PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
When The Levee Breaks
March 16th 2002, 22:09 CET by HoseWater

This is my first crack at an article for PlanetCrap, so go easy on me even if you hate this.

This article has a decidedly Canadian spin on it, but from what I can tell, it is something we should all know about.  Here is the story as it pertains to those of us in Canada. You probably want to find out what is going on in your own country as well.

The executive summary: You may, or may not know, but every time you buy a blank recording medium in Canada, and apparently many, many other countries (listed later), you pay a ransom/tax otherwise known officially as a levy which in turn is handed over to the copyright holders of music.  For the purpose of this article, a 'recording medium' consists of blank cassettes, blank CD’s, blank DVD’s, flash ram, and hard drives embedded in audio players.

This has been the case since the Copyright Act was amended in 1997.  As part of that amendment, the concept of ‘Copying for personal’ use was included.  Americans on this list probably understand this as the concept of ‘fair use’.

Part of the ‘personal use’ section tells us that it is not an infraction of the ACT to copy part or all of a performance, or recording provided you do not try to redistribute (for free or otherwise), have a public performance blah blah, you get the idea. Right after they make all that clear in the Act, they then go on to tell us that the copyright holder has a ‘Right of Remuneration’.

This is where my beef starts. I will explain.

To implement this process of remuneration, a body was created to collect, and distribute these fees. Part of the job this body does, is set the amount of the remuneration.  To its credit, this is a somewhat public process, in that it does hold hearings related to these fees, and people can appear before them with any concerns for consideration by the board.

The body that has been created for this process is called interestingly enough, ‘The Canadian Private Copying Collective’ (CPCC).  This Collective which is a non-profit umbrella organization was created in 1998 and counts as members, four other groups all affiliated with songwriters and music publishers.

This is where it gets ugly for me.

This group is essentially, the same group of people who will be receiving the money they are collecting. And more importantly, they are the ones who get to set these fees.  I suppose it should go without saying, but I am going to spell it out anyway, that this same group of organizations have a history of being extremely biased against the technologies and recording mediums for which they now have the power to penalize by way of these fees.

I suppose it is time for me to cut to the chase a bit here, and get the meat of my argument on the plate.  I just wanted to provide some background for where all this originates.

As I mentioned already at the start, these fees are already being extracted. So far, it’s not too bad.  Most people probably are completely unaware that this is happening, and if it can slip under the radar so nicely, it must not be too much of a burden and I should just shut up, but these fees have come up for a review, and they have proposed an updated schedule of fees.

The new fees are onerous in my mind, and should not slip by unnoticed, or unchallenged. In fact, when they take effect in 2003, and the price of a spindle of blanks, more than doubles, I expect that people will finally take notice, but by then, it will be too late. Also, the updated fees include new fees for media that was not in widespread use at the time when they were first created. The new items being embedded RAM, and hard drives.

Let me lay out the fees as they are now, set in December of 1999, and the proposed rates for 2003 and beyond:

Cassette tape: 23.3 cents now, going up to 60.0 cents. (each)
CD-R/CD-RW: 5.2 cents now - going up to 59 cents. (each)
CR-R/CD-RW audio and minidisk: 60.8 cents now - going up to $1.23. (each)

New for 2003:

DVD-R/DVD-RW/DVD+RW/DVD-RAM: $2.27 (each)
Each megabyte of non removable ram for mp3 player or similar device: 2.1 cents.
Each Gigabyte of non removable hard drive storage in mp3 or similar device - $21.00!

Sound bad yet? Let me go one step further with a real world example.

Currently, it is possible to get a 50-pack of blanks for $20.00, I know from the existing fee schedule, that $2.60 of that goes back to music copyright holders.  Not too bad, nothing to get excited about. But the cost of the levy alone on that same stack of blanks in 2003 will be $29.50 or the retail cost of that stack in total will now be $46.90. How about that for an overnight increase, just to pay for the potential, that you will copy music to those CD’s, straight into music producers pockets courtesy of themselves.

Here is an even worse scenario:  Should you decide to purchase a 20Gb Nomad mp3 Jukebox, the cost of the levy alone, will run up to $420.00, and that is not even including the cost of the device itself.  That is 100% new fee, that did not exist before.  It would seem to me that the music industry, at least in Canada, has found a way to kill off one of their little problems.  God forbid, someone buys one of those new car mp3 players, with the 60Gb of storage, which will have a $1260.00 tax applied to it before it even hits the shelves.

