The Elephant in the room

[RichJB]

Mmm, not really. Nobody owns the rights to generic foods and beverages like strawberry milkshake or blueberry muffins. At worst, vape recipes might commit trademark infringement. Recipes like Pebbles might be deemed to be using another company's trademark without permission, unless Manson got approval from Post for clearly alluding to their Fruity Pebbles trademarked cereal. But then, it's questionable whether Post would even mind. Vape juice and breakfast cereal aren't competitor products. I recently bought a pack of Froot Loops cereal purely as research for making a juice. I would never eat the stuff otherwise. So would Kellogg's have a problem with juices that clearly play off the Froot Loops trademark? I'm guessing not. It helps their brand awareness rather than hurting it, and can even increase sales rather than hurting them.

It would be interesting to see what happened if vaping ever got to the point where other companies were infringing vaping trademarks. If a coffee shop offered a "Smooth Morning Kick and Bronuts" special, would Lars or Wayne have a reason to try and stop them? It's not like consumers have to choose between the coffee shop's products and the vaping products. It would be helping the recipe creators to build public awareness of their brand.

We have already seen this to a very minor extent. One of Wayne's followers has a wife who makes soap. She made a Rhodonite scented soap using the same concentrates and formulation as Wayne's recipe. Wayne obviously won't litigate because the guy is a mate and he is chuffed that his Rhodonite juice has been made into a soap too. But even if he wasn't mates with the guy, soap and juice aren't competitor products. If Rhodonite soap raises awareness of his juice recipe, why would he care? The only time it might become harmful is if the public become confused about the timeline and think that Wayne's Rhodonite juice is ripping off the Rhodonite soap. But neither brand is big enough for that to happen yet.

 

[zandernwn]

I still have a fundamental issue with the ethics of those brands I believe are profiting from other people's work.

And I will continue to raise awareness in private conversations to make people aware of that.

But it also speaks to us as the consumers. Why are we supporting that, is it a simple matter of ignorance or have we just become so lacks that we no longer care about what is right or wrong

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[zandernwn]

Anyone can make a ceral recipe, I have no qualms with that. But when someone spends a considerable amount of time and resources developing a inovative and unique way of portraying that profile and someone just goes and takes that, then this is a real issue for me.

Then to have the nerve of not even trying to hide that fact... wreaks of arrogance and I will not stand for that.



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rude Rudi]

Zander, your concerns are valid and real but that is unfortunately not how the world works...sadly .

As covered already, everyone likes a deal and happy to pay a bit less for something - that's just the way it is. Look at the trade at China Malls and flea markets - if someone (in this economic climate) can get a Nike shirt for R80 vs R480 they will take it. Morals out the window. This will never stop/decline no matter what legislation says or what their/your moral standing is. This phenomenon is rife all over the world and a major economic driver for millions of people. The chain is massive - form the manufacturer to the seller and the consumer including logistics, retail, etc, etc - not to mention all the dependents in this value chain...

Your views are honorable but I'm afraid that's the way it is...no law, moral view or legal challenge will EVER stop this...It's simply human nature. If they cant get counterfeit goods abolished in North Korea then good luck to any other democratic society...

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Do you read the bible? Because nothing is new under the sun, everything is either stolen, adapted, or recreated with different hands.

Even if the recipe of contents are the same, who says the hands that made it form the same process that originally created it?

Do you know where those respective people got their recipes from?

This is free South Africa, and with recipes online, OBVIOUSLY we will use other people's recipes //logic

Don't know if this has been discussed before, if so feel free to point me there.

How many of our local mixologist simply use big name recipes and rebrand them as their own creations. Recently tasted two big local brands thats either adaptations or direct clones using Diyordie's and Notcharlesmanson's recipes.

Let's not name names, but does this happen a lot?

 

[Hardtail1969]

Mmm, not really. Nobody owns the rights to generic foods and beverages like strawberry milkshake or blueberry muffins.

well, actually, the ownership and rights issue related to foods, has already been established under US law, just go look at all the issues surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.

This is where, to all intents and purposes a supposed generic food, has some lab change a few small molecules, and then a patent is issued. can you tell the difference between a natural mother nature strawberry, and one that has the genes of a barbel spliced in somewhere?

