Colleges Secretly Test Music-Industry Project 208
An anonymous reader writes "The music industry is still pushing Choruss, a controversial blanket-licensing scheme, but it is far less innovative than first described. Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released because the issue is a political landmine — and who wants to be associated with the recording industry?"
The music industry is retarded (Score:2, Funny)
and that is no secret
Re:The music industry is retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The music industry is retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
What do I want from them?
a) No suing or prosecuting of non-commercial pirates.
b) No DRM, No laws forbidding circumvention tools.
c) Copyright terms that last no more than 30 years.
d) Don't attempt to shakedown or otherwise control radio in any form (terrestrial, sat or net).
Don't give me the impression that I am building my own gallows if I give them my money.
Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:5, Insightful)
The Canadians have their blank CD tax ostensibly because blank CDs are used to copy music. Great. But is it then legal to copy music in Canada? No. How does that even work?!
Doing this other blanket licensing stuff will enjoy similar respect in that anything acquired will be decidedly illegal until proven otherwise and even with proof, there is little doubt in my mind the recording industry will respect it as legal.
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:5, Informative)
The music industry created a loophole in Canadian copyright laws when it asked for a levy on blank audio media. These $0.21 to $0.24 levies on blank media raised millions of dollars for music publishers, but also legalized copying in the digital age, to the consternation of the music industry. Canadian courts have ruled that consumers have the right to copy any recording from the original copy even those they do not personally own. This consumer right has been extended by the courts to include peer-to-peer downloads.
Canadian Copyright Law [wikipedia.org]
So Canadians are allowed to make copies regardless of ownership because they are already taxed for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard drives, iPods and tapes also get taxed. USB keys as well I think.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. There was proposed legislation to make that happen, backed by Big Content. Just prior to the legislation being passed, however, Big Content started campaigning against it because they realized that it would, in fact, legalize p2p sharing in Canada. The legislation never got passed and there remains a bit of a legal haze around the issue.
Quite frankly, I don't think Big Content cares what happens in Canada when they can make their point using American law suits. International treaties, sure, b
Re: tax on iPod (in Canada) (Score:2)
I remember when I bought my first iPod there was a form I could fill and send in to get the "blank media" tax refunded.
This was some years ago so I don't know if it still works that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iirc, it's legal to download music in Canada.
Correct, but only if you are downloading it for your own personal use.
It's illegal to provide downloads
Incorrect.
There is no law against "making available", and "making available" is not covered under copyright. If you deliberately make copies to provide them to others, that would be illegal. If you make copies for yourself (by downloading or ripping them), and those copies just happen to be shared by filesharing software, that is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Part of it is that we look around and see silly things like roads, so apparently some of the money is being spent on the things they say it is being spent on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Man, silly world... (Score:4, Funny)
Man, if we come up with one or two more anecdotes, we might have some data!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So go beat the crap out of your city councilmen; what the hell are you telling us for?
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of a road doesn't mean the road was built using taxes collected to build roads.
In our fair city, our roads are (were) falling apart. One main bit of road was mis-constructed twenty years ago and the joints in the concrete were now misaligned. This wasn't dangerous or harmful, but it resulted in "thump thump" noises as you drove over it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the parent comment again (and your own apparently), it is a screed against taxes of any form, not against the Canadian cd tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live the gas taxes are supposed to pay for the roads but any new freeway is setup as a toll road.
Where's that gas tax money going again?
Did someone drink up the road repair fund?
You laugh but that happens in some places...
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live the gas taxes are supposed to pay for the roads but any new freeway is setup as a toll road.
Where's that gas tax money going again?
Well, see, they need to pay for the construction and ongoing maintenance and operation of that toll booth, and they need to build the road bigger to handle all the backed-up traffic waiting to pay the toll...
Re:Man, silly world... (Score:4, Informative)
And roads are funded by gasoline tax NOT the compact disc tax, so your example is completely and totally irrelevant.
Um, actually that makes GP's example very relevant.
"Why do people think taxes are used for what they say they are?"
"Because other taxes, such as road use taxes, actually go towards road repairs."
Now if you had said that the taxes collected via the road use tax just ends up in a bucket with all the other taxes, which gets spent on things like roads, police, garbage collection, recycling, etc, regardless of how much each one brought into the bucket, then you'd have had a point.
Also I paid nearly $25,000 in taxes last year.
That figure is meaningless without some idea of your pre-tax income. For all I know that may only be half your weekly income.
Re: (Score:2)
That figure is meaningless without some idea of your pre-tax income. For all I know that may only be half your weekly income.
