Some Bands Still Refuse Music Downloads 545
Zelbinian writes "Wired News reports there are a number of artists, ranging from The Beatles to Radiohead, that are still holding out on iTunes. Some feel that per-track downloads hurt the artistic integrity of albums as a whole; for others it's simply a matter of negotiation troubles. From the article: 'Since record companies have realized the popularity of iTunes and other sites, many reworked contracts to give artists less money per download. Andrews said while record companies once offered artists about 30 cents for each song sold, now musicians are earning less than a dime.'"
I can see both sides of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then they should make the album one long track.
Or come up with some new terms.
"track" and "album" are archaic demarkation terms. It's much like how "page" is an archaic demarkation term when you deal with ebooks. Who cares which page its on? I want one document. Tabl
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think you can listen to Magical Mystery Tour on random play, then you're missing half the point of the work.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
And who is anyone to tell me how I should interpret art? Being able to not have to buy filler, or just stuff I don't want in general, is a huge advantage of iTMS and other shops like it. Shovel more stuff on me that I don't want (and force me to pay for it) and I buy nothing. You (the hypothetical artist/label/store) just lost a potential sale that way.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
think about it another way. If you are a painter having just completed your masterpiece [abcgallery.com] stretching across a huge canvas, would you be happy if someone just took a detail [candysangels.com] from it and refused to see the whole work?
back to music how happy do you think beethoven would be to know that his epic works have been reduced to a mobile phone ringtone? and how good an understanding of his work do you get from only listening to that ringtone?
a lot of musicians are unhappy with people reading the lyrics when listening to the songs because they feel it detracts from their work. does that stop you from reading while listening? hell no!
does it mean that they don't have the right to ask how they would like their music to be listened to? again hell no!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The other part of that question is, if they're so concerned about their artistic vision, why do they sign with media conglomerates that they KNOW are going to bastardize that vision into its most marketable form?
The way I see it, if control of the experience is what they want [a
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Myabe if most albums weren't 90% SUCK... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, if they're insisting that you buy their entire album instead of just the single, I don't think they care. A lot of artists still believe in some mythical ideal of artistic integrity, even at the expense of making more money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good albums don't contain filler material.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
And mediocre albums have great songs on them.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
What and how I listen to whatever I chose to listen to is, and should be, up to me.
Precisely. Thank you. That's what I've been having to explain to every single one of the zillions of people who seem to be replying with nothing but "to hell with what you want, someone you don't know has views that matter more than yours do".
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, but some artists do view an album as more than just a series of tracks. Can you be sure, in advance, which tracks are "filler" and which aren't? Why, when I was a lad, it was my pleasure to unearth an "unsung" album track with special meaning to me.
Radiohead is mentioned in the article: any thoughts about the overarching story told in the order of the songs on OK Computer? It's there, almost a hidden message that rewards careful listening, and it would be destroyed if the songs were Shuffled. My "unsung" song on that album is Let Down, one that got no attention and would be left out if I had bought the "singles" on iTunes.
You should try this with a book - after all, who the heck is the author to decide that Chapter 7 comes immediately before Chapter 8?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, I've listened to OK Computer many times, usually without random shuffle, and I've never picked up an underlying album-wide story and message.
On my portable music player I have 3-4 tracks from that album in my two most common playlists and love them as tracks; I almost never listen to the album itself.
Maybe there is a message and the album represents a coherent body of work. Frankly it's wasted on me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Radiohead really wanted you to listen to the whole album, they'd make it one long track.
The REAL artsy bands (Godspeed You Black Emperor, I'm looking at you) do this.
Now, you can complain about lack of context, and certainly the artist should have the right to control their medium of discussion, but ultimately, there is no right answer. The artist is right; the listener is right. Nothing is
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, given, but why should we care?
Art, music included, is not a pure expression of its creator, meant to be interpreted only as he/she sees fit, but instead how the viewer/listener/whatever sees that creation. Once a piece of art gets released to the general public, after all, it becomes, in part, the domain of that public body's imagination.
For example, if I like only two songs off of a Radiohead album, then why should the band dictate that I have to listen to all of the other songs on the album just to get to those two? What if I see those two songs as individually more enjoyable than the album as a whole? Is my preference any less important than the band's? And if so, how far are you willing to take it? Should we stop playing cuts from Dark Side of the Moon on the radio? Bundle songs into one huge (and annoying) track on a CD so that the listener can't skip anything?
