MP3.com goes public: Public goes Crazy 90
mykey2k writes "Anyone remember this story back in March? Well, MP3.com went public Wednesday. There's a story here, which seems to have some details. "
It opened at $28, and went over $100 a share before leveling
out the in the $60s.
Puuuuhhhhlease (Score:1)
Give me a break. Abig one. It's exactly this kind of rhetoric that strains the credibility of the entire MP3 "movement" (and probably the OS movement as well, since you drew the parallel)
Sorry, Charlie, but people have been making music because they want to for quite a while now - MP3 isn't going to change that. Anyone with any talent and (more importantly) the character to believe in themselves and drive towards their vision is already out there making music, and the lack of a mega-$$$ contract isn't stopping them. Some get lucky, some wallow in obscurity, but I seriously doubt that the ability to now post MP3 versions of their work is going to be a revolutionary capability for most. This is even leaving aside the fact that something like MP3.com is really just going to turn into another record label - exposure is everything when there are 10 zillion people posting their music, and MP3.com has the name brand at the moment, and will have the influence to make/break artists just like the major labels.
This argument is _exactly_ the same one that was advanced in the context of writing in the early days of the Web when HTML was hot - "Just imagine - anyone can just post their writing to the web without a publishing deal - it'll revolutionize journalism and literature".
And guess what happened.....all those closet writers that were'nt getting exposure turned out to be no-talent hacks, and were unpublished for a reason. This isn't to say that things didn't change in the mechanism of their delivery, but when was the last time you heard of any significant work of literature being published on the Net because the author couldn't get a publishing deal.....
Anyway, I certainly hold no love for large corporate conglomerates and would love to see this democratize the music biz and relegate Mariah Carey, Back Street Boys, Rickey Martin etc etc to a parallel universe far, far away, but I guess I'm just not that optimistic about human nature. At the moment, people use mp3 primarily to get stuff for free, legitimately or otherwise. As soon as they have to pay for it, it will lose its lustre and become just another business.
Daytraders got poor quick (Score:2)
Re:Just another label...... (Score:1)
Actually I was listening to the CEO of MusicMatch the other day and he had some numbers that were pretty interesting. According to him, only 9% of the MP3's on the net are pirated. Yes that was 9%, not 90%.
The real tragedy is... (Score:2)
Seriously though, the stock will settle down to the 30's I think and then pick up. Right now, their revenue is 85% advertising based, on just a few advertisers, so they really need to do some conventional advertising to pick up artists.
If MP3.COM would say, hand out cards and stickers at concerts, they would reach a crowd that:
a) obviously likes music, and
b) probably makes music.
For MP3.COM to really take off and make a profit, they will need to get some bands that get real airplay. They need to converge the digital medium with say radio. Get some stations to play MP3.COM bands for example. That would help bring awareness to the site and the artists.
Just my $.02,
Gee, wish I knew this YESTERDAY!!!! (Score:1)
--synaptik
what the heck (Score:1)
And yes, I lost money. Quite a bit in fact.
Mental note to self: Next time, if it opens at exorbitant prices, WAIT BEFORE BUYING...
NOBODY KNOWS how much this thing's worth (Score:1)
They do have several money making possibilities, and with these kinds of stocks they can make an announcement that will send the shares through the roof.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
However, they haven't made a profit yet.
Re:How do you figure $4Billion? (Score:2)
Yes, but they don't sell the whole company -- just a fraction, actually. That's how Jeff Bezos of Amazon and the Yahoo boys became billionaires overnight; each of them owns a significant fraction of their company's stock. Microsoft stock is the vast majority of Bill Gates fortune. If they sold off all the shares in the IPO, they'd also lose control of the company.
Most stock sources will give you the market capitalization, which is the total number of shares times the current stock price. I think I got my numbers via excite.com.
It's a weird system. People generally buy stock not for the dividends (with a few exceptions, like utilities, that have pretty consistent earnings), but for the expectation that someone else will want to pay more for it later, and that later person is buying it for that same reason. Generally the only time stock valuation really has direct meaning is when one company buys another.
Only direct buyers did good (Score:3)
Sheesh, ~$4 billion market-cap for that company.
