What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- lnfiniteLoop, on 11/19/2008, -0/+42Please note that CNet has since changed its story to omit mention of MP3 as the format in which the new unrestricted tracks would be sold. The author responded to a comment on the matter by saying "I don't know whether my sources were just throwing out MP3 as a way to describe unprotected music." It's likely Apple would make the tracks available in unprotected 256 kbps AAC format as it does with those from EMI.
- Spuy767, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9There is really no reason to try and woo users of other music players using the more ubiquitous MP3 format, and AAC is higher quality to boot. I would consider the MP3 claim spurious at best.
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Yeah we see the update but that's still not really a definite answer considering he says "I don't know". Normally you want to get the details straight before you publish something... normally.
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Whether or not such tracks (if it ever happens) is MP3 or AAC is a moot point. Most of the better players will also play AAC files as long as they have no DRM
- NicoNicoNico, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1Better quality, at least slightly. That's the point.
- wisedude, on 11/20/2008, -18/+41It wouldn't distance it from its rivals. It would merely help it to catch up....,
- CraigReed, on 11/20/2008, -15/+20Catch up? What are you smoking exactly? Apple is the number one music retailer and that includes physical media.
Unless your talking about the size of their unprotected music library Apple doesn't need to catch up to anyone.- LennyX, on 11/20/2008, -11/+8Crack. wisedude is smoking crack.
- briguymaine, on 11/20/2008, -5/+1mmmm... love me some crack.
- deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -1/+24How retarded are you? wisedude was referring to the fact that other online music services already have had DRM-free MP3 for a long time now. And they are cheaper than Apple's DRM-ridden tracks too.
- bagofbeef, on 11/20/2008, -1/+5Amazon.com DRM-Free tracks FTW
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7But who put those restrictions on in the first place? Apple can only sell whatever media they are allowed to and with whatever restrictions are demanded by the copyright holders. If Sony or any other music group went to Amazon tomorrow and said that they could no longer sell non-DRMed tracks what do you think Amazon would do? Do you honestly believe they would stop selling those tracks or would they knuckle under and create or use DRM?
Contrary to what you might want to believe, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft all sell content at the whim of the copyright holders and those same holders can rescind or demand DRM at a moments notice and all three either would have to cave or stop selling content. As a company that's trying to make as much money as they can, which do you honestly believe they'd do? - yellowbean1, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Man I can't believe how defensive people get. What wisedude is so accurately pointing out is that, even though itunes is the biggest and most popular retailer of digital music, it is relatively late to the table with non-DRMed tracks. I've been stuck with a balance on last Christmas' iTunes gift card because I don't want to buy DRMed music and the iTunes Plus library is woefully understocked. Compared to Amazon and Lala, iTunes does have some catching up to do, both in non-DRM content and in price.
- CraigReed, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1To say that apple was late to the table on DRM free music is a complete representation since I'm pretty sure they were the first to start offering them in the first place along with EMI, The problem however is that they have not been successful in expanding the library or DRM free music to match the size of say Amazon.com. But this is not Apples fault the music industry is reluctant to hand over too much DRM free music to Apple because their afraid the service will become too powerful for them to have any real influence over not that they have much at the moment. Price is a non issue Apple believes 99c is the sweet spot it won't change.
- CraigReed, on 11/20/2008, -15/+20Catch up? What are you smoking exactly? Apple is the number one music retailer and that includes physical media.
- macmyday, on 11/20/2008, -15/+9Me thinks wisedude not so wise
- miriv365, on 11/20/2008, -3/+9Of course, everyone on digg would say that paying 99 cents for a 128 kbps version of an MP3 (or whatever bitrate they are going to offer) would be wayyyyyy too much, and they would stop pirating if they would drop it down to a more reasonable 25 cents a song.
- deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -8/+1If they really want to stop piracy they need a subscription service. I pay $20 a month and I get two or three albums per month. Then I would consider using iTunes instead of the much cheaper competitors like Amazon.