So, frankly, I don't give two bollocks what the artist thinks. If they want to keep the precious "artistic integrity" of their work, then they can never release it to the public and keep it hidden in a vault somewhere. But if that's the band's only reason for not releasing already released albums on iTunes, then they should cave in and just do it, unless they're a bunch of pretentious wankers...
...oh, wait, this is Radiohead we're talking about...
Radiohead's reason is not artistic integrity (Score:3, Informative)
Radiohead is actually happy they don't have to
Link to article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like films. Do me a favor, go to your nearest Blockbuster and rent any random DVD that you have not seen. Now, instead of playing it all select the "choose chapter" option and watch the chapters in the following order: "5, 4, 7, 3, 1", you skipped chapter 2 and 6 (and if there are more than 7 chapters, all those also). Did the movie made any sense
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Funny)
After all, two seconds of Michael Bolton is just about enough.
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, Mars Volta is one of the few examples of music that is much better as a cd than as an individual track. You might like Inertiatic on its own, but until you've heard the full cd as a whole you havn't experienced the band.
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Informative)
The album is "Simon Says".
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I think people should be able to buy what they want. How is it a travesty if somebody only wants 2 or 3 songs off of Dark Side of the Moon? They are only hurting themselves. Give people what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is gonna tear Radiohead up, but I just listened to Idioteque. But I had my CD player on random, so Morning Bell didn't come up next.
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:4, Insightful)
So give them a break, because they might be holding out for the right reason: I know I would.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At any rate, whe
Re:I can see both sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
And due to what members of the band have often said, I am willing to believe that they really do care about something other than the money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, that whole album broke every rule in the record industry's book. Someone who'd know about these things once told me that they were given a huge advance fee and all the time they wanted to record the album, and none of the money was recoupable. This is in complete contrast to how the major labels normally do things, with artists often needing to sell an awful lot of albums before they see any money from them due to the record company
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ohh the irony (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ohh the irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
or maybe get it from another online source... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.7digital.com/stores/listing.aspx?shop=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two examples I can mention as a roadmap for the copyright holders to look up.
1 George Lucas... Star Wars will never be released on Video
2 Disney Company... The classic films will never be released on Video
I can now legaly buy copies of Star Wars, Pinocchio, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and others to replace my low quality pirated copies from many years ago.
I had Star Wars about 4 years before it was released on VHS.
Someday the hold outs in the music industry will
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were on a free market, yes, you'd do just that. The problem is that all the majors have agreed on prices and practices, turning them into something very close to a monopoly. And against a monopoly, the choice isn't there anymore, bacause you have lost your bargaining ticket: You can't get a better deal anywhere else.
Man that's a bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Man that's a bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Man that's a bad summary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Man that's a bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Man that's a bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is a company, and its employees are there to do their job, for the company. They get paid to serve the company.
(In theory), The recording labels are there for the artists. They get a cut of sales to do things for the artist like promote their work, and press & distribute CDs. They get paid to serve the artist.
The way you describe things, is as if the whole music world consists of a single entity, the collective recording labels, that employ artists to promote & be a face for their music. It almost sounds as if you're implying the music is being written centrally by the labels, instead of by the artists!
Oh wait, that's pretty much a functional description of the popular music industry.
In other creative fields, like books, the author of the content retains the copyright. The current state of the music industry, with so much central ownership and control, is a terrible setup. What you describe is actually closer to the truth than you imply. But that's not a good thing.
Re:Man that's a bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that internet distribution is picked up completely by Apple, and professional recording equipment and production is so common as to be available at relatively low cost to artists who record at home, it is simply absurd that record companies have somehow reduced the share of money given to their artists and are delivering the savings on distribution apparently to themselves all on the basis of inflated prices for "record studio time" and artifically high-valued distribution channels. As far as I can tell, the means by which record companies exploit their artists are corrupt. The artists are the people who are responsible for all of their revenue, after all, and should be proportionately compensated.
Hollywood at least recognizes that star power primarily drives the consumption of a film. It often pays stars $20 million just to be in a movie, on top of a share of the box office ticket sales. That is, a huge portion of a film's budget is devoted to paying the stars. While labels don't bring in as much money as Hollywood studios, major record companies don't seem to pay the same debt of gratitude to their talent. Executives and label owners whose only real talent is to broker unfair deals end up walking home with the lion's share of the cash.
It's kind of like how the oil companies could afford to reduce the price of oil artificially, but they know that we are dependent on their oil(purposefully) so that we give them tons and tons of money at unfair prices to get our fix and as a result they become immensely, excessively, profitable. Sounds like a collusion in an oligopoly to me.