This very problem has led to huge lawsuits with companies like monsanto on one side, and a farmer on the other...

So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

by the flavor descriptions alone I can tell you those are stolen.

stolen from God or who?

Do the flavour descriptions teach your taste buds the contents of the bottle or something>?

Do you know that DIY means Do it yourself- IF you can do a business by yourself, why should anyone stop you if recipes are available online, and everywhere, where you want to look.

Free world, Learn to live in it, not against it. You'll get nowhere.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Zander, your concerns are valid and real but that is unfortunately not how the world works...sadly .

As covered already, everyone likes a deal and happy to pay a bit less for something - that's just the way it is. Look at the trade at China Malls and flea markets - if someone (in this economic climate) can get a Nike shirt for R80 vs R480 they will take it. Morals out the window. This will never stop/decline no matter what legislation says or what their/your moral standing is. This phenomenon is rife all over the world and a major economic driver for millions of people. The chain is massive - form the manufacturer to the seller and the consumer including logistics, retail, etc, etc - not to mention all the dependents in this value chain...

Your views are honorable but I'm afraid that's the way it is...no law, moral view or legal challenge will EVER stop this...It's simply human nature. If they cant get counterfeit goods abolished in North Korea then good luck to any other democratic society...

Re-branding, For the win, may the best sex appeal win, so that you can choose the most sexy looking vape juice container in all the land. Is it really counterfeit when A Nike t-shirt is made in a different shop? No, it's just against the law, of the Monopoly Creators; who don't want anyone to use their proclaimed symbolism, because it's already such a good brand, if they damage the appearance of it, then blah blah blah -

But to call something that is produced in the exact same way as a stupid Nike factory, and tell people it's not worth your money, because it's not from the official nike shop is what this guy is going on about -- 'Stolen' Precious! MY PRECIOUS; Recipe rings!!! It's still the same thing, made by different hands, coming to you at a reduced price compared to if it was produced in the Brand Name shop.

Brand names are meant to be destroyed. Competition is everywhere, macro or micro environements; Learn to deal, or get out of the kitchen if you can't mix with others. @zandernwn

 

[Hardtail1969]

As a seperate or aside to this whole discussion about clones and theft of ip and the related...

Here is something to ponder...

Where would this world be, if there was only ford cars....
Only Westinghouse fridges
Only Nokia cellphones
Only Apple desktop computers
Only IBM Laptops
Only IBM Mainframe computers
Only RCA televisions
Only Steam Trains
Only Sailing ships - (For one...we would be spared that godawful titanic movie)...

This world is full of clones, full of copies, full of incremental changes and improvements to existing technologies, that then in turn are improved on, and in turn...

If this world worked the way that whoever invented something first, is the only one allowed to make changes or modify or improve in perpetuity, hell, we would still be paying UGG the neanderthal for inventing fire....

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

well, actually, the ownership and rights issue related to foods, has already been established under US law, just go look at all the issues surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.

This is where, to all intents and purposes a supposed generic food, has some lab change a few small molecules, and then a patent is issued. can you tell the difference between a natural mother nature strawberry, and one that has the genes of a barbel spliced in somewhere?

This very problem has led to huge lawsuits with companies like monsanto on one side, and a farmer on the other...

So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.

Do you even know what genetic modification is; because plants being placed in a different environment to grow, compared to where they were found is a practice of genetic modification.

In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species.

The genes changes just like yours do daily, based on what you stimulate them with, and with plants you are either adding or subtracting factors which will make them grow differently/ in a different climate.

Nothing wrong with it, do you expect the same apple trees to grow in a land after 30 years of drought and famine? :? no, they grow them somewhere else, to supply the same quantity, if not more.

 

[Feliks Karp]

A GMO by it's very nature is not a generic food, it is a manufactured product. So no you cannot copyright a strawberry, but a strawberry with a specific man-induced genetic makeup, yes you can. The monsanto law suits while shady were not over ownership over a generic food item, they were over the fact that the farmers were reusing seeds derived from crops grown with GMO seeds (ie not paying a second time for a seed stock) and for cross-polinating the seeds with other crops (altering a product, just like how you actually sign an agreement not to alter your cellphone when you buy it).

