digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at consumerist.com

EMI Says You Can't Store Your Music Files Online

consumerist.com — EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -1/+134The hilarious and desperate rantings of a bumbling label in a dying industry.
    *grabs popcorn*

    This should be fun.
    • fkr3, on 04/23/2008, -24/+7Their arguments are no less hilarious than the justifications for piracy. Both sides only take stances on the extreme ends. Fair use should cover backing up music online regardless.

      They're not a dying industry. While there are musicians who want to make a living from their art they will align themselves with labels who provide the many services an iMac and internet connection doesn't compensate for. P2P is just a way to get a file from A to B, it doesn't replace anything but an http or ftp download link.
      • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11The bricks and mortar old style label IS DYING. I have personally talked to representatives of labels in my previous job, and they admit as much, although very shyly and super-off-the-record.
        EMI, Universal, Sony BMG etc. are NOT iTunes. iTunes will live on, musicians will flock to them and ditch the old way. It is in essence a different industry nowadays.

        P2P has nothing to do with this story. P2P is about free unfettered distribution, MP3tunes.com is about storage and personal access.
        • fkr3, on 04/23/2008, -14/+4iTunes replaces the physical outlets not the services the labels provide.
        • laserblazer, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Y'har, but someone's had their futtock shroud ripped.
        • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8@ fkr3
          You think thats the way it will stay? What I meant to also say (but was too lazy) was the only reason Apple don't cut out the labels and start their own is because of an agreement they have with Apple Records (the Beatles label) and gave an undertaking not to become a record label (a trademark dispute, google it). Which is why Apple Records refused to let iTunes sell Beatles music.

          That stipulation will be removed when negotiations conclude (which will incidently mean the Beatle back cataglog will become available on iTunes for the first time). Apple WILL start a label of their own as it will give them TOTAL control from microphone to iPod (including pricing), which is what they've always wanted. You heard it here first.
          • Smuikas, on 04/23/2008, -2/+4Apple likely has no desire to get further into the music business than what they are now. iTunes was necessary for the ubiquity of the iPod. A label would be a very high cost gamble. The services that labels can provide like professional recording (you can make music at home, you can record music at home.. but do you have the hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars worth of equipment needed to make a high fidelity recording at home? Do you have $900 microphones? Do you have baffled walls? Do you have silent air circulation? Do you have the professional know-how to properly mix the different recording tracks?)

            Artists can, and in fact do, rent out space and a studio technician at recording studios. They are prohibitively expensive. They can and they do send the recorded master to a mastering facility. This is prohibitively expensive. The labels eat some of the cost in order to sell records.

            The sheer infrastructure and business management involved in making an Apple Computers music label would double or triple the size of their organization, with required satellite recording studios in major cities across the world. It's a pie-in-the-sky dream. What I see as more apt, is artists eating the costs up front for recording (like many indie artists do now) and then attempt to get it on iTunes. That's the sticking point - is getting non-signed music onto iTunes.
          • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Studios != Labels
          • Smuikas, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Labels = pay for studios. Seriously, don't begin to talk about the music industry if you don't, well, understand it. It's like talking to someone who strings along a bunch of pointer math jargon and thinks he's making sense, when he doesn't even know that 11 is 3.
      • noahhoward, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Online back-up of music is NOT piracy. What labels THINK people MAY do is not justification to restrict it. I bought the song, if it goes missing the music label tells me I have to buy it again, no thank you, like anything else, if I have the ability to insure the data I will.
      • longbow486, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1wooosh
      • Ratteler, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Forget fkr3. He's a well know RIAA mouth piece around here. He things "Fair Use" means it's "Fair" for the Music Industry to "Use" our public domain, and to "USE" us, any way they see fit.

        "Consumer rights" is an oxymoron to him.
    • jd72277, on 04/23/2008, -0/+14do you have popcorn standing by for interesting stories? Thats a good idea.
      • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -0/+8I sure do. And orange soda. Ahhhhhh looooves onge soda!!!!
        • Fxer, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4You reminded me of Kenan and Kel, though I don't know if it was on purpose.
        • jd72277, on 04/24/2008, -0/+3the only orange soda is Sunkist. all others are garbage.
    • uncouthyouth, on 04/23/2008, -3/+7there is no reason why, EMI
      I tell you it was all a frame
      they only did it 'cos of fame, who?
      EMI!
      • foetus, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4No Sex Pistols fans on Digg? Whiskey Foxtrot Tango?
      • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Unlimited supply!!!!!
        • astrotrain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4..EMI!......Good Bye... And End... :PpPpP!!!
      • Skooma714, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Never mind the buries, here's the Diggs.