I think that a paradigm shift is happening with music because of the labels' obviously backwards dealings and the democratization that the internet and digital recording bring. The oil problem, on the other hand, is going to be around for a long time.
Hollywood is probably worse (Score:5, Informative)
It's a very rare actor that can demand millions up-front. Most have to settle for a percentage of the profits. However, due to accounting practices "considered odd by any normal business standards", 95% of movies, even box-office hits, somehow fail to make a profit - as defined by the studio [wikipedia.org], anyway. This article [hollywoodnetwork.com] lists many of the ways in which this is managed, including spreading of gross receipts amongst poorer-performing pictures, "distribution fees" far in excess of reality, a 10% "overhead" fee to be applied to all marketing expenses, tax breaks that are kept by the studios & not counted for the picture, and many others.
Stan Lee got nothing [bbc.co.uk] from the Spider-Man movie, because the studio claimed it did not make a profit, at least as defined by his contract. My Big Fat Greek Wedding was produced cheaply and was a huge success, yet somehow "lost $20 million". Even Babylon 5, which took in $500 million in DVD sales alone, is apparently "$80 million in debt". As the creator, J Michael Straczynski said, "Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."
Steve Vai says very similar things [vai.com] about the record labels' own standard contracts, not least their various bogus deductions for digital download sales. As the saying goes, the really creative people are the accountants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then, there's actually uploading. Don't own a Ma
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be honest, your little story makes it sound insanely easy to get onto iTunes. Much easier than, say, getting a distribution deal into a national music store like HMV.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Artists have no power to negotiate, says Steve Vai (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just Weird Al who signed a bad contract. Nearly all artists get stuck with the same ridiculous clauses. All the major labels give you a simple choice: Sign the standard contract, or be a nobody selling your CDs at pub gigs.
Take a look at this letter from Steve Vai [vai.com] - it lists some of the many ways that the labels burden the artist with every expense, fair and unfair, but retain all ownership of the songs. They short-change them even the few royalties that are due, require large upfront costs for any auditing to check this, disallow auditing of crucial figures like actual manufacturing numbers, then typically "settle" with the artist for around a third of what the artist is actually due anyway.
Regarding iTunes, he says even a well-established and popular artist who is entitled to 15% royalties, would typically see only 4-5c per iTunes track, due to such creative deductions like 15% for "free goods" (there are none, for digital downloads) and the 50% "new technologies" deduction. After, of course, the label has deducted all production and marketing expenses for the songs they now own. Read the linked article, it's hair-raising.
Remember, this isn't some naive and ignorant wannabe speaking, he's been playing for 20-odd years, including many years with Frank Zappa before he went solo - he's been around. He still had no choice. The labels control the radio playlist (via illegal payola) and the shop shelfspace, so if you want to succeed, you have to do a deal with them, and they will only offer the same "standard", artist-raping contract.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of Course! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of Course! (Score:5, Informative)
Again, due the the nature of the contracts involved it's nearly impossible to cite sources for this, the same reason it is easy for a wired reporter to make up facts in their article. But consider this logical argument: It is well known that ITMS takes thirty five cents on every dollar on sales (3rd hand citation [tidbits.com] but other sources are common). That leaves about sixty five cents to the content providers. Even if you have limited knowledge of the music industry it should be easy for you to realize that no major label contracts passed on nearly 45% of gross income from their products to the artists. Whether you like that fact or not, wired is plain wrong in saying that "it used to be so much better" - and I'd bet that probably both the reporter and the editor involved knew that was an intentional distortion. From what I know, majors typically pass on between eight and sixteen cents per track to the artists, and that number hasn't changed much since the ITMS launch.
If anything I believe artist's gross revenue per unbundled song has had slight upward pressure though nothing very dramatic. As I understand this owes the the fact that artists gross revenue per customer with unbundled tracks is understandably down versus typical sales that are bundled (even singles shipped with at least one or two extra songs). Though for all the same reasons I can't cite that so you might as well ignore it.
iTunes already supports albums... (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen a bunch of tracks that weren't available unless you purchase the entire album. The albums usually have 1 or 2 tracks for sale individually but the rest require you to buy the album. I understand the artistic concerns, but if you would release some of the songs as singles for play on the radio, why not make them available as downloads? Or do artistic concerns end when you want a hit single so the album sells well?
this is more about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA really wanted to go after music thieves, they would be sueing the record labels.
Re: (Score:3)
If the RIAA represents the labels, wouldn't they be suing themselves?
Or would the RIAA be suing their own clients?