- so1omon, on 11/20/2008, -1/+10This I don't understand... You'd be willing to pay a subscription fee of $20 a month for 2 albums a month? You realize that 2 albums on iTunes costs $20 now, right?
How would a subscription service make any difference at all? - deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1I guess they would have to make it 3 albums.
- DirtyDiggDog, on 11/20/2008, -2/+3The problem is you don't own those albums. Stop paying the subscription fee and the music doesn't play anymore... unless you pay another fee to get the "burnable" version. Subscription services suck. If I'm going to pay for music, I want to own it. Forever.
- Elvaanish, on 11/23/2008, -0/+2Thats the problem people have with the iTunes store DirtyDiggDog; most of what you buy ISNT yours forever. Purchasing DRMed music, be it subscription or not, is renting. Ask all those urge, yahoo music and msn music customers how they're feeling about their DRM purchases.
If you cant authorize your computer (discontinued service? legal issues? apple going bankrupt in the great depression of 2020?) then the music really isn't yours.
iTunes is a rental service as it is.
- so1omon, on 11/20/2008, -1/+10This I don't understand... You'd be willing to pay a subscription fee of $20 a month for 2 albums a month? You realize that 2 albums on iTunes costs $20 now, right?
- secrity, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I don't mind paying 89¢ or 99¢ for an MP3 from Amazon. I generally prefer to buy a CD and rip it, but I also buy MP3s; especially if I want it RIGHT now.
89¢ or 99¢ is actually cheaper than 45 singles used to be.
- deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -8/+1If they really want to stop piracy they need a subscription service. I pay $20 a month and I get two or three albums per month. Then I would consider using iTunes instead of the much cheaper competitors like Amazon.
- colorme, on 11/20/2008, -2/+19Yet another reason that I use Amazon's MP3 store on my Mac. The client is a little clunky, but the files are 240kbps (VBR), DRM-free mp3s. Songs are $0.99 at most, and albums max out at $9.99, but many cost less.
- ibeetle, on 11/20/2008, -9/+3First there was the processor megahertz myth.
Then came the camera megapixel myth.
Now we have the Mp3 encode myth. Bigger is better.
Study after study, survey after survey shows 128 AAC provides a equal to or better audio file than 192 or in some cases 240 Mp3.- reformation, on 11/20/2008, -4/+4I can't stand 'bit rate' snobs - mainly ignorant idiots who convince themselves they can hear the difference despite a mountain of evidence that proves they can't.
- MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+11And yet study after study shows more devices support mp3 than AAC. That is why so many people prefer mp3. It is the standard. Not a standard, the standard.
That being said, we're talking about Apple here, who will probably use AAC for the simple fact that it's what they've always used, and because they don't care about making their music compatible with other devices. However, I could also see a huge amount of newer players suddenly supporting the AAC format should these deals actually go through. In that case, we may see a shift to AAC being the standard. - deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3You sound like an infomercial.
- weareglass, on 11/20/2008, -1/+5I'm a DJ, and I use MP3s (through Serato) in my gigs. I can tell you based on playing my MP3 collection through a large number of sound systems what the difference is. If you're utilizing normal consumer-grade speakers or headphones (like Apple's earbuds) you will not notice a difference, and when there are studies, they test on these devices.
The problem arises when you bring in better speakers or good pairs of headphones, which have a higher dynamic range. Limiting a song's bitrate mostly just compresses its dynamic range, cutting out the highest highs and lowest lows. On a good system, 128kbit files sound closer or stuffy and less compressed tracks sound fuller. Because nothing sucks more than playing one of your favorite songs to a big room of people and realizing it sounds like ass. Try getting a pair of good headphones and listening closely, I find the difference to be obvious, although once you get to 256ish I can't tell the difference between that and 320 or CD.
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb/index.html
(top Google result, note the conclusion, 128 sounds identical FOR COMPUTER USE. A.k.a. ***** speakers. Stick to 256.) - Klucki, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2"I can't stand 'bit rate' snobs - mainly ignorant idiots who convince themselves they can hear the difference despite a mountain of evidence that proves they can't."