        Also ironically EMI now has the rights to songs by the Sex Pistols.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 04/23/2008, -1/+72"The notion of ownership in the 21st century will evaporate."

    That statement by EMI shows their mentality in a nutshell. Fair use has been drained for years through progressively restrictive ownership laws. Copyright was originally established as 14 years and this has proven to be the optimal term before something falls into the public domain. I honestly think we should go back to this as our culture would benefit tremendously.

    Tell everyone you know to boycott the RIAA, or risk becoming their servants on their digital plantation. In other words, only play nice with those who play nice.

    I, for one, refuse to live in digital feudalism.
    • jjustice, on 04/23/2008, -3/+11What would boycotting the RIAA mean? (Honest question.) Not buying music from anyone who doesn't vocally oppose the RIAA? Note that using Bittorrent is a bit different than boycotting tuna.
      • Muncher, on 04/23/2008, -0/+19Boycotting these record labels: http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=a ...
        • afpunk, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Except the RIAA is so evil, they just put whoever they want on the list, whether they're a member or not. The most publicized I know of is Fat Wreck Chords, but there are other punk labels as well, and I'm sure it doesn't stop there.
      • Kyrgizion, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9Only buying albums from non-RIAA associated labels (there's plenty and easy to look up) helps a lot. Furthermore, buying the actual music usually earns the artists exactly dick. You'll support them a whole lot more by buying merchandising of any kind (zomg its a not-so-well-known secret that music industry cannot leech off of non-music related stuff as easily) and going to their concerts.
      • juicebag, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5I boycott the RIAA by making a point to not buy any albums from RIAA labels.
      • VictoryGin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5http://www.riaaradar.com/

        type in an album title or artist. It will tell you what you need to know.
      • bdbr, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5I think its important not only to boycott the RIAA, but to support the "independent" labels who don't do this *****. I've actually spent MORE money on music since the RIAA started suing people...and I make sure they get none of it.
      • LunaticFringe, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1I boycott all these quack organizations by not listening to music other than what I can acquire legally and freely, and by purchasing only second-hand CDs and large bundle-packs of Classical music that really have no particular label association.
    • SSCrow, on 04/23/2008, -0/+15May I ask why we let the most DRM'd Video Format win?
      • mCanada, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4Clever marketing.
        • niceyuk, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7Nope, Sony paid off the movie studios so Blu-Ray became the most backed format.
          It was nothing to do with customers preference or marketing. The Blu-Ray group won over the most movie studios (probably because it was the most DRM'd video format) so won by default.
      • bdbr, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6WE didn't have any say about it - the studios made the call. OF COURSE they picked the most DRM'd video format.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Has it stopped anything? DRM will continue to ***** honest customers, while anyone with a minor amount of technical skill and appropriate curiosity will have the content in an open format either before it's officially released of within hours or DRM'd content's release.
    • sodade, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8***** boycotting - it won't change a thing because nowhere near enough people will do this and make a big deal about it. The only solution at this point for dealing with this parasitic middleman industry is to convince our government to REVOKE THEIR CORPORATE CHARTERS.
    • kipmartin, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2the problem with your argument is that a TON of music is connected to RIAA. most good stuff is, in fact. or at least the stuff i listen to.

      i hate the argument that there are plenty of unsigned acts and public domain acts that should satisfy your needs. please dont go down that road. unsigned or indie acts are often great, but for the most part, they arent polished and produced well enough. and i want to hear commercial bands as well. and those bands are nearly always affiliated with RIAA contractually.

      boycots will do no good. i hate to say this, but it seems that if we just keep pirating no matter what they throw at us, we will gather momentum and they (the music bizz) will be forced to figure out an answer we can all live with.
    • boxoman, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5"The notion of ownership in the 21st century will evaporate."

      That was not a quote from EMI, it was in an email from Robertson. I agree with what you said though.
    • bdbr, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4I completely agree with boycotting (and I do it), but its been my experience that when you tell people about the evils of the RIAA, most people simply don't care. I've had to concede that boycotting simply will not defeat the RIAA. The only thing that will defeat them is for the labels to realize the discontent they've seeded.