Anyway, this is what is happening, and they are currently soliciting objections to this.  Right now, might be a good time to speak up.  

I regret that as of yet, I have been unable to find any information as to how much has been collected, how much has been distributed, or to whom.

An interesting side note which has a game angle in the second part: While reviewing the document which outlines the objection process, they provide some guidelines. One of the things they are nice enough to tell you right up front, is that suggesting that they apply no levy at all will not be considered.  Period. This is something they have to do by law as it is part of the copyright act. There is no getting around this at this point.

Also interesting is that they point out in the proposal that the only people who are entitled to collect on the fees are people who own rights in sound recordings. Owners of other works, and they specify explicitly, computer programs, movies, literary works, are NOT entitled to receive anything at all.  Zero, nada, sweet fuck all, thanks for asking, now go away. This is a fee that game publishers would have to pay to music publishers when they purchase blank media to distribute their own games.

I would also like to point out that they state in no uncertain terms that there is no exception to this for consumer products.  It would not matter if you could prove conclusively that the media was used for purposes other than copying music, the fee to the music industry still has to be paid.

Some links to where all this comes from, and places to search if you would like more info, think I am full of shit, or just need some arguing points if you think I have this all wrong.

The Copyright Board Canada – Copyright Act

The Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC)

Tariff of levies for 1999/2000

Proposed levies for 2003/2004

Update:  I found a website which mentions countries such as Germany, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, The Czech Republic, Austria, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Slovenia, and the UK.  So I think that about counts nearly all of us in.

Here is the link for that page:

Please Discuss.
Home » Topic: When The Levee Breaks

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by Leslie Nassar
2002-03-16 22:10:35
Tariffs on recordable media are the price you pay for socialized medicine!

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#2 by EricFate
2002-03-16 22:11:05
It's Canada.  They need all the tax money they can get.
#3 by bluishred
2002-03-16 22:12:59
Good enough for me.
#4 by Bezzy
2002-03-16 22:16:02
I seriously doubt it will slow piracy (if that's its goal). People buy recordable media out of necessity.. not cost. The only way to get it to work is to make each recordable CD cost more than buying the licensed title, and that's just a little unlikely.

It's not a bad idea for a coprimise, (innocent users aside - but... that can't be that much of a portion of people). But, agreed, it's being handled by some pretty greedy organizations.

They have the right to defend their IP, but not to rape my dog. It's questionable whether this all goes too far, and it's very difficult to not sound like a self righteous warez kiddy in condemning their actions. A shame.

Sick and tired and not impressed with shoehorning art into a profitable industry.
#5 by bluishred
2002-03-16 22:36:23
This scares me a whole lot. Not because i'll have to pay more for blank cds, but seeing how much power big companies have over the government. This is the beginning of the END! Soon, after countless mergers there will be one gigantic global company, and people should either join them, fight them, or be indifferent. And there will be NEUTERS!
#6 by HoseWater
2002-03-16 22:43:12
Wow, neat, I made it.  Now I can stop hammering the site day and night to see if someone would push this over the edge, and torture me by placing my broken link on the front page.  :)

I have been thinking about this quite a bit since I wrote it, and have things I would like to add.

First up though, Bezzy:  You seem to have gone down some of the same roads I did when I wrote this up.  At one point the piece had a short paragraph stating that I am not just a common thief, begging to get all my stuff for free, but that got cut in a revision since I hoped that other things I said helped make that clear without actually saying it.  

At first glance, it does not seem to be an attempt to wipe out piracy, in fact, making copies for yourself, is perfectly legal, though it does seem that they are heading down that road with the giant charge added to the non-removable hardisk.  I find it hard to justify that as anything but punitive, and an attempt to kill those devices before they even become popular.

In a way, the charges almost seem fair if we consider them the cost of 'fair use', but at the same time, it would seem more credible if someone other than the organizations getting the kitty in the end, were the ones setting, and collecting the fees.  I would also like to see some public documentation as to how much is being collected, and who is it being given to?

The other part of the current system that I do not like is the lack of exceptions.  I think I understand why there are no exceptions, but I am not sure how to get around it. My theory on why there are no exceptions is that this fee is payable by either the importer, or the manufacturer of the product. With that in mind, neither of those groups can reasonably be expected to know what is going to happen with the products once they are sold. One solution to this, is to add the fee at the point of sale, but that gets ugly, when you add an extra line item to the receipt, consumers will justifiably freak out.