When it comes back to the receipe thing, if you are freely sharing your receipes it hardly becomes industrial espionage when some one takes it and sells it, morally yes it's wrong they should at the very least give you credit, but if your intent was to gain financially I'd have to wonder why you didn't sell the receipe or approach someone with manufacturing capabilities. We all had that kid at school who lied about what he did on the weekend, or who he knew or that his parents didn't help him with his professional level school assignment, they do grow up.

I also feel like the knock-off product examples are more relevant to the clones receipes handed out freely rather than some one "stealing" a free receipe, so it's ok to try and replicate an established brands product, allowing people to home brew approximates and make them suffer a financial loss? That seems to taste a little like hypocrisy.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

As a seperate or aside to this whole discussion about clones and theft of ip and the related...

Here is something to ponder...

Where would this world be, if there was only ford cars....
Only Westinghouse fridges
Only Nokia cellphones
Only Apple desktop computers
Only IBM Laptops
Only IBM Mainframe computers
Only RCA televisions
Only Steam Trains
Only Sailing ships - (For one...we would be spared that godawful titanic movie)...

This world is full of clones, full of copies, full of incremental changes and improvements to existing technologies, that then in turn are improved on, and in turn...

If this world worked the way that whoever invented something first, is the only one allowed to make changes or modify or improve in perpetuity, hell, we would still be paying UGG the neanderthal for inventing fire....

I would love Hemp cars. From all of the above, all we need is Hemp fields. It was 50x stronger than steel! SUCK ON THAT
Competition is the spice of life, and keeps our world spinning

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Further on what you said:

A GMO by it's very nature is not a generic food, it is a manufactured product. So no you cannot copyright a strawberry, but a strawberry with a specific man-induced genetic makeup, yes you can. The monsanto law suits while shady were not over ownership over a generic food item, they were over the fact that the farmers were reusing seeds derived from crops grown with GMO seeds (ie not paying a second time for a seed stock) and for cross-polinating the seeds with other crops (altering a product, just like how you actually sign an agreement not to alter your cellphone when you buy it).

When it comes back to the receipe thing, if you are freely sharing your receipes it hardly becomes industrial espionage when some one takes it and sells it, morally yes it's wrong they should at the very least give you credit, but if your intent was to gain financially I'd have to wonder why you didn't sell the receipe or approach someone with manufacturing capabilities. We all had that kid at school who lied about what he did on the weekend, or who he knew or that his parents didn't help him with his professional level school assignment, they do grow up.

I also feel like the knock-off product examples are more relevant to the clones receipes handed out freely rather than some one "stealing" a free receipe, so it's ok to try and replicate an established brands product, allowing people to home brew approximates and make them suffer a financial loss? That seems to taste a little like hypocrisy.

The genetic material of an organism encodes the instructions that guide its development. These codes are not written in stone; they can change or mutate any time during the life of the organism. Single changes in the code can occur spontaneously, as a mutation, causing developmental problems. Others, as an international team of researchers has discovered, are too numerous to be explained by random mutation processes present in the general population. When such multiple genetic changes occur before or early after conception, they may inform scientists about fundamental knowledge underlying many diseases. The study appears in Cell.

 

[RichJB]

Why are we supporting that, is it a simple matter of ignorance or have we just become so lacks that we no longer care about what is right or wrong

Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.

Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.

FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.

So yes, foods are patentable, and ownership of them has been established legally.

Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.

 

[Hardtail1969]

I do love splitting hairs... or hares... whichever is your pick...

As to my point about GM... you all were quick to pounce on explaining what GMO is, but missed my point...

Would you recognise a GM strawberry from a normal god or natural one?

Same goes for anything out there today... Nike's new Burkha or those chinese cloned vape gear...

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Pay it forward
Nobody can patent a Flavouring which has already been mass produced in foods ANYWAY>!

Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.

Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.

FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.



Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

I do love splitting hairs... or hares... whichever is your pick...

As to my point about GM... you all were quick to pounce on explaining what GMO is, but missed my point...

Would you recognise a GM strawberry from a normal god or natural one?