      If you truly boycott (that includes no downloading), you at least save yourself from the small risk of lawsuit/settlement.
    • kingp, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2As was already stated, that was not a quote from EMI, but a quote from Michael Robertson, CEO of mp3tunes.com (whom the suit has been brought against).
  • gametavern, on 04/23/2008, -0/+46oh yes I can, and I will. Thanks!
    • Intamin, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Not only can you store them, you can get them from others too! How cool!
  • Hincapie, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6No.
  • alex1015, on 04/23/2008, -0/+65So once we purchase music we don't really own it. We have to consult EMI before we do anything? What exactly did we purchase then? Because if it's not the rights and is just a CD and some paper it's even more overpriced than we thought. This is getting out of hand. Must I consult them before I store my CD in my car stereo?!
    • yunus, on 04/23/2008, -0/+42storing your CD in your car, hmmm? Does anyone else use your car? If so you obviously can't leave it there. What if someone borrowed your car and illegally listened to music they did not purchase themselves! Think of the musicians, how can they survive if every single person does not purchase their own copy of every CD they like 1 song off of.
      Also don't get discouraged by this and throw away your CD, that is also a violation of copyright laws and you will be sued. For proper disposal please follow all regulations concering disposal of Top Secret material.
      • kl78229, on 04/23/2008, -0/+28 You will also need to ensure that when you are in your car listening to said music, you leave your windows up and the volume low so as to avoid a public performance of the aformentioned music.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2"proper disposal"

        Can't. Throwing away a CD is illegal redistribution of copyrighted works. You're stuck with it since the EULA says nothing about transferring ownership. Better buy a safe and store them in there.
      • dvrchatter, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1One of the most apt analogies I've read about this situation in a very long time, yunus. Scary, but that's exactly where the RIAA logic leads.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 04/23/2008, -1/+18And don't DARE even remember how the song goes after it's over! That memory is a pirate copy of the song!
    • astrotrain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2People who purchase iTunes do not own them. Apple has all the licensing and is "renting" you that piece of music as long as your with Apple's iTunes. Once you tell them goodbye, they revoke all your music licenses and you loose the ability to play the DRM infected music from iTunes.

      And during all this BS, you have to tell Apple where your playing your music by registering other computers or devices with Apple. Failure to do so, means you won't be hearing your music on your non registered device..
  • Quick2822, on 04/23/2008, -0/+59Next they'll be saying we can't store music on our mp3 players.
    • secrity, on 04/23/2008, -0/+29I think that somebody has already said that, but their PR people shut him up.
    • jkgm, on 04/23/2008, -0/+21Didn't they already try to sue over that?
    • chris9902, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5Just think about it: There's over 200 million walking lawsuits!

      If you sue each one for $100,000 they'll make billions!
    • bdbr, on 04/23/2008, -0/+12They have. That would be RIAA v Diamond Multimedia.

      http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Diamond/
      • HiddenCanuck, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1wow, interesting. and i'm amazed you keep that on hand!
    • astrotrain, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Or have your mp3 player turned up to loud in public, that would be redistribution of music without proper licensing.

      Then I imagine the RIAA will want you to listen to your music in private, listening to a song with another family member will be forbidden.
  • Kyrgizion, on 04/23/2008, -1/+45I am usually pretty eloquent about these things, but since I'd have thought companies would have learned SOMETHING by 2008, I'll be very bland:
    EMI needs to go climb a wall of dicks. Seriously. Grow.The.*****.UP music industry! It's been spoonfed to you hundreds and hundreds of times and STILL you fight the inevitable.
  • McGrude, on 04/23/2008, -0/+61Wait a minute... My computer at home is online 24/7/365 and that's where I store all my music files. Does that mean I am storing my music online? Because in a broad sense that is what they mean.

    • PHiZ187, on 04/23/2008, -0/+18Give me your IP address, and I'll check for you ;P
    • heartcoldfusion, on 04/23/2008, -3/+25Must not be a Windows box if it's on 24/7/365 AMIRITE LOL

      /something, i'm not even sure what anymore
      • CCmachined, on 04/23/2008, -5/+424/7/365?