Just looked at their share values today (Score:1)
Methinks yesterday's high shares were investors wanting to milk the shares for all they were worth, before selling.
On the other IPO, BeOS seems to be doing ok-ish. Their shares seem to roller-coaster, but not by very much. Certainly, nobody's made any spectacular profit, there.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
2) They aren't.
3) No.
Becomes bigger than EMI (Score:2)
Re:Daytraders got poor quick (Score:1)
"obsolete metrics like revenues" (Score:1)
I can't pay my rent with ideas.
I can't retire on ideas.
Sooner or later it has to come down to money. Somebody's got to come up with a way to make money off of all of these ideas, and so far the batting average of internet-based companies is pretty low.
Your sig's not quite right (Score:1)
...unless all you want is for it to construct a copy of itself and evaluate it in an infinite loop. For a Quine that returns a copy of itself, try this (though I've seen Scheme interpreters that handled quotes differently so you might have to play with it a bit):
((lambda (x)
(list (list 'lambda '(x) x) (list 'quote x)))
'(list (list 'lambda '(x) x) (list 'quote x)))
I also have one that makes an infinite loop:
((lambda (x)
(eval (list (list 'lambda '(x) x) (list 'quote x))))
'(eval (list (list 'lambda '(x) x) (list 'quote x))))
Don't try this one unless you're quick on the interrupt key -- on MacGambit at least, yours runs forever in constant space, but mine eats the entire heap, almost before I can reach the button to stop it.
David Gould
Re:Buisness Plan? (Score:1)
How do you figure $4Billion? (Score:1)
Is there somethign I'm missing here?
where is the $4B number from?
Thanks,
Brian
Agreed. (Score:1)
Doonesbury (Score:1)
http://www.doonesbury.com/dailydose/
Why the stock got bid up (Score:3)
Greater fool theory, indeed!
Re:How do you figure $4Billion? (Score:1)
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
We need a "market" icon (Score:3)
I don't really care about any of this. I'm not so egotistical as to think that my opinions should change slashdot, but I would greatly appreciate it if a new "market" catagory could be created so I could have an easier time filtering this stuff out.
Thanks,
-OT
Why? (Score:2)
IPO-mania (Score:2)
With all hype today about internet, people think they can make money of it easily.
(I will not be surprised if the same people are the people that answer "make $$$ quick" scams).
Some hype has gone over MP3, and *bang* MP3.com sales like hotcakes.
Linux hype? Slashdot is allover that redhat IPO, and soon Caldera and SuSE.
Anti-Microsoft? BeOS IPO sells!
Portals and "Web"? See how much Yahoo and amazon makes!
Basicly all of these (except for BeOS and Amazon) give away their products for nothing,
but "they will make tons of cash" since they are buzzword related.
At the end these companies will fall down like pyramid scams,
this can hurt economy quite much when it does.
(my bet would be this december, just before "Y2K" hype).
Investors today don't care about the product, but the name.
I recall story of a model-boat company changing their name to boat.com -
they trippled their value within a day before the investors knew they only sell models of boats.
And this company may have revenues much higher than mp3.com
(again, how will they make money?)
This is also the case for the cybersquatters thinking "suckmypole" will sell for $1000s,
and wondering why noone buys from them.
Except for mp3.com and cnet, I havn't seen a website that's most of it's value is it's domain(s).
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
Re:these companies make a "loss" (Score:1)
Re:Gee, wish I knew this YESTERDAY!!!! (Score:1)
i'm not a member myself, but i know a few friends who got the offer.
none of them took it up, of course. heh.
Re:We need a "market" icon (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
It's not all "Click here to get a great price on bicycles!"
Re:Gee, wish I knew this YESTERDAY!!!! (Score:1)
Re:"obsolete metrics like revenues" (Score:1)
A friend wanted my advice and bought me lunch. Another friend wanted an hour's brainstorming and cooked me dinner. I can buy food with ideas.
>>I can't pay my rent with ideas.
The fastest growing method of buying property in Silicon Valley is signing over stock. These people are all "paying rent" with ideas.
>>I can't retire on ideas.