Same goes for anything out there today... Nike's new Burkha or those chinese cloned vape gear...

Then you are also not understanding the point of Genetically modified organisms, they grow everywhere they are able to, what if the GM organisms are healthier than the 'original' strawberry, I would pick the 'GM' one because it's bigger and healthier and growing even better in it's new environment.

Does God label a plant that got blown by the wind and say, YEAH That ***** is my Wind GM - That whole field is my seed-wind-squirt-field - Seeds can grow where they want instead of a straight line, and watch them flourish.

It's still a strawberry at the end of the day, a strawberry which will either sit in a container or be turned into a concentrate of some sort. Our consumerism is all that matters, and you're seeing the way a plant grows, in a different environment as the problem here...

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Maybe so and hence why I have not mentioned any names. These recipes are protected under non commercial, no derrivates creative commons licenses. It is not only illegal to make a profit from those recipes without explicit permission from the creator, but it is also in bad taste.

If you can't name and shame then you should not have added to this, What is the point of keeping your own contacts that act disgracefully all to yourself< This is a community, and awareness is all you can do with these 26 alphabet letters.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

My findings are pretty much in line with this. I have spent the greater of the last 6 hours reading up on it.

It seems recipe copyright is explicitly excluded from sa copright law as well and the only availible form of protection is patenting which requires demonstrable proof of invention in order to qualify.

I would be very interested to hear an expert opinion in this

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

You need to have a process, which is like no other, and also ingredients that nobody else can easily get, to patent something 'original' -----> then you need to brand it in such a way that it's unique to be it's own -> Recipe copyright should pertain to the patent of the product. You need to include it all to get the patent? Copy right is the distribution/manufacturing of a product, through a channel for a specified time.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

Thank you for this, I never knew this

BUT 1.) Is is US law, is this applicable to SA. I assume it is because copyright is a universally accepted difinition based on the limited reading I have done on it.

2.) It seems the only way to protect your recipes is to stop sharing it... that is an absolutly sad day for diy, I would have preferred an educated and vigilant community that would stand together and stop this from happening instead of allowing these "manufacturers" to get away with it.

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, billionaires have more right of way as opposed to non-millionaires. Manufacturers were established from the get-go =- Here we are - as hobbyists producing what we love to smoke, and guess what, Word of mouth travels, people hear of recipes being fantastic and so they dig their claws into the new information ASAP.

Would you pass up opportunities for new recipes/ways to get richer - Emphasis on UhRRR!! When you get new information found / on the free-internet? :? Doubt you would. They don't. Everything is for profit in this capitalist world.

When people can put others ahead of themselves, this world can change. But selfish stuck up people with money continuously stealing from us is preferably punished. But in return we also feel that we should steal from them, they started it right? :?

Circle of use -- Tis why there is nothing new under the sun. This world is for all of us, and recipes are RECIPES /
a set of instructions for preparing a particular dish, including a list of the ingredients required.

as you said, don't share the recipe IF you don't want other people coining your ideas. Keep it to yourself.

Have you heard of family recipes for pancakes, flapjacks, naan bread, Peshwari naan bread etc.
It stays within a specific, enclosed group to protect it, till death. ∞♥ Then the next generation can further or continue some work

 

[zandernwn]

stolen from God or who?

Do the flavour descriptions teach your taste buds the contents of the bottle or something>?

Do you know that DIY means Do it yourself- IF you can do a business by yourself, why should anyone stop you if recipes are available online, and everywhere, where you want to look.

Free world, Learn to live in it, not against it. You'll get nowhere.

Judging by your over the top reaction I assume you are one of them
As a matter of interest, what juice line is yours?

I have had the priviledge of comparing the juices and I know the originals very well.

It seems you have used so many words, yet contributed to little to the conversation

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[RichJB]

It should also be noted that copyright law is an ever-evolving instrument. Some US legal scholars have expressed concern that copyright law with regard to recipes needs to be updated and improved. For one thing, US copyright law makes no distinction between the recipe and the dish. Whether there should be a distinction is a matter for the learned minds in the legal sector to determine. Still, it is receiving attention on an ongoing basis.

