone using freeware to burn a video to a DVD is technically breaking
the law IF they did so without benefit of a licensed copy of a MPEG-2
encoder.
Some seem to be in denial. That's because they want to use freeware
and not pay for a licensed MPEG-2 encoder/decoder. The license cost is
included when you purchase commercial DVD editing/creating/burning
software. It's a one time fee the seller of the software pays to the
patent holder and is included in the software's price. Obviously no
freeware author does that or he would lose money with each copy of his
"free" software he gave away.
>For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm
Even the cite you make reference to above confirms it is illegal. And
as is usual to posters here you're mixing apples and oranges. Copying
the content of CD and also for DVDs is different and refers to
breaking another law... what I wrote about, namely illegally using a
MPEG-2 encoder without paying royalties for it's use. So technically
many people since they're copying movies or TV shows are breaking two
laws. One that violates the patent for the MPEG-2 encoder when they
make a physical copy of a DVD and break the law again, this time
copyright law making illegal copies of some artist's work.
Surprise... even the little ditty Happy Birthday is protected by
copyright as nuts as that sounds if performed in public under certain
conditions.
The link you provided deals with an artist's copyright which forbids
copying his work with approval. This thread deals with patent
infringement to do the actual burning, not the copying of the artist's
work, though doing either is similar in the end result. Not to muddy
things further but rights to use songs and snippets of movies has a
series of release requirements, coving the artist, publisher, etc.,
far beyond the scope of this thread.
>
>I'm not about to do your research for you but without proof, this is
>just a lot of "so what...".
You're stumbling around looking for an excuse to break the law. That's
as bad as driving drunk and claiming the tree you ran into jumped out
in front of you and you couldn't get out of the way fast enough. ;-)
>Take another whack at it but this time, take it to the newsgroups in
>China and Russia where counterfeiting CD's and DVD's is big business
>and they do them all, Audio, video, programs, databases and whatever
>else they can make a buck copying.
>
>Bob S.
You're kind of fuzzy with your "reasoning". After trying to paint what
YOU want to do yourself as legal, you do a 180 and admit it is illegal
but I should go pester users in China and Russia.
Damn, newsgroups sure can be entertaining.
Ken Maltby
"Bob S." <no-...@here.com> wrote in message
news:gmdapv$9qt$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Actually, the subject under discussion has nothing to do with
protecting the rights of content providers, the OP's erronious
claim was that MPEG-2 can only be made, legally, using
software that has paid a licence fee to the MPEG. The
correlative example would be saying that every technology
to digitize music to 16 bit PCM is covered by some imaginary
patent held by the Compact Disk standards group. That you
couldn't burn any music CD legally, even one of your spouse
singing in the bathroom.
Luck;
Ken
Truth...@hope.com
Well Kenny boy, if my comments are erroneous, how come you haven't
been able to provide ONE creditable cite to refute what I said?
alvey
Usenet Observation #27: I've yet to read anything but frothing stupidity
from posters who have "truth" anywhere in their nick.
*plonk*
--
The best of the best in Freeware
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
------------------------------------------
There is no ACF FAQ.
Klaatu
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:15:06 -0600, Truth...@hope.com wrote:
>
> Usenet Observation #27: I've yet to read anything but frothing stupidity
> from posters who have "truth" anywhere in their nick.
Ain't that the truth. ;)
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Truth...@hope.com
>On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:38:53 GMT, alvey posted to alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:15:06 -0600, Truth...@hope.com wrote:
>>
>> Usenet Observation #27: I've yet to read anything but frothing stupidity
>> from posters who have "truth" anywhere in their nick.
>
>Ain't that the truth. ;)
The truth is some people will break the law to save a buck. <giggle>
The irony is doing so you're only cheating yourself since pirated
MPEG-2 codecs often produce crappy results. So who's laughing now?
STILL waiting for anyone to provide any creditable cite that "proves"
freeware uses legitimate MPEG-2 codecs or that there is any LEGAL way
to get around the MPEG-2 license requirement. I won't hold my breath.
The kiddie crowd will just keep squealing like the bunch of brainless
little monkeys they are. It's also true... ignorance is bliss.
ng_reader
although I am a fan of Malted Milk Bs