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't much like your myspace page as it requires horizontal scrolling.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you just answered your own question. The problem here is that too many artists are lured into thinking that the only way to make a living in music is to sign away your soul to record label, for pennies on the dollar.
Now I'll grant you that I don't really know much about the intricacies of the music business, but based on conversations I've had with quite a few people lately, it seems like an artist would perhaps be better served staying unsigned -- if they have any management skills at all, or know where to find someone who does -- than to get on board with a label. What does the label give you? A chance at a very, very small slice of a larger "pie," but really what's the advantage of that over having a much larger slice of a smaller pie?
If you get 91% back from your music sales, it doesn't take nearly as many sales for you to make a living than it does for a signed band. I'd bet that properly done, the margins on CD sales are similarly large. Sure, you probably won't see an unsigned band's stuff in WalMart, but again: if you can make the same amount of money being a regional band, and have total creative control
The one thing that the labels still seem to have is a pretty tight grip on the music flowing into radio stations, particularly the corporate controlled (*cough*ClearChannel*cough*) ones; but the relevance of that mode of distribution is fading daily. Particularly if your audience is in a younger demographic, it doesn't seem like radio play is necessarily the requirement for sales that it once was.
I guess maybe I'm not a musician and I don't understand the desire for fame that might lead someone to believe that being nationally recognized is a good thing per se, versus making the same amount of money as a regional band, and not feeling like they're taking it up the ass every day. If someone can explain what the value proposition of the record labels is, in today's economy, where it's widely known that they compensate artists poorly and essentially do nothing but take your music as payment for questionable PR campaigns, I'd be interested.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
One place to find people with management skills is at a label. They'll take care of calling radio stations for airplay, sending promotional versions out, arrange tour dates, and getting your name known in the business. All you have to do is be creative.
Of course, they'll also take the lions share of the money. But, hey, where else will someone pay you to just sit around and strum on your guitar and come up with songs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong the aim of the big labels is not to promote creativity but stifle it. They are only interested in producing "product" and ripping off artists. They try to force artists in to producing what they regard as fitting into a percieved market. Their aim i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I've just done the math & sales of $10m at $15 a CD mean you have to sell 650,000 or so albums. Heck, some of Madonna's albums [wikipedia.org] don't sell that well. Admittedly not many of Madonna's albums sell so poorly, but those sorts of fig
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The impression I get wasn't so much that it was CD sales they benefited from, but rather better gigs. They got to open for big name stars like Reba, Charlie Daniels, etc. That's where the money was, from touring...
It wasn't much money, but it was enough to go full time at it. Otherwise, it's a part time job and you've got to make money for food doing something else in addition. The dream is to go full time, have a larger audience wh
How are they performed live? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or selling singles/releasing singles to radio?
Seems they are defeating their own argument.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A live concert is for fans who have shelled out to come see them, in person, they are going to give a full performance for their fans. The songs are generally already known by fans, that is why they went to the concert. It would be more like the artist doing concerts, but a fan could simply pay 3 dollars to hear a couple of the songs, and they leave during
They shouldn't worry too much (Score:3, Insightful)
Change of Heart for the Bands (Score:5, Interesting)
Radiohead made Kid A top the charts, both here (UK) and America, through online publicity.
Perhaps it is since the culture of iPods is to create playlists and to "shuffle" that they wish to avoid it, and their release on the internet was in the idea that people still listened to music, downloaded or not, as a whole work, as if on CD.
Often called pretentious, the desire to have your work viewed and heard as a whole appeals to an older perception of music, one that I personally still subscribe to. It holds the idea of an album as a progression, as something that has a beginning and a conclusion, such as one might expect from a traditional symphony.
It can be very discouraging to an artist when an entire medium is practically devoted to destroying that construction. And if they care more about their artistic integrity than making further sales, I can only applaud them.
Re:Change of Heart for the Bands (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing iTunes adds is the ability to partially pay for parts of the music. Before iTunes, you had to pay for the whole thing even if you didn't listen to it all.
So this obviously has nothing to do with "integrity". It has to do with getting paid for stuff people don't want to buy.
Re:Change of Heart for the Bands (Score:5, Insightful)
(I'll let that sink in for a while.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhh, no, you've got that completely wrong. Kid A was *leaked* onto the Internet in its entirety a few months before the album's release, and bootlegs of perfor
Is this really a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Online music stores (especially the subscription ones) are great for discovering new or obscure music, and they're ideal for buying a single on an album that's otherwise lousy, but the Beatles and Radiohead -- the most common holdout examples used -- don't fit any of those descriptions.
