General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[jaybuck43]

RMA:

Here is an old ad for Milky Way bars from 1948.

The image is 68 years old. I can still go out and purchase Milky Way bars.

 

And here's what I wrote above, in answer to that very point:

 

But for an ad that is no longer used AS an ad by the company announcing the product, it's no longer an ad, and thus, not bound by the restrictions of Media Mail.

 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 207.4.12.1, provides that the term "advertising" includes all material for the publication of which a valuable consideration is paid, accepted, or promised, that calls attention to something for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it.

 

Note how no time limit is given. Not every comic book ad is "expired" so to speak. Yes the x-ray specs are no longer valid, and the little army men because those places went out of business, but there are also dozens of other ads for things like Doc Martins, Baby Ruth bars, Milky Way's, Converse shoes, Sears, etc that are all still advertisements. They may not be the companies current marketing campaign, but per the DMM it is still advertising because its purpose is to get people to buy it and valuable consideration was paid to put it there.

 

It doesn't matter that no time limit is given. It doesn't need to, because it's not up to the DMM to determine a time limit for ads. The ads themselves do that.

 

No, not every comic book ad is "expired"...only the ones that have expired, which includes all of them older than, say, 6 months or so.

 

It does not matter if the product being advertised is still available. Mars, Inc., does NOT use that ad to advertise its products anymore, and thus, that ad is expired and no longer an ad. It's purpose WAS at ONE POINT in time to get people to buy the product being announced, but that is no longer the case for that particular former ad.

 

And that gets you out of the morass of trying to figure out which ad is "still an ad", and which is not, in determining which product is "still on the market." It doesn't matter. If the ad itself is no longer in current use, then it's no longer an ad.

 

But even if it DID matter, it still wouldn't hold up, because you cannot buy the 68 year old version of a Milky Way bar, which has undergone significant packaging changes since then, and, no doubt, compositional (read: recipe) changes, as well.

 

I mean, if you want to parse, let's parse all the way down to the bottom.

 

RMA according to your reasoning from earlier, unless it is written in the dmm it has no force. You said any interpretation even on the USPS website is meaningless. The definition I wrote is directly from the dmm. It is unambiguous. Youre reading into it a time limit, an idea that if they no longer use it it is no longer an ad. That is an interpretation. And since that interpretation is not found anywhere in the dmm it is not valid.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA:

Here is an old ad for Milky Way bars from 1948.

The image is 68 years old. I can still go out and purchase Milky Way bars.

 

And here's what I wrote above, in answer to that very point:

 

But for an ad that is no longer used AS an ad by the company announcing the product, it's no longer an ad, and thus, not bound by the restrictions of Media Mail.

 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 207.4.12.1, provides that the term "advertising" includes all material for the publication of which a valuable consideration is paid, accepted, or promised, that calls attention to something for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it.

 

Note how no time limit is given. Not every comic book ad is "expired" so to speak. Yes the x-ray specs are no longer valid, and the little army men because those places went out of business, but there are also dozens of other ads for things like Doc Martins, Baby Ruth bars, Milky Way's, Converse shoes, Sears, etc that are all still advertisements. They may not be the companies current marketing campaign, but per the DMM it is still advertising because its purpose is to get people to buy it and valuable consideration was paid to put it there.

 

It doesn't matter that no time limit is given. It doesn't need to, because it's not up to the DMM to determine a time limit for ads. The ads themselves do that.

 

No, not every comic book ad is "expired"...only the ones that have expired, which includes all of them older than, say, 6 months or so.

 

It does not matter if the product being advertised is still available. Mars, Inc., does NOT use that ad to advertise its products anymore, and thus, that ad is expired and no longer an ad. It's purpose WAS at ONE POINT in time to get people to buy the product being announced, but that is no longer the case for that particular former ad.

 

And that gets you out of the morass of trying to figure out which ad is "still an ad", and which is not, in determining which product is "still on the market." It doesn't matter. If the ad itself is no longer in current use, then it's no longer an ad.

 

But even if it DID matter, it still wouldn't hold up, because you cannot buy the 68 year old version of a Milky Way bar, which has undergone significant packaging changes since then, and, no doubt, compositional (read: recipe) changes, as well.

 

I mean, if you want to parse, let's parse all the way down to the bottom.

 

RMA according to your reasoning from earlier, unless it is written in the dmm it has no force. You said any interpretation even on the USPS website is meaningless.

 

That is correct (except that there isn't any "interpretation" involved here. It is a straightforward misunderstanding of what an ad is, and what it is not. No interpretation necessary, even on the USPS website.)

 

The definition I wrote is directly from the dmm. It is unambiguous. Youre reading into it a time limit, an idea that if they no longer use it it is no longer an ad. That is an interpretation. And since that interpretation is not found anywhere in the dmm it is not valid.

 

That is incorrect. "Time limit" is a concept you brought up, not me, and such a concept is not relevant to this discussion. The only "limit" that is of concern here is this: "is the ad in force, or not?"