Arabs came up with the idea of selling access to the black sticky stuff their camels slipped in. Breeders sell the idea that their prize bull's semen might produce great cows. Plenty of ideas have huge value before they produce a penny in profit.
>>Sooner or later it has to come down to money. Somebody's got to come up with a way to make money off of all of these ideas, and so far the batting average of internet-based companies is pretty low.
Here you're right... and this was my only point. Value isn't just about revenues. It's about potential. And the web is only a couple of years into a forty-year phenomenon - which creates lots of potential.
Michael now richer than whole RIAA (Score:2)
A note for anyone valuing this company (or any other Net stock) by obsolete metrics like revenues: those billions are built on the concept, not the company. Concepts in the end are more powerful than earnings. After all, a little concept called "money" was powerful enough to survive losing the only thing that gave it value - being backed by gold.
I'd bet people were saying the same thing about paper money then as they say about Net stocks now.
Not quite (Score:1)
shot above $100. Day traders would have made 25%.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Not quite (Score:1)
Not all of them, but a lot... (it's common for them to get 5 or 6 a week).
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Not quite (Not Quite) (Score:1)
can get in on a lot of good IPO's through E*TRADE.
You don't have to be anyone special; just willing
to hold the IPO for at least 30 days (otherwise
you won't get any more IPO's... they want
stability).
I could have gotten in on the Hoover IPO, which
increased from $14 to almost $30 yesterday...
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Not quite (Not Quite) (Score:1)
daytraders put in bids before the market opened.
The sooner the better. Then the market makers took
those orders on a priority basis, first come,
first served (best price of course). This
continued until it hit 105, at which point the
daytraders began their profit-taking, which
continued on down to ~$60.
The only way you lost money on it was if you
bought it higher than you sold it. If you didn't
sell it yet, you didn't lose any money. (You just
missed out on MAKING money for the timebeing.)
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Daytraders got poor quick (Score:1)
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Why? (Score:1)
relatively straight-forward. The market saw a low
priced stock and thought that it could get higher,
and then Ohhhh shinny buzzwords.
Poing poing. Buzz buzz. mp3 buzz,
intenet buzz.
I feel like a ferret playing with shinny round objects.
-cpd
(if you miss the reference read www.sluggy.com)
Daytraders (Score:1)
For example, day trader T notices stock RHAT is on an upward trend, so he buys. Some time later, when the trend is no longer upward, he dumps RHAT. Similarly, if stock BEOS is on a downward trend, he sells, and picks it up later when the price bottoms out. Doing this a few ticks (price levels) at a time is known as scalping. Note that T doesn't have to own BEOS to sell it -- this is known as a short sell. Things are a bit more complicated in real-life, because of weird trading rules like no shorts on a down tick.
So the long and short (heh) of it is this: daytraders probably had a ball (and made a killing) on MP3.com because there was huge volatility. More likely, the unsophisticated traders without real-time market information and execution systems got killed. But that is how the stock market works.
Re:Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Stock options and employee stock purchase plans are two different things. An option means you have the option (imagine that!) of buying shares sometime in the future for a given price. For example, if you have 1000 options for $0.01, and the stock price goes to $2.00, when you excercise it you pay $10 and receive $2000 in one transaction.
When you just get a special price on your shares, thats known as a employee stock purchase plan. Quite different. If that is what you have, make sure you check out any restrictions on the shares, particularly if the company is not publicly traded. For example, they might sipulate that if you quit, the company can buy them back at $0.01, or whatever. Lots of companys do this to encourage loyalty.
Incidentally, options are usually better. There is zero risk, because you have the choice of not excercising. With any other stock purchase, the price could go down. Also, it doesn't require the upfront capital, which can be hard to come by, as you point out.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Gee, wish I knew this YESTERDAY!!!! (Score:1)
Buisness Plan? (Score:2)
I'm very happy with slashdot (Score:1)
Since BeOS and MP3.COM went public, they are going to be viewed in a new light by investors which may adversely or positively influence their products and services.
Side note on mp3.com:
- Only certain people (such as artists on MP3.COM, employees, and big time investors) were allowed to buy mp3.com at the IPO (Initial Public Offering) price
- The IPO was initially around $12
- The IPO jumped to $18, $24, and finished on $28
- When the stock was available for the "everyday stock buyer" the price opened at 92!