Oh please, that's like saying an experienced Guitarist can't tell the difference between different pickups. You CAN hear the difference, if you know what to listen for...
When I first started listening to mp3's I couldn't tell the difference between a CD or a 128kbs mp3. Then I started to hear that 'underwater' sound and switched to a higher bit-rate. Nowadays, I can tell the difference between 320kbs and 256kbs if I listen really hard (although it is extremely minor) and I find that 256kbs is my 'minimum', 192kbs is annoying, and 128kbs is completely unlistenable.
Speakers make a MASSIVE difference also. Don't expect to care about bit-rates on your ***** little iPod earbuds... - Klucki, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1*****, weareglass beat me to it. Only his post was less troll-like, and my grammar sucks...
- someology, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Hey, just because you are deaf isn't our problem.
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I agree. I only buy a song on iTunes if it is in the Plus format (they do sound better), otherwise I get it from Amazon.
It's funny because I'll see a suggestion or new release in the iTMS, see it's not Plus, and get it on Amazon instead. Apple just doesn't have much incentive right now to beg the record labels for a deal to switch their entire catalog over the the higher quality because most people using iTunes don't really care they have DRM in the first place.- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2That's very true. I do much the same with iTunes and Amazon, but what a lot of people forget is that the iPod isn't to complement iTunes but that iTunes is to complement the iPod. Apple DOES make a profit per download (even after all the administration costs), but it isn't nearly what they make off the sale of iPods.
I doubt Apple really cares where you get your content just as long as you listen to it via their player. Remember that iTunes allowed you to rip your CDs into it from almost the very beginning. If buying content was a major source of income, they would have restricted that when iTMS was opened. They didn't because iTMS was just one more reason to buy an iPod over something else.
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2That's very true. I do much the same with iTunes and Amazon, but what a lot of people forget is that the iPod isn't to complement iTunes but that iTunes is to complement the iPod. Apple DOES make a profit per download (even after all the administration costs), but it isn't nearly what they make off the sale of iPods.
- mmeiser, on 11/22/2008, -0/+1If I could digg this up twice I would. ***** apple... I've got what I want... who cares about the itunes music store, it's irrelevant.
Ironic... I'm a huge mac fan, but I've always known their potential to be evil... particularly where media is involved. I've always said the thing that keeps them in check is that they were small... i.e. if apple was as big as microsoft they'd look M$ look downright pleasant... but that's changing. Apple is growing, and as it gains more and more dominant marketshare in areas it'll just get more evil.
- ibeetle, on 11/20/2008, -9/+3First there was the processor megahertz myth.
- ButterBuddha, on 11/20/2008, -16/+45I hear the music on Pirate Bay doesn't have any DRM...
- diggitalism, on 11/20/2008, -10/+3i also hear it's free
- pixelrunner, on 11/20/2008, -11/+16And have also heard it is stealing...
If they sell it..you did not pay for it.. did not receive it as a gift.. then yes it is stolen. No matter if the RIAA is right or not it is morally wrong.
Yep..digg me down.- MorpheousMarty, on 11/20/2008, -6/+4It's not stolen, it is illegally obtained. To steal you need to take something, not just get something without paying. If I sneak into a movie I didn't steal; if I take a movie ticket, I did steal. If I hear a poem and write it down, I didn't steal, even if I could buy a printout of it.
- pixelrunner, on 11/20/2008, -2/+9I disagree, that statement is a cop out. You are taking money from those who should have received it for their ideas or services. Because something is not physical/tangible does not make it any less valuable. You take that whatever without paying for it that is theft.
- klowngoblin, on 11/21/2008, -3/+0in order to steal music i think you would need to physically steal the orginal master disc (the ones hanging on the wall usually) in order to ACTUALLY steal it.
anyways, until stores offer 320kbps mp3s or flac tracks for a reasonable price, no thanks.