One other thing I would like to add, is that I might have a factual error in the piece.  I stated that game publishers would be eating this.  I am not too sure about this after thinking about it more.  The CD's they use, are not typically CDRs, and probably do not get caught in this levy.  That is unfortunate, as it means the little guy gets screwed, while the big pirates, with the expensive equipment to stamp out the pressed aluminum type CD's will not be affected at all. I am not 100% on that, but that's my current take.

I don't know what to think.  One day, this has me in a rage, and the next, I can sort of see how it could be fair. depends on my mood at the time.

© 1968-2002 Robert 'HoseWater" Lloyd
#7 by Gunp01nt
2002-03-16 22:53:11
kinda weird though that they automatically asume you'll use the cd-r's to copy other people's intellectual property... are they legally speaking allowed to do that? it would seem to be the same thing as sentencing everyone that buys a gun to death on the grounds that you assume they're gonna use the gun to kill someone...

(of course, the cold hard reality is that nearly everyone DOES use cd-r's to copy IP, but still...)

"I'm not sleeping with a junior high-schooler, I have a life sized doll that looks just like one."
#8 by HoseWater
2002-03-16 23:06:18
That is odd, I agree.  If you consider that as you do things in life, you are running a computer program called 'life'.  And as you do things, different subroutines get called based on your current actions.  So as you hop in your car, the subroutine 'Highway Traffic Act' gets called, and monitors your actions as you drive from A to B.  

I for one, would be surprised to look at the process list while I was shopping to find that the 'copyright act' was invoked. I could understand seeing the criminal code running to make sure I don't steal anything, and I could understand seing 'general revenues' running to collect some tax along the way, but not the copyright one.

It seems that as you make that purchase, a subthread gets run called 'police/judge/jury'.  This runs in one cycle, catches you copying shit in the future, arrests you, hauls you before a judge, finds you guilty, and issues a fine, which you pay as you leave the store.

Under the copyright law, this is all perfectly legal, it is the law afterall, but I am not sure how that interacts with other laws.  Someone much smarter than me would have to piece that together, and get a precident set before the courts, to have it changed.

© 1968-2002 Robert 'HoseWater" Lloyd
#9 by crash
2002-03-16 23:12:46
i'd comment on this topic, but i'm a smoker, and i live in california. thus, almost half of the price of a pack of smokes is pure, punitive taxes.

my advice to canadians: stock up on blanks now.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#10 by GayTankCommander
2002-03-16 23:16:32
Soldier, this whole operation is FOOBAAAAR!

Twenty bucks says the giirl pins the wimp!
#11 by Bailey
2002-03-16 23:16:54
I'm thinking it's time to buy a few 50-CD spindles.

I have transferred all my self-loathing onto you.
#12 by HoseWater
2002-03-16 23:22:56
i'd comment on this topic, but i'm a smoker, and i live in california. thus, almost half of the price of a pack of smokes is pure, punitive taxes.

Now, just imagine that the taxes were set, and collected by the anti smoking lobby, to divy up amongst themselves.

© 1968-2002 Robert 'HoseWater" Lloyd
#13 by "Dinglehoffen"
2002-03-16 23:29:18
I'm a smoker too. Since this post regards Canada to some degree, here's a miniscule tidbit of on-topic pepper: Canada gave us Rush. That favor alone is enough for us to defend them with our...well, maybe England's lives.
#14 by crash
2002-03-16 23:40:29

Now, just imagine that the taxes were set, and collected by the anti smoking lobby, to divy up amongst themselves.

um. near as i can tell, they are.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#15 by crash
2002-03-16 23:42:20
bah. hit post too soon. the money they collect goes towards anti-smoking propaganda, which they were already paying for. they claim the money's for social programs and health care, but bitch, please--all those billboards and tv spots and radio ads cost a whoooooole lotta money. besides, the concept of "earmarking tax money" for specific programs in the labyrinthine mess that is the government is a fucking joke. always has been, always will be.

so the two situations are, at least to the best of my knowledge, similar in many ways.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#16 by "mcgrew"
2002-03-17 02:04:30
Excellent topic, bravo!

Im going to post before reading any but the main post lest a true "mcgrew sized post" ensues...

A couple of things spring to mind. It appears that the Canadian government, like its southern neighbor's government, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the media conglomerates. Copyright somehow went from a pact between creative folk and everybody else that content creators would have a (as the US constitution puts it) "limited time" sales monopoly where anything except selling exact copies was legal, with the trade to society being that it would recieve the fruits of this creativity, to today's situation where a copyright outlives an author's great grandchldren, and any copying or use can be forbidden anyone for any reason uder penalty of prison (DMCA-SSSCA).