        24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 weeks a year? no. you mean 24/365, or 24/7/52 =]
  • ravage86, on 04/23/2008, -9/+1I'm pretty sure somewhere in their terms of service it states that they may occasionally monitor activities. Agreeing to these terms would be a copyright issue since you're basically giving them permission to listen.
    • kl78229, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4It's actually a simple process.
      1. Read the article.
      2. Comprehend the article.
      3. Make a post relative to the contents of the article.
      4. Profit.
      • ravage86, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3How is it not relevant? If you're allowing mp3tunes's staff to listen to your music, then you're violating copyright law and EMI has a case.
  • evilregis, on 04/23/2008, -0/+63EMI can suck my balls.
    • bdbr, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5That's a pretty big company you know...could be painful.
  • WWWoody, on 04/23/2008, -0/+37In related news, EMI has also discovered the wheel. Congratulations you guys.
    • Rikkochet, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1(Patent pending)
    • Matteos, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Next up, Fire!
    • Wonderama, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0Imagine the revenue they could rake in from patenting the concept of music itself! Has that already been tried?
  • darkened, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9I'm very impressed this judge actually understood and ruled correctly. Hopefully for the right reasons but even if he didn't fully understand he made the correct end result of the ruling.
  • mrelusive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+24*obligatory sentence about ***** the RIAA*
  • waspinator, on 04/23/2008, -0/+19DEATH TO EMI!
  • kingmanic, on 04/23/2008, -0/+14Worked for an EMI rep once, Slimiest human being ever to live. This makes it so much easier to never buy anything from EMI again!
  • PHiZ187, on 04/23/2008, -0/+14Consumers need to take these lawsuits seriously. Content owners are slowly chipping away at our digital freedoms. Even where lawsuits don't succeed in their goals, they drain the financial resources of new and innovative companies. These means that fewer products and services get to market because of intimidation. Please write your elected representatives, or donate to a a group like the EFF.
  • linuxwarz, on 04/23/2008, -1/+31Once a file is on my computer, I will do as I please with it. That includes modification, copying, among other things. Welcome to the digital age EMI.
  • rexreason, on 04/23/2008, -12/+3Hey, wasn't there some kind of big news event yesterday? Some kind of primary or something? Why isn't it on the front page?

    • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -9/+3Coz the Ospama diggers have regrouped for the next onslaught of propaganda.

      They don't realize that they have given Obama the "Curse of Digg" just like they did to poor old Ron Paul.
      If they wanted Obama to win, they should be spamming positive storys about Hillary. Thats how it seems to work.
  • RogerStrong, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7EMI and the other big distributors work on the concept that "nothing is illegal if a couple dozen business people agree on it".
    • Surferess, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Right! Same policy as the current Bush administration.
  • reparsed, on 04/23/2008, -0/+33I like to store my music on Usenet.
    • kurtwinter, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I thought usenet was our "secret"
  • nextbigthang, on 04/23/2008, -0/+10was anyone surprised? even after realizing they were wrong about digital distribution...they continue to fight against any progress of their industry.

    stubborness FTL
    • kurtwinter, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Stubbornness is a method of going Faster Than Light? No *****.
  • gothicform, on 04/23/2008, -0/+26So I buy my music legally, and then store it on my own private server so I can listen to it anywhere any time and they tell me I can't do this because????? Hello you morons, I'm a customer. I paid for this! Either you sold me the physical copy which I own and can do with as I like, or you sold me the license to it. If you sold me the license can I have a copy again of all the music I had stolen when someone nicked some of my cds?
    • PaperMonkey, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Well assuming the Canadian government hasn't completely screwed us and passed the Canadian version of the DMCA then the Canadian copyright system works kind of along those lines.

      In Canada, when you buy an album you have the legal right to make 2 copies of it. One for archival purposes (see your comment about nicked CDs) and one copy in a different format to facilitate your enjoyment of the album you have purchased (see the comment about storing it on your own private server).

      This is a good system.. It allows for the conversion of LPs to CDs or MP3s so that you can still enjoy the music you have purchased while the listening technologies have changed and it lets you keep a copy so that when you inevitably wear out your favorite album you still have a working copy of it. I mean I know that's crazy because you should never be able to perpetually listen to an album that you have purchased legally but that's the way it works.

      Here's hoping that Parliament never manages to push through a DMCA.. Learn from the mistakes that have already been made and stop ***** with people's music. Let us use our music as we want to and provide us flexible options and we will spend the money. I couldn't tell you the last time I bought a physical CD but my wife and I must have bought at least 4 or 5 full Christmas albums on iTunes this past Christmas. It would have been equally simple to pirate it but my justification (however slim) in the past was that the record labels were ripping us off and not giving us the option to by reasonably priced CD singles. Well I'd say that basically a buck a song is reasonably priced.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Even still, it's broken.

        "No your honor, the 500 CD-Rs of music in my house were legitimate backups, the originals were stolen, you can't prove otherwise".
  • Kasot, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6Shut the ***** up, asstunnels. We don't care about what you say.
  • mechman, on 04/23/2008, -4/+1How many of the popular Digg websites are going to use the EXACT SAME LAYOUT?

    Just curious.
    • swimmin00, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2We all know by now that a website's content trumps its layout any day. That said, why not just use a tried-and-true layout, change the headers, place the obligatory Google ads, and focus on diggable content?
  • borez, on 04/23/2008, -0/+15EMI, quite frankly...can go ***** itself.