If you looked at the gp post, I would say his pre-tax income was nearly $75k. Ya know something about a third of his income blah blah blah...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do think it's made burning dubs de facto legal though...
SOCAN acronym expands like Big-O weaponry... (Score:2)
The levy isn't paid to big music. It's paid to SOCAN [wikipedia.org], which in turn distributes the tariff to its members based on need. That indy band, if it's a member of SOCAN, will probably be getting more than they pay into the levy out of it.
That is one fucked-up acronym right there...
"Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada" = SOCAN ...Huh? Shouldn't it be SOCAMPOC? What is SOCAN? "Society Of (composers, authors, and music publishers of) CANada"? "Society Of Composers, Authors, (and music publishers) of Ncanada"? Couldn't any society in and of Canada be called SOCAN?
Re: (Score:2)
But: Do we care?
No, really! Are we really so weak and pathetic to care, whenever the designated crazy person of the world goes on again, declaring him a new set of rights?
I don't see this ever happening.
Oh, those who have a very twisted view of what is "politically correct", and the weakest spines in the whole universe, will cave in so the dwarf.
But unofficially, everyone will simply ignore them. Hell, look at Sarkozy. Officially: "Oh hell yeah, we need the 3 strikes law". Unofficially he shares so much mus
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy... I'm sorry for the typos. I swear, I proofread it. It's just that this is the first thing I did in the morning. I should have proofeaten my breakfast first, perhaps. ^^
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Individuals do not have access to government. Government is influenced by money. The corruption is plain and obvious for all to see and neither the government nor those who are influencing government with money are the slightest bit ashamed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, of course not. They form a government, and things go on as always.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read Martin Greenberg's Freedom [webscription.net] (link to sample chapters at the Baen free library)
It contains a number of excellent Sci Fi short stories about the absence of government.
Re: (Score:2)
I can call the government and have a chat, anytime. Police, fire dept, senator's office, VA, and other stuff i'm sure. I guess i could call the FBI but i have no idea why i would need to? The president is wayyy to busy to talk to me though : /
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada it is legal, under Section 80 of the Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca], to copy a recording for one's personal use. It is not legal to distribute copies.
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
3000 is probably the wrong number to use in that argument, you can get 1000 cds stamped (and printed and shipped) for $750, your sales better be awful incremental if burning blanks a few at a time makes more sense than risking the $750 for nice looking stamped discs. $1100 gets you retail ready packages.
Re: (Score:2)
commenting to undo an erroneous mod
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
If there's no sueage covenant, why in the HELL would any school even consider this hare-brained scheme? I hope the names of these schools (if indeed they exist; Warner is a ly
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the music isn't for sale in Canada. Though this is more due to the Canadian judiciary being relativly sane than anything else.
How does that even work?!
More money for the (big) record companies.
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:4, Insightful)
As an artist, no way would I let someone download my entire library of songs for a monthly fee. It's simply not fair.
Why not? Serious question. If I subscribe to a service with a monthly fee, it's because I want to be able to listen to lots of new stuff. If you're not producing new stuff, then once I've downloaded everything from you that I want then I won't pay you any more. How is this different to buying a CD? You don't get paid every time I listen to a CD and you don't get paid if I sell the CD to someone else later. If your music is good, then I'll want to download your next album, so I'll keep paying the subscription and when you release something new I'll download that too and you'll get more money. If it's not good then I won't download anything else from you.
The problem with the Canadian system is that there's a disconnect between the music people copy and the people who get paid. If someone likes a band and gives a copy to their friend, this is not recorded anywhere. If they sent a link to download it, covered by their monthly subscription, then it would be and the bands that produce the music people download would get more money.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
>>>I think a monthly subscription is only fair if when the subscription ends you lose access to my music.
By this reasoning, all my previous employers should continue paying me a residual fee for the rest of my life, just because I created some schematics for them. (Or else return the schematic to me.) I don't understand why artists believe they have the right to eternal payments, when none of the rest of us workers have that right. We work; we get paid. When we get fired or laid-off, we s
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why artists believe they have the right to eternal payments, when none of the rest of us workers have that right.
Because in most cases, that's how their contracts are worked out (except for the "eternal" part). It's called deferred compensation. You could try negotiating such a contract with your employer, where you get paid less while you're working 40-hour weeks and then get residual payments for a certain amount of time afterwards, but since that isn't standard practice in most industries, most employers won't go for it. Similarly, a musician could try to negotiate for a contract where they only got paid once and r
Re:Blanket licensing is never legal (Score:5, Insightful)
essentially you'd be downloading my music for a fraction of the retail cost.