I don't see bootleg copies being SOLD in the US, nor have I heard of it in Canada. Why are we allowing Hollywood bloodsuckers to buy our governments?

The second thought is, they better stock up on blank CDs in Chicago, because the Canadians will be coming down for them en-masse.

wouldn't you know it, I forgot my pc password before I ever got a chance to use it =(
#17 by "mcgrew"
2002-03-17 02:19:26
1 "Tariffs on recordable media are the price you pay for socialized medicine!"

We pay a tax on blank media too, but alas have no socialized medicine. My insurance costs more than I can afford, then the deductables and co payments can drive you bankrupt if you face major surgery, and people are dying because our drugs cost two to a hundred times as much as yours.

12 crash smoking-
dude, that was the #1 reason I quit (Dec 29 1999). Smokes were fifteen bucks a carton here, now are thirty and the next tax hike puts them at forty. Illinois smokers buy in Kentucky or Missouri.

holy crap maybe i reformed at posting too
#18 by Kayin
2002-03-17 03:20:50
Before long the border patrol will be searching you for cuban cigars AND 50 pack spindles of blanks...

i like mudpuddles.
#19 by "Anonymous"
2002-03-17 03:45:44
my advice to canadians: stock up on blanks now.

I'm thinking it's time to buy a few 50-CD spindles.

It's all one large conspiracy between the music industry, the gov't and the distributors!!! :p

Once this gets into the mainstream, you can bet the turnover rate of cdrs etc will shoot through the roof.
#20 by JMCDaveL
2002-03-17 03:50:20
Wow, is this "old news week" on PlanetCrap? :P

Eventually companies will start producing no cds at all, and just rip a copy and release it onto the internet. No need to have you buy it online, since you will have already paid for it and every new Britney Spears cd to ever come out from your cd-r tax! Woohoo capitalism!

#21 by Bailey
2002-03-17 04:17:07
Er... wasn't internet distribution argued into the ground when we were discussing games? What makes OS's so different?

I have transferred all my self-loathing onto you.
#22 by crash
2002-03-17 05:30:27

12 crash smoking-
dude, that was the #1 reason I quit (Dec 29 1999).

if i had to pay full price for mine, i might quit too. alas, i know too many people that know where, um, stuff tends to fall off trucks. if you know what i mean.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#23 by JMCDaveL
2002-03-17 05:49:50

#24 by Bailey
2002-03-17 05:51:49

alas, i know too many people that know where, um, stuff tends to fall off trucks. if you know what i mean.

No. No idea. I'm baffled and confused. (throwing blanket over wide-screen tv and 3 cases of black market Chilean Baby Extract®)



I have transferred all my self-loathing onto you.
#25 by Matthew Gallant
2002-03-17 06:07:10

Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
#26 by Matthew Gallant
2002-03-17 06:08:38
crash, if you check my profile this kitten has less compression artifacts.

Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
#27 by Foodbunny
2002-03-17 06:25:32
I like kittens.

"Our busts get bigger and bigger because they're bursting with great expectations for the future!  The he`t`nd p`rrhnn vd hnid in our chests is called life!"
#28 by Bailey
2002-03-17 08:32:29
I eat kittens.

I have transferred all my self-loathing onto you.
#29 by Max
2002-03-17 09:08:04
Oh man, I didn't need to see that.  I will never click a Bailey link again.  Well, unless there might be porn at the end.  Or, umm. NO. No more Bailey links.

#30 by crash
2002-03-17 09:12:28
Matthew: i like my kitten grainy. gives him that hard, edgy, gritty, pseudo-goth look. well, for a kitten, anyway.

- if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller
#31 by Terata
2002-03-17 09:35:57
It's an American McGee's kitten.
#32 by "Paul"
2002-03-17 11:46:20

If this is going to happen, stock up on TONS of CDS and then sell them!

- Paul
#33 by Bailey
2002-03-17 12:03:26

Don't lie to yourself. It gave you pleasure.


I tried photoshopping goth-egyptian makeup onto your kitten, but my skillz are so sorely lacking... So instead, I had a sandwich. Can you guess which kind? Well, can you?

I have transferred all my self-loathing onto you.
#34 by Terata
2002-03-17 12:06:09
The kitten's already wearing goth makeup.  Normally it's extremely pale white.
#35 by JMCDaveL
2002-03-17 14:22:23
Poor kitty

#36 by Warren Marshall
2002-03-17 14:37:41
OT, but I just witnessed a drunk posting in the wild.  Someone responded to a programming question with a bunch of math formulas and then, at the end ...