- Spuy767, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4I hear if I went out and bought a Kansas t-shirt, then the artist would get more coin than If I bought Every single kansas album ever recorded at retail. . .
- so1omon, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5That depends... That's really only true If you went to a Kansas SHOW, and bought that shirt.
- Spuy767, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2The point stands, Album sales pay dick to the artist.
- se7en11, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Save your money and get an "I love New Mexico" shirt...
- DemDude, on 11/20/2008, -3/+8Many, many nice people just like you are making their living from working in the music industry.
There's no doubt, the means the RIAA are using are absolutely wrong, but the idea behind it is not.
Stealing music is stealing, and doing so destroys the jobs of people like me, who are working in the industry because they love music, and who don't condone the actions of the RIAA.
I don't steal the product of your work, so please don't steal the product of mine =(
edit: Oh, but please don't buy it if it's DRM'ed. The Bosses need to learn that DRM is *****.- deadmoo, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Just to be clear, It is more a matter of stealing from the recording industry than stealing from the artist IMHO.
- MacParrot, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4@deadmoo
And who do you think pays the salaries of people like DemDude? The artists? No, the very people you claim to have no problem ripping off - DemDude, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2It's like MacParrot said.
I'm in IT-Support at a Music- and Movie- Mastering/Data-Carrier-production/Digital Distribution company. So I am one of thousands of people who work hard to make sure you get your music or movies in the best possible quality, wether it's on CD or Online. My job is directly tied to CD-/DVD-/BluRay-/mp3- sales.
And still, I'm strictly against all forms of copy-protection, DRM, etc. and I dare say I'm not an evil *****. I think CDs, DVDs and especially BluRays are too expensive (at least they are in Germany, I don't really know about other markets), and the way the RIAA is handling the people is an outrage beyond good and evil.
Oh, and something I hate the most is the way Metallica treat their loyal customers. I have just bought "Death Magnetic" yesterday, and the CD's sound-quality is pure *****. You can hear an extreme difference between the CD and Guitar Hero 3. I actually thought I had blown my in-car speakers by cranking the volume up too much when I first listened to the Disk... I don't get how a single Band can ***** their fans so hard, again and again. First Metallica vs. Napster, then Metallica vs. General Public, now Metallica vs. the buyers of their Album...
- daridave, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Pwnage approved. But you really download mp3s there? I honestly never did. Frostwire [crappy, I know] or some mp3-centric torrent sites... but then again, I got lazy, "searching for music" is now in my "boring things to do" dept... which is why for 99 cents w/o DRM, Apple is actually going to win me over! Cuz so far, my iTunes music expenses are at $0.00 ...
- fatas, on 11/20/2008, -8/+4but you rich pansies are screwed by copy protection
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10103284-37.html ...- Avian00, on 11/20/2008, -3/+5Except that has nothing to do with this. This article is about DRM-free music. That article talks about people being screwed by the HDCP on the video output of the new MacBooks. That won't make my DRM-free music from iTunes not play in other players.
- deshabble, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6Buying CD's has become cheaper now, at least in England. Like The Cures 'Wish' album downloaded costs £7.99, but the CD costs £5, besides, it's nice to have a tangible copy of the music, rather than something that could be potentially lost altogether.
- enclaved, on 11/20/2008, -4/+6Physical objects can be lost just as easily.
- secrity, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2In many cases, people rip and properly their CDs. Even if the CD gets lost they still have the rip. They would have to lose both the physical copy and the electronic copy in order to lose the music.
- secrity, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2In many cases, people rip and properly their CDs. Even if the CD gets lost they still have the rip. They would have to lose both the physical copy and the electronic copy in order to lose the music.
- reformation, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4I'm not sure how you mean it could be 'lost' if you have a digital copy.
If you bought it legally you can just download it again from the digital store for free
If you lose a CD its lost for good.- KSUdesigner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7What happens when the digital store goes out of business though?
