theodp writes "Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones and as much as 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download, Newsweek reports that record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. One example: If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the Google Video site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars." Even more ridiculous demands than those put forth in previous stories. Record Labels Unveil Greed 2.0 Log in/Create an Account | Top | 453 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 453 comments 0: 450 comments 1: 382 comments 2: 263 comments 3: 73 comments 4: 44 comments 5: 32 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 no suprise by ramdac (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:44PM Re:no suprise (Score:5, Interesting) by killdozer3k (779295) on Sunday October 09, @04:06PM (#13751975) The answer is simple: Delist Madonna and all the acts in question. Also de-wiki them untill they are paid to list them. Instead point all the references to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The only thing worse than not participating in the profits is to de-googled, de-yahooed, etc. Also close all their blogs.Google could ask for a list of all the names they would like to have stricken from the database. in fact this kind of counter poison should shock the hell out of the music buiz when the major search engines strike them from the internet record.The funniest thing about this is that PR people do everything they can to get people to talk about their star/product/act and then when they do they want to tax it. the reason there is a google is because of advertising. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:no suprise by RLiegh (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @04:20PM there isn't one shareholder of google (Score:5, Insightful) by zogger (617870) on Sunday October 09, @04:56PM (#13752319) (http://technocrat.net/ | Last Journal: Monday August 22, @11:57AM) And any shareholder can have an opinion on what is the best way to run a company. Some hold a very long term view, that by consistently "doing no evil", the company will last a long time and be even more profitable than doing everything they can to maximize profits in the "this quarter" mentality that so many other corporations have. In fact, perhaps more than a few people invested in google for that reason.There are many institutional and private investors that now consider ethics and politics in their investment decisions and it's completely legal and normal and they contend it's a long range logical view to take. If you as a potential investor read that google had such a "do no evil" policy and it lead to your decision to invest cash when they went public, then you could make a case where they violated that if they started "doing evil", and perhaps file a complaint.Funny story, friend of mine inherited a really nice portfolio. He divested all (to buy rental properties instead) except for enough shares in this or that company to go to the shareholder meetings and rail on issues about how the companies were run. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:there isn't one shareholder of google by RLiegh (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:22PM Re:no suprise (Score:5, Interesting) by Qzukk (229616) on Sunday October 09, @05:14PM (#13752402) What google should do then is beat the RIAA at their own game.Start by charging people an extra "RIAA Advertisement Fee" to run an ad on "Madonna" or the like. This money goes into a big pool. Then, from that pool, make up a list of services and subtract out 90% of the money for things like "fiscal management" "trademark research" "artist contact costs" or anything else that sounds good but is total contractually-agreed-to bullshit. [ Reply to This | ParentFecal management by Shazow (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @11:11PMHow about this by Darkman, Walkin Dude (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @05:40PMRe:How about this by rcbarnes (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:08PMRe:How about this by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:25PMRe:How about this by Darkman, Walkin Dude (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:08PMRe:no suprise by ehrichweiss (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @06:57PM Re:no suprise (Score:5, Informative) by TheWanderingHermit (513872) on Sunday October 09, @04:22PM (#13752074) Yes, you are right. And this is just one thing that is contributing to the mediocrity of popular music. But I'm actually glad to see this. The record companies keep claiming they are protecting royalties for artists, but I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that. Anybody who watches the music business knows artists are making money, but that the big guys are making more. Napster triggered a fear reaction, and now the RIAA is getting carried away with trying to overreact to everything and not just protect their revenue and old business models, but they've gotten so carried away they are overreaching.That's good. While it might cause higher prices for a while, the more they do this, the more their greed shows, and the closer they get to going too far and finally, through their own actions, forcing the entire industry to collapse -- leaving room for the real artists (not the sex symbols like Spears and such) to actually make a living on the work they create. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful) by Meagermanx (768421) on Sunday October 09, @04:38PM (#13752187) Even the 'real' artists depend on the record companies for advertising and marketing.The collapse of the music industry you anticipate would eithera. cause people to look online for free, indie music, which I doubt would happen, because most people are quite content being told what they like, orb. cause a smaller record company to rise in ranks, which would then take the place of the larger companies.  It's like government. If you knock one bully down, another pops up just as fast.Inevitably, he'll want his piece of the pie. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:no suprise by Mnemia (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @05:01PMRe:no suprise by ewe2 (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:03PMRe:no suprise by Master of Transhuman (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @07:32PMRe:no suprise by mdielmann (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:06PMRe:no suprise by TheSpoom (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:59PMRe:no suprise by Meagermanx (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:45PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.That's good? by ShimmyShimmy (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @06:15PMRe:no suprise by dallaskincaid (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @06:21PMRe:no suprise by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:46PM Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful) by squiggleslash (241428) on Sunday October 09, @04:39PM (#13752200) (Last Journal: Monday October 10, @12:17AM) That's why all new music acts are nothing more than a 'formula'. everything's over-produced and is total crap.It can't be total crap, otherwise people wouldn't pirate it, right? [ Reply to This | Parent Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful) by TheWanderingHermit (513872) on Sunday October 09, @04:54PM (#13752306) Nobody ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.If quality were the yardstick for whether or not most people watched something, Star Trek would not have been moved to the 10:00 timeslot (but, after season 3 it would have been dropped), and shows like "The Paper Chase" would never have been axed because everyone was watching shows that had degenerated into inane crap like "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley". If crap were always unpopular and people preferred something of quality instead, Shakespeare would still be outselling most bestsellers and Harlequin romances wouldn't exist. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful) by Asprin (545477) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dlonrasg}> on Sunday October 09, @06:42PM (#13752911) (http://slashdot.org/~Asprin | Last Journal: Wednesday November 05, @04:24PM) Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:no suprise by TheWanderingHermit (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:18PMRe:no suprise by Anarchitect_in_oz (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @08:19PMRe:no suprise by adalger (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @09:45PMBob Mould is today's Shakespeare? by mojoNYC (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @11:16PMRe:no suprise by zymurgy_cat (Score:2)Monday October 10, @12:53AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:no suprise by Belial6 (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:49PMRe:no suprise by Lucractius (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @10:30PMRe:no suprise by cbreaker (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @04:58PMRe:no suprise by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:53PMRe:no suprise by TCM (Score:2)Monday October 10, @12:51AM it's true, i know! (Score:5, Interesting) by tehwebguy (860335) on Sunday October 09, @05:09PM (#13752386) (http://www.theworldwidewebguy.com/) the more i work with bands and record labels (labels that are meant to be indie) the more dirt i find out about this industry.so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd.it's ingenious, and disgusting. [ Reply to This | ParentWhat's wrong with that? by geekee (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @06:53PMRe:What's wrong with that? by McSmithster (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @07:16PMRe:What's wrong with that? by bad-badtz-maru (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @07:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Kinda like Microbrews by FiskeBoller (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @09:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:no suprise (Score:5, Insightful) by misleb (129952) on Sunday October 09, @05:48PM (#13752632) Was there ever a time when pop music was more than a formula? Look as far back as the 40's. Mostly trite, fomulaic crap. I think the reality is that the majority of people don't really *enjoy* music or have any real preferences. They mostly just listen to whatever is on the radio and whatever is in fashon. Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits.-matthew [ Reply to This | ParentRe:no suprise by Joey7F (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:06PMRe:no suprise by iceanfire (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @11:29PMRe:no suprise by Deadstick (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:21PMRe:no suprise by Aadomm (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @07:46PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful) by bburton (778244) * on Sunday October 09, @03:45PM (#13751817) Artists don't even need labels anymore. It's now feasible for composers to do business directly with online music providers... it doesn't cost much to upload a few megabytes of info. After it's been on iTunes, Napster, or whatever; and has made some money, then produce the CD, using profit money from distributing online.The only reason the RIAA is useful to new artists is for advertising purposes, which is IMO isn't that great anyways. They are increasingly advertising the the artists they think can make the most money, not necessarily the artists that make the best music.The only thing they're really doing now is desperately holding on for their survival. If they persuade congress to pass enough laws in their favor maybe they'll stick around for a while...The RIAA today, is like the horse and buggy businesses when the automobile hit mainstream. They're obsolete.Go away RIAA, nobody likes you. [ Reply to ThisRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by romka1 (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @03:50PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful) by BoneFlower (107640) <geworrolljr.optonline@net> on Sunday October 09, @03:52PM (#13751857) (http://www.rentacode...p?lngAuthorId=521214 | Last Journal: Friday October 03, @03:52PM) In comes MySpace. One of its few actual uses- it is quite good for self promotion.They need to clean up the interface a bit, and get it stable, but the potential for MySpace to become a big player in promotion of music is huge. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by SkunkPussy (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:12PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by SeaFox (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:18PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by kaiser423 (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:03PMGo away, you're not 21 by tepples (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:32PMRe:Go away, you're not 21 by Meagermanx (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:46PMRe:Go away, you're not 21 by tepples (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:41PMRe:Go away, you're not 21 by Meagermanx (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:48PMThen "show me" how to overcome this by tepples (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @11:21PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:11PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Anml4ixoye (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @04:17PMFamily? by tepples (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:36PMRe:Family? by Anml4ixoye (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:59PMRe:Family? by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:20PMInadequate representation abounds. What now? by jbn-o (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @05:00PMOhh gosh. by cbreaker (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Interesting) by Propagandhi (570791) on