"I shouldn't post when i'm drunk, eheh...."

It's always a special moment.

I am a magnificent three toed sloth.
#37 by Matthew Gallant
2002-03-17 15:54:38
Matthew: i like my kitten grainy. gives him that hard, edgy, gritty, pseudo-goth look. well, for a kitten, anyway.

You decline our generous offer? I am very disappointed, Shaka. Oh well. I suppose you have something else to suggest?


Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
#38 by Duality
2002-03-17 16:01:43
Matthew: You have insulted my honor!  We declare war on you!

#39 by Dinglehoffen
2002-03-17 16:25:15
Fanny Fungus
This topic should be tarred and feathered, blinded with hair pins, then sent to challenge death valley with a small sip of Gatorade and pajamas. I was surprised that it wasn't mOnty who submitted it, because he's naughty.

"Wendy...WENDY...gimme the bat. I'm not gonna hurt ya...I'm just gonna bash yer brains in! Now gimme the bat..."
#40 by jafd
2002-03-17 16:50:43
This is a great topic. Here's some more stuff:

by Negativland

Reproduction of this essay is strongly encouraged.

So, why is that new "Oasis" CD so expensive?

In the early eighties, sales of vinyl, cassettes, turntables and cassette players were "flat". This means that sales were stable, not rising or falling. For the makers of all this hardware and software, that wasn't quite good enough. They needed a new angle. A new way to sell music and the stuff you play it on. Luckily, someone at the Phillips Corporation (owner of PolyGram Music and Island Records and one of the worlds top defense contractors) had the bright idea that it would be good for their stockholders and investors if they could get the music consuming public excited about buying music again by introducing a new format and a new machine to play it on (i.e. how can you convince that aging baby boomer to buy yet another copy of DEJA VU by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young when they already have one?)

Thus was born THE COMPACT DISC in all it's shiny, aluminum, plastic and digital glory. It's maximum playing time, about 75 minutes, was chosen because the president of the company wanted something that could play his favorite piece of music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, all the way through without stopping.

Well, compact discs weren't as successful as they had hoped. For one thing, their price was too high. The higher price was blamed both on the fact that they were mostly being made in Japan and that they had a high defect rate, with approximately one out of every three discs being tossed out before even leaving the CD factory. Early on, the economics of this led to an industry wide decision to continue paying recording artists a royalty rate based on the sale price of vinyl instead of the higher sale price of compact discs. And nobody was buying those new CD players either, because they were just too darned expensive.

But then, in the spring of 1989, something wonderful happened for the music industry. Everything changed! Almost overnight, CD's were everywhere! Suddenly they were a huge success and suddenly it became almost impossible to get anything on vinyl at all..

This change must have occurred because it was what the consumer wanted.....right? We live in a market-driven economy and the market was demanding more compact discs.....right?

Wrong. What actually happened was this - a flexible return policy had always existed between record stores and the seven major distributors, i.e. stores could "buy" something from a distributor, and if it didn't sell, they could return it. This allowed stores to take more chances on new releases or on things they were not so familiar with, because if it didn't sell, they could always send it back. Well, in the spring of 1989 all seven major label distributors announced that they would no longer accept "returns" on vinyl and they also began deleting much of the vinyl versions of their back catalog. These actions literally forced record stores to stop carrying vinyl. They could not afford the financial risk of carrying those releases that were on vinyl because if they didn't sell they would be stuck with them. Very quickly almost all record stores had to convert to CD's. The net effect of this was that the consumer no longer had a choice because the choice had been made for us. High priced compact discs were being shoved down our throats, whether we knew it or liked it or not.

As we mentioned earlier, record labels were paying artists a royalty rate on sales of CD's based upon the $8.98 or $9.98 list price of vinyl (or achieved the same end result by using contractual tricks like "packaging deductions"). As CD's took over and the majors all acquired their own domestic CD pressing plants and the defect rate dropped to almost zero, the cost of manufacturing compact discs dropped dramatically as well. One would have expected the price of CD's to also drop and for the profits to now be split evenly and fairly with the musicians who were making all the music.