- The stock hit a high of 103, and is now slowly slumping back to it's real worth. (At this writing it is 55.
For more information try going to
Datek Online [newsalert.com] which is a free site for stock info and quotes.
what happened eh? (Score:1)
What has rob been smoking?
Re:We need a "market" icon (Score:1)
I'd make one other suggestion though. How about a upcoming-IPOs-which-will-make-you-very-rich category, or is that asking too much?
Nick Barnes
(who's missed out on every single IPO going so far)
MP3.com's stock is high because.. (Score:4)
buying into the idea of MP3s with
MP3.com, not any profitability, etc.
You make a bet with MP3.com that it will become
the dissemination spot for MP3s in the
next few years, and that owning the online
MP3 market is worth something.
That's the reason it's bid into the billions;
people are buying a chance at ownership of
all online MP3 distribution.
If this doesn't make sense to you, then amazon.com
stock prices probably don't either, for the
same reason -- people are buying the risky
chance that amazon.com will become the online
clearing house for many goods.
Note that amazon.com is down today on their
earnings reports, which are not substantially
lower than analysts expected. What's lower
is the volume growth in revenue -- the market
is upset that amazon is not growing quickly.
They're perfectly happy to fund a cash-loss
business scheme at this point, as evidenced
by amazon.com's market-cap. They're not pleased
that amazon.com's growth is slowing.
It will be the same story with RedHat --
the market will be buying "Linux" by buying
redhat. Expect it to be huge.
Incidentally, I did get in on the MP3 IPO.
Tripled my money in 2 hours. I will do the
same for RedHat if I can get any shares.
Re:Not quite (Not Quite) (Score:1)
105 within minutes of opening. Check out yahoo to see down to the minute numbers. The reality is unless you were preallocated shares before the market opened you took a beating on the stock. It basically declined from 10 minutes after it opened until the market closed. I would venture to say that almost everyone who bought it on the market lost money on it yesterday.
Re:Not quite (Not Quite) (Score:1)
Most of the comments expressing amazement at the range in price seem to be based on the implicit belief that it's possible for Joe eTrader to take advantage of those price swings from his/her PC.
I've never traded a stock in my life (just have mutual funds) so you can take this with a grain of salt, but it sure seems unlikely that with the resources of an amateur one could keep up with this kind of market. My take on trying to make money at it is that you'd better (a) have solid brass balls/ovaries, (b) have deep pockets, (c) not be distracted by your real job while you monitor the wild price swings, and (d) have a very low latency betweeen when you decide you want to buy/sell and when the trade actually takes place. In other words, you'd be best off if it was your full-time job.
Re:Not quite (Not Quite) (Score:1)
The percentage gains per unit time are seductive; I think regular folks don't have great chances to take advantage of them.
Ideas for a Stock Market Icon (Score:1)
Will in Seattle
money, money, money
should be funny
in a rich man's world
Website for IPOs (Score:1)
You can't buy through here, it's only there to inform and educate....
--m
Re:Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Even if they aren't real options (which you don't need any cash to exercise), if it's, for example, an employee purchase plan which just allows you to buy stock itself at a discount you can raise the money by selling the stock short...
Sell 100 shares of stock at $20 on the open market. Take $1500 of the $2000 in cash you have from the short-sale, give to company in exchange for 100 shares at the discount price of, say $15.
Now you owe someone 100 shares in one account, but in some other account you have these shares you owe, plus you have $500 in cash.
Make $5/share without putting out ANY serious cash.
The only problem with this is if the stock shoots through the roof and you have a fixed "waiting period" before you can actually take delivery of the shares you purchased at the discount price... Because the broker will require you to keep a "margin" (basically some percentage of the amount that the stock you owe is worth)
If your company were large, you could buy open-market call options which would cover your risk, but eat into your profits.
But don't pass up an opportunity to make GUARANTEED MONEY because you don't have the cash. If it's really guaranteed the way this sort of thing is, there's no risk to someone who lends you money and they get a cut. Banks will do this for you, so at the very least, you could borrow money from a bank to cover the margin.