Since there's no packaging, no physical media, no cover art, not shipping, no retail overshead, it should be a fraction of the retail cost.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. Wikipedia says this:
Which means that if I copy your music, and you don't get played on radio, you don't get a cent from it. Celine Dion does though. Which IMO is completely bizarre an
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Radio stats don't necessarily match the popularity in other mediums though. Here radio stations keep playing various 80s stuff everybody heard 500 times before. So long radio stations keep playing ancient hits those people will
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with one and one only of them: the fan buys music from the artist.
I disagree with any taxes or any systems where any artist except the one's music I'm playing gets paid. It's simple - if anybody but you would get paid in exchange for me having your music, I won't pay anybody at all.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The levy is a perversion of the rightful order of things.
It doesn't support "starving artists", it supports whoever gets played on radio, and those generally don't need t
Re: (Score:2)
No, I saw it just fine. My reply was:
But, I just came up with a new argument. You said:
So what if that doesn't actually work?
Suppose you have a budget of $100 a month to buy music, which you spend on albums that cost $15 each. That gives you 6 albums.
Additionall
Re: (Score:2)
I buy CDs pretty much exclusively to burn Linux distros
Most distros can install from USB these days... it's way faster!
An older computer that can't boot from USB will need a CD, but that's the only reason not to use USB.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that if I copy your music, and you don't get played on radio, you don't get a cent from it. Celine Dion does though. Which IMO is completely bizarre and a perversion of how things should be. If somebody's going to get paid I'd rather it be the right person.
If there were any justice, Celine Dion would be required to pay us every time her "music" is played on the radio!
Not that mere money could undo the damage of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Blank CDs are mostly used to copy copy written material.
Why should musicians care if you put a bunch of text from a copywriter on a CD?
Pro tip: The word you were looking for is "copyrighted".
Anonymous Cowards? (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, this wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD that costs them a few cents to make. You know... a CD with 7 songs on it where 5 of the songs suck, 1 song is ok, and you really only wanted that 1 song you paid the $30 bucks for.
Instead, they want to sue Apple over royalties for the 30 second song previews on iTunes.
Music's worth it; labels aren't. (Score:4, Interesting)
wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD
I don't think that $12-$15 (or a buck or two per track) is really an unfair price for even a half-decent CD, really (and I don't think many people pay $30). It may be vanishingly cheap to transmit bits or print them into plastic and foil discs, but it's a lot of work to create music. Paying for it is one good way to make sure the people who make it can keep doing it. Not that it's not good for artists to sometimes sell lower or even give music away, and not that I don't agree there's a lot of crap out there that isn't worth paying for. Just that the most common prices don't seem unreasonable to me given the work involved in making music.
The labels and publishers, on the other hand... increasingly irrelevant middlemen and control freaks who add a lot of overhead and a questionable amount of value.
Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair price is a misleading question. The real question is whether they are pricing their product in the best way to maximise profits and I strongly suspect that they are not. I pay about the cost of an album every month to a company that lets me rent DVDs (two at once, as fast as I can watch them and post them back) and stream an unlimited number of TV shows and films. In comparison with this, an album seems stupidly expensive. According to iTunes, I haven't listened to any of my albums more than 128 times and very few more than 30 times. There aren't any that I've been listening to with 100% of my attention, so in terms of money per time spent entertained, music is much more expensive than video.
At the current prices, I'll buy 2-6 albums per year. If you priced an album at $1-2 then it would be an impulse purchase. If I heard a song I liked on Radio Paradise, then I'd buy the rest of the album to see if I liked it. Perhaps I'm unusual, but I suspect that I'm no. The cost of producing music has dropped a lot in the last few decades, but the cost of buying it has not. Meanwhile, the cost of other forms of entertainment has dropped a lot and music seems proportionally much more expensive. I've read a couple of studies indicating that around 5-15/track is the optimum price for maximising profit when selling music but the music industry seems to think that 99/track is the right price (which is fine) and that they should expect the same number of sales that they'd get with 5/track (which is completely unreasonable) and then blame piracy for their failure to adapt.
Coincidentally, Ars published quite a nice round up on this subject today [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in college, I didn't buy "new" music. I bought it USED and at seriously discounted prices. The used music stores on campus did brisk business. It should be little surprise that those with the least amount of cash are spending the least. The whole "problem" is just more visible now.
A kid has never had to pirate in order to deprive the label of it's cut.
The labels were living in a bubble caused by a format change and an attempt to kill off the single.
Well, the single refused to die & there is n
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm unusual, but I suspect that I'm not
Well, I'd do the same and I'm pretty unusual, I suspect you are too.