- HolyChimp, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Since when does iTunes allow this with music? It's one of the few things that pisses me off with iTunes. Buy anything off Steam, Xbox Live or even the iTunes App Store and you can redownload for life. Buy a song from iTunes and once you download it once then you'd best back it up!
- robbob, on 11/23/2008, -0/+1Anyone would be a fool to buy a digital compressed copy over a (lossless) CD, especially if it was cheeper
- reformation, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Unless the purchaser didn't have a CD player, or had realised that on most 'home' stereos there is no audible difference between CD and a well ripped copy (AAC or mp3).
- reformation, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Unless the purchaser didn't have a CD player, or had realised that on most 'home' stereos there is no audible difference between CD and a well ripped copy (AAC or mp3).
- enclaved, on 11/20/2008, -4/+6Physical objects can be lost just as easily.
- papavb, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4Good thing Apple is at least talking about this, and after Job's open letter a while back it would be a good move for the entire music industry to get on board, again. Microsoft is ahead of Cupertino in this aspect, a nice change in the ongoing "rivalry", but the winners are us consumers who get to take our music wherever the ***** we want.
- unitedkronos, on 11/20/2008, -0/+15I wish Apple would go a step further and start to sell Apple Lossless, FLAC or WAV files, many indie/underground music stores like...
http://www.beatport.com http://www.beatsource.com http://www.trackitdown.net http://www.junodownload.com http://www.bleep.net ...do so already.- unitedkronos, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4http://www.bleep.com Digg needs more than five minutes to edit comments.
- se7en11, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Most of us need at least 24 hours to say "What was I thinking??" after leaving a comment. :)
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Not going to happen with the RIAA members obviously, but I'm a bit surprised they don't even have the option for Apple Lossless for any labels that actually want to use it.
I'm guessing the reason they're reluctant to offer Lossless has to do with bandwidth costs, although when you exclude RIAA labels you're not talking about a lot of downloads. - baldgye, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Beatport FTW
- unitedkronos, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4http://www.bleep.com Digg needs more than five minutes to edit comments.
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -5/+9What is the point of this article? I don't get it. Apple already sells DRM-free music in the iTunes Plus format, which is 256kbps unprotected AAC. If the other labels are thinking of hopping on-board with EMI with DRM-free tracks (like they do with Amazon), I'm sure they would stay with the AAC format Apple uses considering there's no reason to switch to an inferior format.
- icecoldtrashcan, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3And a good deal of smaller labels, or self-produced artists, sell in the non-DRM higher bit-rate iTunes plus anyway. I've been surprised how much mainstream stuff is now available in iT+ recently.
I think what the article is pointing out is that the big labels have cottoned on to the fact that they will still sell a good deal of non-DRM music without losing sales to people downloading illegally - and that they can actually use that as a selling point. I expect piracy rates are going to stay pretty constant. It's nice that they're finally deciding to accept that no matter what they do, somebody somewhere is going to pirate it - and in a way, slapping DRM all over stuff is just going to make people pirate more.
- icecoldtrashcan, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3And a good deal of smaller labels, or self-produced artists, sell in the non-DRM higher bit-rate iTunes plus anyway. I've been surprised how much mainstream stuff is now available in iT+ recently.
- ibeetle, on 11/20/2008, -3/+4I am hoping that the term "Mp3" is being used here loosely, or generically sense Apple currently uses a superior codex in AAC.
- KSUdesigner, on 11/20/2008, -0/+4since
- MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Codec?
- ibeetle, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I have got to stop posting at 7 in the morning before I finish the coffee.
- SuperSunny, on 11/20/2008, -4/+3I'm going to be honest, it's been a LONG time since I've bought a 128kb song from iTunes. Majority of the songs are 256kb + format, same price.
Hell, I hardly buy songs haha, but when it's required, it's always 256 at the store now.
And AAC>Mp3. If you want Mp3, you can convert it within iTunes. (as long as it's plus format)- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Most of the songs are still not in the Plus format, apparently you're just lucky that all of the artists you like have their stuff in the Plus format.