Re:We need a "market" icon (Score:1)
Good idea, bad choice of words...I don't think Rob would want to set himself (and andover) up for a potential liability by describing these IPOs as something that will make you very rich. Three problems:
* It's illegal to make [technically] unfounded claims about a potential investment.
* Whose definition of "very rich?" eg: If Bill Gates and I each purchase 100 shares of buzzword.com, inc. and the price goes up by 400%, whose overall net worth would increase by a higher percentage?
* Some idiot could see news about buzzword.com's IPO under this category, invest in it, possibly lose money, then call his local, friendly, neighborhood shark^H^H^H^H^Hlawyer and sue Rob (and andover) for false claims about the investment. You're fooling yourself if you say it couldn't happen.
Earlier, someone suggested using a Tulip as the logo for the internet IPO category...excellent idea! There's a web page somewhere that talks about a tulip-buying craze in Europe in the 1800s and how it relates to a lot of these flaky internet companies' IPOs now. hehe, maybe "from the tulIPO department?"
Re:Just looked at their share values today (Score:1)
Re:We need a "market" icon (Score:1)
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
radio commercials (Score:1)
i heard "mp3.com, where the world goes for music" no more than 30 minutes after i read this story,
i almost threw up.
public goes crazy, along with marketing..
Re:Just another label...... (Score:1)
just from personal experience, i seriously doubt 9%. but maybe the CEO of MusicMatch knows something i don't.
Re:IPO-mania (Score:1)
Re:Just another label...... (Score:1)
Good sources for IPOs (Score:1)
Re:Michael now richer than whole RIAA (Score:2)
Ideas are the currency of the Net. Every in this forum asking "Why are they valued so much? How do they make money?" are missing that point.
I believe that many investors in MPPP realize the potential for MP3.com to something really neat with a billion dollars. And that would be the dismantling of the old recording industry business model. The era of rock superstars and big budget multimedia extravaganza concert tours is over, and musicians will be kept in coffee hours and nightclubs where they belong...
I mean, c'mon, do you people really want to listen to music created in order to make money, or music created for beauty's sake? Damn, this parallels the Microsoft vs Free Software debate. I personally believe that M$ is better at making money than software. Which is why I hang out wid you idgits.
So there.
We do need a "stockmarket" icon (Score:1)
record companies and competition (Score:1)
Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Now, I'll be getting "options" to buy at a greatly reduced price, but what good is that if you don't have the money up front to buy the bloody stock? From what I have read you have to buy stock in certain sized chunks, so if you don't have the kind of bread needed (no pun intended
Re:Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Please pardon my ignorance, I'm not acting stupid. No, really, I'm not acting -:)
People really do this? I mean, give you a loan based on a potential for stock revenue? If I have you right, I can borrow money toward buying stocks, buy the stock, sell it right off the bat, pay back the loan (and the IRS
Holy shit.
No wonder people are making bundles on this sort of thing.
Thanks. I honestly had no concept of what I had been "given". I mean, the stock still has to actually go _up_ once we go public, but still... wow.
these companies make a "loss" (Score:2)
Great for a short-term flutter but the bubble WILL burst.
Re:Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Re:Daytraders (Score:1)
This can be proven by simply looking at the results of the 1,000's of investment clubs around the country. And the fact that the majority of them beat market averages each year, and also beat the vast majority of the paid "expert" portfolio managers (mutual funds) out there.
History of IPO's (Score:1)
Re:true enough (Score:1)
And you are correct, day traders that use internet brokers are getting ripped off because they will often receive very poor execution. Because of this, they will often lose more money than they are thinking they have saved from the commision of a broker.
Re:these companies make a "loss" (Score:1)
For example, let's say you got into the computer craze in 1984. You knew computers were going to change the world as we know it, and you wanted in on that action. Well here are a few of your choices at the time (see how many you can remember):
Apple, Atari, AT&T, Burroughs, Coleco, Columbia Data Systems, Compaq, Digital Equipment, Eagle, Franklin GRiD Systems, Hewlett Packard, Hyperion, IBM, ITT, Kaypro, Mohawk Data Sciences, NCR, Olivetti, Osborne, Sanyo, Seequa, Sunrise Systems, Tandy, Tava, Televido Systems, Texas Instruments, Victor Technologies, Xerox and Zenith.