Why is it I can buy a DVD for $5 but a CD is $15-20 (or more)?
Re: (Score:2)
The gist of your argument is that you understand the demand elasticity for DVDs better than the people whose livelihood depends on maximizing their profits
Yes, basically. And, given the fact that they have falling profits, have consistently failed to adapt their business model to changing economic realities, and keep chasing 'solutions' like DRM that can't possibly actually work even in theory, I don't see that this is a particularly unlikely. But don't take my word for it, look on Google Scholar or your favourite academic search site and you'll find professors of economics who have published detailed analyses indicating that music is not priced correctly t
Re:Music's worth it; labels aren't. (Score:4, Interesting)
Normal CD price here is 20€ which at current rates is $29.5. Add to the insult the fact that there are no web stores that would sell non-DRM music to a linux user in Finland (I'd love it if someone proves me wrong, btw).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.klicktrack.com/klicktrack/home [klicktrack.com] have Memento Materia and other strangeness.
MP3s at highest bitrate. About the rates of iTunes.
http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com] might or might not accept you. They seem to be doing a lot of strange things to non-American visitors, but their selection is wide enough to lie for ;)
Plain MP3 or XUL-based downloader. Cheaper than iTunes.
http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] for independent artists.
FLAC, Vorbis, MP3, AAC, WAV. No iTunes comparison, but you can either buy downloads or CDs cheap for
Re: (Score:2)
www.gomusic.ru
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that $12-$15 (or a buck or two per track) is really an unfair price for even a half-decent CD, really
It's not horrible, but I think part of what ticks people off is the impression that the record labels save lots of money by distributing online and also get a bigger cut of the price, and yet they keep the price the same and sit around complaining about how they're not making enough money. I don't think people are quite as upset about paying the $10-$15 for an album as they're upset about that money going to, as you say, "increasingly irrelevant middlemen". The perception is that, if you cut out that midd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Writing music is easy. Writing music is quick too. Someone at the top of their game could knock together a decent tune in a day. Another day to add some words. Another day for some polish.
The only reason I can see for long timeframes is that the artists are not at the top of their game and hence should not expect as much as the get... or expect everything they get.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, this wouldn't even be so much of a problem if the music industry (these publishers) charged a reasonable price for a CD that costs them a few cents to make.
Well, since all valuation is subjective, I don't think anyone can come to a fair price. What you see as fair may to me be horrendously expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
The DVD market is a very effective counterexample. There is a WIDE range
of prices between formats and different works of various ages and levels
of popularity.
You've got The Wizard of Oz selling for $50 while an 18 month old action
movie is in the bargain bin for $5. "Classics" or cult hits with a
dedicated fan base continue to fetch higher than retail prices while the
"Top of the pops" quickly get devalued.
The price of the actual physical product is quite meagre. People get real
snail spam for disk pri
Let's turn it around. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, probably not the greatest of plans, but much better than a college handing it's own students over to the RIAA.
Awesome. (Score:2)
How's this for an idea. A band signs with a college instead of a record label. The college pays the band, everyone at the college gets their music for free.
Awesome. And the band gets an education from the college, instead of the record industry!
Though to be fair, I'm sure the record industry is a very educational experience...
Re: (Score:2)
The college pays the band, everyone at the college gets their music for free.
You have a strange definition of 'free'. Plus, that's just one band. This is nothing like the college handing its students to the RIAA. Read the article.. the spokesperson actually speaks some sense, apart from his bullshit about "being excited which price point is optimal for the recording artist" or whatever he said. Presumably that means the cheapest they can pay them while still keeping them onboard.
This kind of service is a *good* idea, it's just the fact that it's being controlled by the RIAA that is
What about... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest of it, that's the nature of Taxation. Everyone pays because everyone can benefit, and it's up to them if they choose to. The cost won't be covered by only some paying. Plus, there's the deficit to be made up from people unable to pay.
Tax isn't bad when it's done right; I.e., when the revenue raised is appropriated appropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get out more. Or watch international news. Or local news in any large city. Or those Christian's Children Fund commercials with Sally Struthers. There's far sadder out there than not listening to music. Some of us just don't enjoy it.
And the case for using taxation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about this:
The most unusual feature of Choruss is that users would be able to download any song in the collection to their own computers, with no restrictions. Unlike Apple's iTunes, which charges about a dollar per song for unrestricted downloads, this would be an all-you-can-grab song buffet. Want to make CD's? Sure.
What if they want to make CDs, and then they want to sell those CDs? Copyright only governs the creation of a copy, but once a copy is created you're generally allowed to sell it. Does the license forbid such reselling? Is it enforceable?