    I'm sorry your industry model is dying, but you've been ripping off your artist for years. Take it on the chin EMI coz I ( and a lot of my industry mates ) have no sympathy for a company that thinks the music industry can be run by accountants.
    • kingmanic, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6'company that thinks the music industry can be run by accountants.'

      Not even accountants. Con men is closer to the mark.
  • D14BL0, on 04/23/2008, -0/+11Adding EMI to my "***** the [acronym]" list.
  • laserblazer, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Music, film and television are worse now than at any other time in the history of Man. Bad educations, status gluttony, gangsterism and careers made by offering fellatio (I'm looking at you, Keanu Reeves) have turned our entertainment media into grease-traps. Take your 50 Cent and shove him up your ass, whoever it is that actually listens to him (which I hear is more than zero).
  • bjs3171, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2ok. good for them. Personally I think this dude's a Codfish. That doesn't magically mean he has gills.
  • conkers209, on 04/23/2008, -1/+3wait, we can't back up our music online incase one of are hard drives fail? Oh wait, they would want us to repurchase everything! why not let people download the songs for free and just let us watch an ad for each song? You would get more money this way. But this just shows you that the way the music industry wants to do things doesn't work in this day of age. It use to work back when there was no internet because how else were we suppose to get music from.
  • forthex, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Don't tell these people about MediaMaster

    oh crap.
    • chinolofus, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1that site looks really nice. no limit either.
    • Surferess, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1OMG Thx! Awesome! I have been using playlist which is pretty great tool also. Shh!
  • SebHughes, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2This world seemed to get more ***** up every day.
  • RANDOM667, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9Its all just ones and zeros, I am not paying for ones and zeros no matter how long it took you to arrange them!
  • divesnob, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2EMI - big finger to you!
  • KaivenTor, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2So much for music being a cultural device. Digital ownership will always be there, legally or not. They're going to have to live with that or their company will simply continue to slowly wither and die. I have no sympathy for companies that don't adapt to the marketplace, let alone challenge established law for it's own benefits.
  • zerocool1990, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1LimeWire FTW!!
  • jcastillo81, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7This is essentially the same as telling someone they can't carry their CD's with them and once they play them on a CD player that's the only player they can ever use. Stupid ***** like this is also why I download lots and lots of music that I don't pay for. That's right, I'm a pirate! ARRRRGGGH *****!
  • zaptoman, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4EMI needs to wake up and smell the real world. People will do what they want with music, and there's not a thing you can do to stop it. The more you tighten your grip the more music will slip through your fingers.
    • uncouthyouth, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Not after we demonstrate the power of this lawsuit. In a way, you have determined the choice of the website that'll be destroyed first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the Pirate Bay, I have chosen to test this station's destructive power... on your home page of Digg.
  • TheCommentThief, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2The hilarious and desperate rantings of a bumbling label in a dying industry.
    *grabs popcorn*

    This should be fun.
  • matthewinDRO, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1***** Hillary
  • DigitAl56K, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Why does it matter if it's online if only I can access the files?

    Maybe EMI wants us to pay more to access our own legitimately purchased music at different locations? Scandalous.
  • ncc74656m, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3EMI just hasn't learned. None of the major labels have. The more they fight the new technologies, the more they'll lose to them.
  • stonklit, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Well, I just did.

    Oh look, I even gave other people access to it! :O

    Whatcha gonna do about it ;)
  • Clydesdale, on 04/23/2008, -0/+8Dear EMI: Eat a dick.
  • ben162005, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9Dear EMI,

    ***** YOU!

    Sincerely,
    Everyone on Digg
  • sillyns, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Next we will have to sign a contract before we purchase music or click on "Yes, I agree."
  • juniorb, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9I have a burger stored in my colon right now. Every time my co-worker catches a whiff of my farts, should she have to pay McDonald's a dollar?
  • Chassit, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Here's a question: If I pick up my guitar and play 'Master of Puppets' am I a thief?
    • Wonderama, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7If they could sue you for humming that tune in the shower, they would.
  • ILoveBoobies, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7The music industry can't get over the fact that music and video will be free no matter what they think and their only source of income will be from live concert events. Oh, and I love boobies.

    • alanr19, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5I think you've hit on the very heart of this argument. Boobies do indeed rule.
  • kayvman78, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6They're trying to fight a lava flow with a seltzer squirter. Move on already... Jeeze...
  • theredwhyno, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Dear EMI,

    i can't hear the music i just bought past your incessant death rattles. Gurgle more quietly, will you?

    Thank you,
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.