Obviously most of these companies are not in the PC business anymore, and many of them are not even IN business anymore.
This is a losing game. Those that did the best, invested in companies that were already well established, such as IBM, Hewlett Packard and Texas Instruments. These were companies that were already profitable, but stood to gain even more as computer sales took off.
There will be a few pure web companies that make it, and become hugely successful. But your chance of finding those few will be slightly better than winning the lotto. AND chances are, those companies have not even formed yet.
Re:Options shmopshions (Score:1)
Please pardon my ignorance, I'm not acting stupid. No, really, I'm not acting -:)
People really do this? I mean, give you a loan based on a potential for stock revenue? If I have you right, I can borrow money toward buying stocks, buy the stock, sell it right off the bat, pay back the loan (and the IRS
*We only do it for employee option agreements though. That is important to realize. This is a case where you really are guaranteed to be able to pay off your loan.
In regular accounts, you are normally allowed to set up a margin account. This essentially allows you double the buying power of how much money you have in the account. So that is also, essentially a loan, but you do need to have some dough upfront for that.
But anyways... by all means, take advantage of any stock options your employer gives you!
Re:Gee, wish I knew this YESTERDAY!!!! (Score:1)
yes indeedy.
true enough (Score:1)
Day trading (not addressing IPO's here) is getting a lot of press lately, but is is fiendishly hard to make any money at it. About the only ones making money are the ones that run Day Trading advice sites, and even then it's only because they manipulate the market to make the $$$. [okay, overgeneralization, but not too far from the truth] It is, absolutely, a 'full time job' any time you're doing it- seconds can make the difference, forget minutes. For the most part, it is a purely technical operation - it is based on market dynamics by looking at the bid/ask spread and market depth and placing trades based on that - which is why in general Day Traders use brokers that are targeted specifically at them. The generic ETrade site, for example, doesn't have the facilities to support Day Traders (though they have a 3rd party agreement for Power users, which takes it part way).
Re:"obsolete metrics like revenues" (Score:1)
the run-up on internet stocks _is_ based on ideas. It's based on the idea that nobody really understands the Internet yet, other than the fact that it's going to become pervasive, which means that there is lots of potential. Nobody is really sure how people are going to make $$$ on the net in the long run, and so people are simply placing their bets on the folks that generate a lot of traffic to their sites, or who seem to have cool ideas that might get them there.
However, I think we're at least glimpsing the end of this speculative phase. The 'advertising' gambit has pretty much run it's course, and the verdict isn't too positive. Amazon is still losing money despite being a virtual unqualified success in terms of the experience of actually shopping on the net - people are realizing that market share isn't necessarily worth that much, since the margins are vanishingly small if not negative. Yahoo has 50 kajillion people through it's site every day, but still has very low revenue (relatively speaking).
My guess is that online retailing will be 'successful' in generating lots of traffic/revenue, but the margins and complete lack of customer loyalty will mean that they are not appreciably more profitable than conventional retailers, and that eventually this will come out in the valuations. It's also only really successful in the 'commodity' markets, where people are shopping for items they already know they want - I am yet to be convinced that the web is sufficient to replace in-person shopping in many areas - ie would you buy food on the web?(nothing fresh, for sure) Furniture? (maybe). clothing? (catalogs already have defined this market - the web will take it over, but not turn any more significant profit...)
The only really long-term viable ventures i see right now are subscription-based content providers, but they are far from being ready, since the 'web content should be free' mentality still reigns, and the technology is still evolving. The 'big' web companies in the future will compete with TV and print media in offering content, but since the advertising paradigm that fuels the conventional media doesn't work too well on the web, they'll have to figure out how to charge people for it. This isn't too bad, IMHO - I'd gladly pay 10-15/month for
(I should point out, though, that online brokerages do really make sense to me - huge value-add for their target market. Online banking makes sense to me as well, although I don't quite see the same type of revenue stream.)
Re:MP3.com's stock is high because.. (Score:1)
peace.
Mp3.com sucks anyway (Score:1)