This, of course, never happened. CD prices have continued to rise to a now unbelievable $16.98 list price (soon to be $17.98!) while manufacturing costs have now dropped to less than it costs to manufacture a $9.98 vinyl release. A CD, with its plastic jewel box, printed booklet and tray card now costs a major label about 80 cents each to make (or less) and a small independent label between $1.50 and $2.50. Meaning that CD's should now cost the consumer less than their original prices over a decade ago, not more. But the music business got consumers used to the idea of paying the higher price and the labels got used to the idea of their higher profit margin, and record labels continue to this day to pay almost all artists a royalty rate as if they're selling CD's for the list price of vinyl. That extra 4 or 5 or 6 bucks goes right into the pockets of the record labels. It is not shared with musicians. And of course, we all had to go out and buy a CD player (which had mysteriously dropped to a more reasonable price) if we wanted to hear any of the music on this "popular" new format. So, all in all, it's no wonder that the record industry and stereo manufacturers loved the compact disc. In fact the following year (when our economy was in a recession) the music industry had its biggest profits, ever!

If any of this bothers you as much as it does us, then you might be wondering why you've never heard about any of this or why no anti-trust action was ever taken against major labels and distributors. The answer to this is quite simple. Most of the reporting on the inner workings of the record business comes from the music press and the music press is almost totally reliant on the advertising dollars and good will of the business that they're writing about. So, in the interest of not wanting to "rock the boat" or anger the folks who essentially bankroll their publishing ventures, this story would, and will continue to remain, unreported. And with the coming "popularity" of DVD, the music industry looks like it is ready to try the same tricks all over again.


(Yeah, I coulda just linked to it (and them), but you saw what they said: reproduction was strongly encouraged. Who am I, to disagree with the wishes of artists?

I don't fully agree with all of this (nor do I have sufficient experiential knowledge to disagree), and it is a rather old piece of work, but I thought it had some relevance to the discussion. No pussy, the other discussion. ):

Don't laugh- you're next.
#41 by m0nty
2002-03-17 16:56:18
That's a worthy analysis, although I think it overdoes the starting premise that compact disc technology was just thought out of thin air by marketing consultants... I mean, behind all the industry shenanigans listed above, it was actually a technological improvement over vinyl. People tend to forget just how shitty vinyl was.

This comment is not intended to start a 50-post thread-hijack by old skool vinyl fetishists.
#42 by Dinglehoffen
2002-03-17 17:02:05
Fanny Fungus
"This comment is not intended to start a 50-post thread-hijack by old skool vinyl fetishists."

Then why did you post here?


"Wendy...WENDY...gimme the bat. I'm not gonna hurt ya...I'm just gonna bash yer brains in! Now gimme the bat..."
#43 by m0nty
2002-03-17 17:05:33
Dingle, you've lost your mojo. All I can see when I read your posts now is SKO Mormon version of Welcome Back Kotter.
#44 by Dinglehoffen
2002-03-17 18:05:38
Fanny Fungus
Well, maybe. But I'm not Mormon, you still have a red beard, and "Welcome Back Kotter" dates you as...(insert age, brand-name laxative, and Polygrip here).

"Wendy...WENDY...gimme the bat. I'm not gonna hurt ya...I'm just gonna bash yer brains in! Now gimme the bat..."
#45 by Duality
2002-03-17 19:17:59
Hey there Mistah Kott-aire!

#46 by Martin
2002-03-17 20:12:36
Is it just me or has there been a lot less posting as of lately, the past weeks or so?

-- Martin
"Burger me!"
#47 by HoseWater
2002-03-17 20:21:20
Today has been slow, and it is causing considerable testing problems for me.

© 1968-2002 Robert 'HoseWater" Lloyd
#48 by Russ
2002-03-17 20:21:41
Is it just me or has there been a lot less posting as of lately, the past weeks or so?

New Planetcrap 6! Now less filling!
#49 by Desiato
2002-03-17 20:29:14
#48 - Russ

That's one sweeeeeeet exposion....h-bomb? Just guessing.

But about CDs and such, one thing that bugged me about the whole anti-napster thing when Metallica was trying to show everyone how 'evil' it was, they did some silly skit "You don't mind if I borrow your girlfriend for a bit, do you?"....of course the metal-head fucknut did it wrong. You see, he would have a COPY of her, and the boyfriend...well...he still has his main squeeze. But hey, I'm sure they didn't consult anyone when they did that, like most propaganda - facts don't fit well.
#50 by Martin
2002-03-17 20:35:52
Spot teh funnay...

-- Martin
"Burger me!"
Home » Topic: When The Levee Breaks

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: []Cool Site[/url], [url][/url]
Email Links: []Email me[/email], [email][/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]