Sweet, sweet irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that with online distribution, artists don't need to go through their record company middlemen anymore. They can sell their music directly through services like iTunes and claim their profits for themselves. All that's needed is for a few musicians with some guts to stand up to the people holding their leashes.
I get 64 cents per song... (Score:5, Informative)
I chalk this one up to major labels just being bloated and greedy.
These idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
so it is their loss, the whole concept of integrity of the work art is just plain bullshit. They created the work for us to enjoy, not for themselves to tell us how to enjoy.
Re:These idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
If you listen to albums that are simply a collection of songs made in a certain time span for a certain end date, then those artist will likely not care if it is sold in bits and peices on the internet. However, the bands that will take exception are the more progressive ones that see music as more than easy money. Frank Zappa devoted a large portion of his songs to making fun of people like you.
I doubt very much that Radiohead really cares about the extra money they lose because a handfull of people like you will not give them your extra 10 cents to listen to Creep. There is a reason for that too. It is because they are the artists, and the really good ones who deliver consistantly good music don't really care about marginal increases in profits, they care about making something that they feel is worth producing. They actually had an idea, and if you only listen to a small portion of their idea, they would rather you not listen at all. May seem like strange reasoning, but I guarantee a large portion of the greatist creative minds throughout history would echo Radioheads sentiments.
They created the work for us to enjoy, not for themselves to tell us how to enjoy.
Actually, many good artist are pretty damn narcisistic. They probably would rather someone like you die than enjoy one of their songs, just due to the principle of someone who "doesn't understand art" shouldn't be dancing to their backbeat.
Basically, what it comes down to, is while I agree that it may be their loss in some ways, they probably don't care about it very much. And that is what makes them different, it doesn't make them idiots.
Radiohead (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever said iTunes needed to get all the goods.
Ripoff and Not Artist Driven. (Score:5, Insightful)
For musicians, it's another way to resell their entire catalogs to fans who want the songs in multiple formats, he said.
Musicians my ass, this is being driven by the media companies. They are dying for a change of formats like album to CD. Album to tape did not do it for them and CD to lossy format outside of DRM and device maker collusion won't either. Yeah, I'd like the artist to get their fair share too. Reselling DRM'd versions of the exact same thing every 10 years is not my idea of a fair share. Only a few RIAA poster boys think iTunes is really a fair deal.
The device collusion is not happening, so it's all a dead issue.
Magnatune (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This sort of thing comes up often, and I will explain why it's simply not a viable option.
Apple does not determine the amount each artist receives from a sale at the iTunes store. Each artist's contract with their respective label determines that. If you are in a contract that will screw you out of money from iTunes sales, then you will almost certainly not have the rights to sell y
Whole albums? Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. Most top 40 artists already prescribe to a 3-6 minute song model, segment their album for radio play, and don't maintain any overwhelming unity between tracks. Moreover, they've been doing this for DECADES.
People have grown accustom to picking and pulling individual songs. We been promoting this model long before iTunes came around. If respecting the whole GD album was so damn important everyone would be producing albums like The Wall and releasing them on 8 Tracks.
Easy Solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
Album integrity (Score:3, Informative)
Playing the tracks of Pink Floyd's Pulse out of order or with tracks missing loses impact. Playing the good track of shitty-CD-with-two-good-songs without the crappy tracks is an improvement
Beatles, Microsoft, Wal-Mart? (Score:3, Interesting)
And how much do you think Microsoft would pay Apple Corp to be able to say that Zune plays the Beatles, but iPod doesn't?
This is why (Score:3, Interesting)
100% behind you guys... (Score:4, Funny)
Some feel that per-track downloads hurt the artistic integrity of albums as a whole
Then they shouldn't complain when I download the .rar of their albums :)
You should get it (Score:5, Funny)
You deserve one; you post here all the time!
Re:So.. umm... (Score:4, Funny)
So I see you're asking a rhetorical question.
What type of smartass reply would you like to your rhetorical question?
* Semi-appropriate mainstream movie quote - "More than you can afford, pal!"
* Ignorant American - "ur so dum! we invented munny!"
* Witty American - "How much is a dime?! More like "How much is a liter? Am I rite?! rofl"
* Straight cut geek response - "10 Cents."
* Family Guy quote - "Swing and a miss, Peter."
Just fucking with you. With the answer being "The value of your average Slashdot post", the correct response we were looking for was "How much is a rat's ass?" We'll be back with more Jeopardy after the break.
Re:So.. umm... (Score:5, Funny)
Ten to fifty bucks, depending upon the quality of the grass, man.