I have a ton of songs from the iTMS, mostly from gift certificates, and I've only been able to upgrade a portion of them to the Plus format.- SuperSunny, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Most indie artists are in plus, (Tycho, McBride, Ulrich etc), if for some reason major artists are not in plus, I would be surprised. Except almost every song I've seen has been plus. Unless it's really far off.
- MonkeyFit, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5"If you want Mp3, you can convert it within iTunes. (as long as it's plus format)"
lossy->lossy
fail
- CrimsonBlur, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5Most of the songs are still not in the Plus format, apparently you're just lucky that all of the artists you like have their stuff in the Plus format.
- aliguana, on 11/20/2008, -4/+2for gods sake why? AAC is far superior, in terms of bitrate/quality (no, I'm not starting a HA listening test). The only problem with iTS AAC is 1) The DRM, which you don't get in iT+ and 2) their finnicky tagging, which doesn't show up properly on Nokia's etc.
I've been happily ripping/encoding in AAC for a couple of years, I don't see the point of going backwards to MP3 (even if they offer decent LAME encodings, which you know they won't)- deslock, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Microsoft had the exact same argument with their wma format. It's superior right?
Vendor lockin is vendor lockin. No matter how much they pass promises of openness. iTunes greatly prefers AAC and it has nothing to do with quality... it is due to the fact that they own it.- LoganT, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Apple does not own AAC.
- deslock, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Microsoft had the exact same argument with their wma format. It's superior right?
- Barackalypse, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3On review apparently more players decode AAC than I thought, so I editted my comment. I still like FLAC better though.
- TheZorch, on 11/20/2008, -0/+15If the labels refused Apple would have a case, they could claim the RIAA is engaged in unfair business practices by allowing its competitors to offer unprotected music yet forces them to offer protected music. They'd win hands down because clearly doing that to Apple is illegal. The RIAA is its own worst enemy, DRM is a failure it doesn't stop criminals at all, but it certainly does stop legitimate consumers from enjoying their products.
- geoken, on 11/20/2008, -4/+1If it is going to be AAC, the labels could simply come back at Apple and accuse them of using iTunes to push AAC and say that's they reason they aren't working with Apple.
- kandlem7, on 11/20/2008, -5/+3DRM is sucks - I like to use FLAC and OGG because these formats are the best!
- smoger, on 11/20/2008, -0/+11"a move that could further distance the digital download service from its rivals"
..but it's rivals already *have* unprotected mp3 tracks. what am i missing?- Shakermaker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1...an iPod?
- mesasone, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1My tracks from the Amazon mp3 store have no problem finding their way onto my iPhone... they even provide an application that will automatically add your downloads to your iTunes library.
- smoger, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1i have a Zune, a sansa, and a G1. there's no hole in my life that an iPod would fill
- se7en11, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I think it's saying that Apple is already doing well, but by adding non-DRM tracks, it would push them well ahead of everyone else.
- Shakermaker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1...an iPod?
- Shakermaker, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2Don't they already offer this with EMI music?
- JustinAiken, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I'd be more interested in ALAC/FLAC or mp3s encoded with lame -v0... until then there's oinks replacements...
- DirtyDiggDog, on 11/20/2008, -1/+0"a move that could further distance the digital download service from its rivals"
It means that Apple is already kicking everybody's ass now. Adding non DRM tracks would put them even further ahead in popularity. Hell, most other services only exist because they have non-DRM tracks for sale. If Apple sells tracks with no DRM, I suspect most other services will simply cease to exists. - Macintoshreader, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2These DRM-free songs should be of 256kbps AAC quality.
- Kragnerac, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1They are.
- fishbulb95, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2" I'd buy that for a dollar! "
- TheToecutter, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Until songs are no more that 50 cents...I'm not biting.
- cooli0, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0Just google mp3's http://top40music.50webs.com/b/index.html
beware the honeypots
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is