 

Let me say it again: the DMM does not need to address a "time limit", because the ads themselves do that. An ad expires when it is no longer in force, either through an internal expiration date, or replacement by another ad. And if it is an expired ad, it is an expired ad, and does not fall under the DMM definition of an ad.

 

That doesn't require any interpretation of the DMM.

 

Ads do not exist, nor were they intended to exist, in perpetuity.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To simplify:

 

You, Jaybuck, are saying that it is up to interpretation about what is, and what is not, an ad.

 

I, RMA, am saying that's not true. If the ad is in force, it's an ad. If it is not in force, it's no longer an ad, and thus doesn't fall under the definition of an ad in the DMM.

 

No interpretation necessary.

[revat]

You beat me by 0 seconds.

 

i'm reading 2 seconds on my screen

[comicdonna]

You beat me by 0 seconds.

 

i'm reading 2 seconds on my screen

Ok. I owe you a milky way bar.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words...that valuable consideration was paid to be in effect for a certain period of time: that is, until the next ad comes out.

 

They were neither designed, nor intended, to be ads in perpetuity, and you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that that Milky Way ad from 1948 is intended to get people to go out and buy Milky Way bars in 2016.

 

too late, I just bought a new one after seeing the old ad

 

You can't. That version no longer exists.

 

[jaybuck43]

To simplify:

 

You, Jaybuck, are saying that it is up to interpretation about what is, and what is not, an ad.

 

I, RMA, am saying that's not true. If the ad is in force, it's an ad. If it is not in force, it's no longer an ad, and thus doesn't fall under the definition of an ad in the DMM.

 

No interpretation necessary.

 

RMA you are adding to the definition of an advertisement. That is OUTSIDE the DMM, which you said is unacceptable. The DMM definition for advertisement is 1) material in a publication that is 2) published in exchange for valuable consideration having been paid, accepted, or promised that 3) calls attention to something 4) for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it.

 

Within that definition the key question is 3 and 4. Why? Because we know number 1 to be true (it's in the publication so duh) and we can assume that valuable consideration was paid back in time. So now look at 3 and 4. Does the material call attention to something? Yup, whatever the concept was (be it a store, a food, an article of closing etc.) and is the purpose of the material to get an individual to buy it, sell it, seek it or support it? Well yea that is why they paid valuable consideration, they wanted people to do one of those things. There is no mention of whether or not something is in effect. You've added that concept. And by your own admission, nothing added to the DMM is acceptable. Thus your concept is inconsistent.

[CAHokie]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

[EC ed]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

 

Yep. We might as well go on and air out the whole trifecta....

 

#2: Is pressing restoration?

 

#3: Is it OK to use PayPal personal to pay each other for comics?

 

 

[nocutename]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I actually stopped sending comics via Media Mail a while back. I haven't even sold anything for long time and just getting back into the swing. I have a ton of Regional boxes too. Both sizes A and B. Good to know they will not go to waste.

[bababooey]

Jaybuck is right, I tried the "stale ad" argument with the Cdn Rev Agency (it affects the taxes on comics 13% vs no ads/TPB 5%) up here in Canada, it's more of a content vs advertising thing that they consider and determining whether it's an ad or not is based on the intent at time of printing. While I agree with the spirit of the argument RMA's making and even made it myself.

 

 

[seanfingh]

A textualism versus intentionalism debate in General Discussion is a real nightmare. #WTF

[Park]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

 

It's more interesting than the usual banter.

 

 

I am on team Jaybuck.

[Sqeggs]

I knew this was gonna happen when someone said "media mail" and "comics" in the same sentence

 

Yep. We might as well go on and air out the whole trifecta....

 

#2: Is pressing restoration?

 

#3: Is it OK to use PayPal personal to pay each other for comics?

 

 

 

What about shilling in HA OA auctions? I wanna talk about shilling!

[DR.X]

#4: Is Greggy really a dork?

[Iceman399]

#4: Is Greggy really a dork?

 

mess you said his name...cue up him showing in 10

[wombat]

I really don't understand the point of trying to argue the semantics of media mail. When the post office sends a bill to the recipient because there was a comic in it (with outdated ads for products that don't exist anymore) they certainly aren't going to change their minds when you hit them with a wall of meaningless text.

[Broke as a Joke]

But did that wall of meaningless text already expire?

[wombat]

But did that wall of meaningless text already expire?

 

If it did I'm sure a new one would be supplied in short order.

[CAHokie]

I really don't understand the point of trying to argue the semantics of media mail. When the post office sends a bill to the recipient because there was a comic in it (with outdated ads for products that don't exist anymore) they certainly aren't going to change their minds when you hit them with a wall of meaningless text.

 

 

This has always been my position. RMA and Jaybuck both bring up excellent points and counter points but at the end of the day the customer will still have to pay for that bill if it comes in.