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I would pretty well assume that the license does forbid every selling or giving away your copies, and that if that's not legal, Congress will make it legal and if it shouldn't be enforceable, the courts will enforce it anyway.
I'd still be interested if someone has more informative answers to my questions, but in a larger sense I was trying to call attention to the increasingly confusing terms of ownership in our society. When I "buy" a CD, I own the CD. If I buy the same album as a digita
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I attended an IT conference last year where Choruss was discussed. Given the regard we /.ers have for the technically-minded, I was surprised at the attitudes other college's IT directors had towards this system.
The main complaints they had about music piracy were having to deal with RIAA notices and bandwidth sucked up by P2P. My own campus is fairly enlightened - not-too-terrible packet shaping and a per-MAC address bandwidth cap. Each student gets 1 Mb/s and any relevant RIAA bitch notes.
Other campuse
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another substantial change from the early days of the proj ect is that the licenses now would be with individual students rather than with colleges—although on some campuses, student governments or other groups may agree to pay the fee on behalf of students.
It's not a direct answer, but could be relevant. If the licensing scheme is with individual students now, I would bet that the students have to sign or agree to something in order to participate. Thus, if they don't want to participate, ideally they just could avoid that license agreement. But you are right, the article is scant on details regarding that particular aspect and it wouldn't surprise me if any opt-out option that was there got mired and intertwined with some other form of student regi
RIAA is more hated than IRS (Score:2, Insightful)
And music was supposed to be entertainment..
The really interesting part of the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
What? How do they expect that to work? Are service providers going to force me to install some metering software? How will it count plays on portable music players?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OS X? Dream on. They'll tell you the same as they do when you want a Linux version: Tell you to install Windows. The fuckers.
This system is as usual initiated by people who don't know anything about technology. You'd think they at least knew about iPods (generic MP3 players might be a stretch - the average person over 50 is a technological moron ;). Hacks to stop the counter will be ready by official launch day.
Re:The really interesting part of the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
evil (Score:2)
figures.
I have a dream... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting thought, but you just come right back to a record company model. Let's say you're a financial institution in the business of giving out loans. An artist comes to you saying that they want to shoot a music video to promote their debut album. You are likely not going to give this artist any money unless you can be convinced that this artist will be profitable and be able to repay the loan. So what
Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? (Score:4, Insightful)
Won't most of the students get sued the day after graduation, when they are no longer associated with the college and haven't deleted their music collections?
Re:infinite, free music for a one time fee? (Score:4, Insightful)
No problem. Even after students stop paying the Choruss subscription fee, they will be able to keep all the songs they have downloaded. "They get to keep them the rest of their lives," as Mr. Griffin put it. That differs from some subscription music services, which allow access only while users are active members of the service. What's to stop students from paying for one month and downloading the whole collection? "Nothing," said Mr. Griffin.
Other folks at other companies considering similar models even go on to say:
"We're not going to stop file sharing—it's probably going to happen in one form or another, and it's probably folly to try and stop it," said Charlie Moore, a Noank official who has traveled to campuses in the past few months to drum up interest. "If we're able to use consumption data to compensate the rights holders of a particular recording, then we think we've got a handle on a fair and equitable model for rights going forward."
That is a beautiful bit of reality right there and a much improved level of insight regarding the file sharing world by recording industry insiders. This may not be the best solution yet, I don't know, but at least these folks are trying to do something productive for both their business and their customer base (college students) rather than attempting to bankrupt the latter while clinging to an outdated version of the former. I find the attitude quite refreshing myself.
Re: (Score:2)
But seeing as the whole industry is going down the tubes anyway
No, the industry isn't dying, just changing. The major labels are no longer needed by anybody; they're the only ones who will die. The artists, engineers, instrument makers, songwriters, and everyone else will be better off.
Re:Thank you, RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Six colleges are setting it up now, but they refuse to have their names released
The music industry says there are six colleges, but the six won't let their names out? How are they supposed to keep a service used by all their students secret?
I call bullshit on these lying bastards. Everything the RIAA labels do is based on a lie, starting with the lie that P2P costs sales when every study says "pirates" spend more on music than anybody. Well, P2P does cost RIAA labels sales; if you buy two or three indie CDs, that's money you don't have to buy an RIAA CD.
And thank you, reverendbeer, for pointing out that these lying bastards DON'T own rights to all music. They don't. We need to call these lying sociopaths out at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Last music CD I bought: Can't remember
Who recorded that?
Re:Still feeds the beast (Score:4, Interesting)
Don T. Knowe and the Hoocares, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)