Another factor is whether vaping recipes differ sufficiently from food recipes to merit special clauses or treatment by the law. The business models are quite different. With food recipes, the bulk of income is derived from sales of the recipes (cookbooks). With juice, the bulk of income is derived from sales of the product. There isn't a burgeoning juice recipe cookbook industry. HIC makes money by selling recipes but he is the exception, not the norm. However, my sense is that lawmakers will continue to lump all recipes together.

 

[Darryn Du Plessis]

There are countless sides to any argument,

I am a consumer, not a producer, but I have every intention of doing whatever I try make to the best of an ability,

DIY-For the future. Tis why this is such an interesting read.

There are so many movements like this happening in the world at the same time, so it's really informative to read everything you're all posting. It creates an over-the-top reaction inside me to share my own viewpoints of a consumer, and what we try to know too.

♥↨Yes∞

The Originals, start a vape series on it for knowing them so well please,

Local is lekker, I am a fixated supporter of all local juice makers of South Africa, all the coloured-people unite.

Judging by your over the top reaction I assume you are one of them
As a matter of interest, what juice line is yours?

I have had the priviledge of comparing the juices and I know the originals very well.

It seems you have used so many words, yet contributed to little to the conversation

Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[zandernwn]

Not everybody is supporting it. Some consumers won't support cloned/pirated/counterfeit products, others will. For those who will, there are several reasons why they would. Ignorance is one. Allied to that is apathy. Just because you are passionate about vaping doesn't mean that everybody is. The less passionate people are, the less they will care about IP. I'm sure there are people who are passionate about making jam at home. For them, it might be a huge issue if, say, Koo had ripped off All Gold's jam recipe. If I go to my PnP and some activist is standing with a picket board outside urging me to not support recipe piracy by buying Koo's jam, I'm going to ignore him. It might be a huge issue in his life. It isn't in mine.

Then there is the issue of money. Some people can scarcely afford to vape, they are going to take the cheapest option. This applies to hardware cloning too. I have several clones and have no issue with it. The way I see it, Dino Ferrari and Grimm/OhmBoy have not lost a sale from me owning Velocity and Recoil clones because I don't pay R1000-R1500 for an atty. If there were no clones of their drippers available, I would certainly not have bought originals. Instead of the clones, I would have bought a Tsunami or Limitless or some other cheap original. I could afford better gear but I choose not to. For me, vaping is a temporary means until I can quit everything and it's still not healthy for me, even if it's far less harmful than cigs. So blowing a huge stack of cash on it never made sense to me. I have other things to invest my money in.

FWIW I wouldn't buy any commercial juice which I knew or even suspected of being stolen from another recipe developer. But seeing as I don't buy any juice anyway and DIY everything I vape, that is a fairly meaningless gesture of support. I feel for Wayne and the problems he's having. But they are ultimately his problems. He's not going to help me solve my problems in life, I fail to see why I should feel obliged to help him solve his. Of course, he knows that, which is why he is not relying on consumer action to resolve this issue. He knows that consumers are concerned about their own problems, not his problems. Which is why I said originally that the solutions must be driven at manufacturer level. It's Wayne's business, he needs to sort it out. If you are willing to help him, that is generous and unselfish of you. But you will be the exception rather than the rule.



Yes but that is patents which are different from copyright which, in turn, is different from trademarks.

Look I get whqt you are saying here. But personally I struggle to see how you can steal a recipe and sell it off as your own.

I get why it happens but that doesnt mean that I have to stand for it. I buy commercial juice for the sole purpose of benchmarking my own skills and the majority of what I vape is my own.

In as far a s Wayne goes, I dont really care for his issues in this regards. But I do care for the culture we are creating and this will affect us all. Once we become a nuisance, we will draw even more negative publicity and ultimately targeted legaslature.

It requires a level of maturity to realise this, which judging by some of these comments, we as consumers, manufacturers and vendors dont seem to posses as a collective.

Something doesnt have to be illegal for it to be wrong, it just has to be wrong. As for my stand point I will continue to speak out against these vendors and discourge people from buying their products. Thid is my prerogative



Sent from my HUAWEI CRR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Feliks Karp]

But will you speak out against the people who put up clone receipes of commercial juices on DIY sub-forums and sites?