Sunday October 09, @03:53PM (#13751874) (Last Journal: Sunday November 07, @12:48AM) Studio time is expensive, man. The whole recording process (hiring a producer, studio musicians, whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensive, so until that's no longer an issue there will still be labels around willing to front the cash in return for the potential profits a successful record can generate.Some day the major labels will be irrelevent, but today is not that day (maybe that's why they're so desperate to maximize their profits in the short term... they know the long term doesn't exist). [ Reply to This | Parent Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative) by ericdano (113424) on Sunday October 09, @04:00PM (#13751922) (http://www.jazz-sax.com/) No true at all. There are a ton of small studios around that can and do produce some great sounding music. You can also invest $5K or so in your own equipment and get the sound that you want. People don't have to record to 96Khz+ using Nuemann mics. You can get great results using just Shure stuff. Hell, my favorite stuff from Evanescence [evanescence.com] was done using average stuff. Their engineered stuff sounds.....engineered, and not as good to me.So, studio time myth is busted. Marketing though is where the RIAA and Labels could help you.... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Propagandhi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:11PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by twiddlingbits (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:19PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Propagandhi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:33PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by MindStalker (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:31PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:35PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by masklinn (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:23PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:33PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by gijsvanswaaij (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:26PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Meagermanx (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:57PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by laughingcoyote (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @05:20PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by berny@work (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:53PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Meagermanx (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:53PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by tkokesh (Score:1)Monday October 10, @12:38AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:47PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ksheff (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:36PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:59PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Interesting) by The_Rook (136658) on Sunday October 09, @04:46PM (#13752253) i would speculate that just like film production, record companies use their music groups as a captive market for their own recording studios, screen printers, media production, printing, etc. the acts then get charged inflated prices for these services which they pay out of their royalties.requiring musicians to use record company owned resources let's the recod companies control costs without having to pass on the savings to the musicians. i believe the record industry actively fights legislation that would require it to exercise fiduciary responsibility. that would end the party for the muisic companies.it's no wonder that once an act becomes even a little successful, it then goes on to equip its own recording studio. my guess is that musicians would love to gain control over how they are promoted and distributed, if only to keep the music companies from freely spending the musicians' money. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by luservegas (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @09:26PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful) by arpk4n3 (919729) on Sunday October 09, @05:16PM (#13752414) (http://www.lunavelis.net/) As an indepedent recording artist, this is an exceptionally valid point. Mastering and mixing does more to make a mix rich than throwing in a $2000 microphone. A less than stellar musician recorded using the world's greatest mic will still sound less than stellar, just as a prodigy will sound like a prodigy recorded with a Shure SM-57. With modern digital technologies studio environments can be replicated in one's own home, or in my case, dorm room. I recorded my album using a $200 drum mic set from CAD and mastered it myself in Logic Express (and note, 96khz input through my Presonus Firepod--total cost of setup: $1200) and it came out sounding better than many studios available. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:24PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by 'Tractor' Barry (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:25PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by varkatope (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:04PMeven cheaper by ZachPruckowski (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @11:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ob. Star Wars quote (Score:4, Funny) by NoMaster (142776) on Sunday October 09, @05:19PM (#13752425) (http://slashdot.org/) "And who's gonna fly it, kid - you?""You bet! Why, I -""Recording music ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you'd bury yourself in the mix, or sound too close to a pop tartlet, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?" [ Reply to This | ParentMore like this: by jspoon (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @06:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:32PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by wemgadge (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @08:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by MORTAR_COMBAT! (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:00PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Propagandhi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:08PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by masklinn (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:25PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Propagandhi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:38PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by geoff lane (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:42PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Blondie-Wan (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @04:50PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by damiam (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @05:45PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by spuzzzzzzz (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:19PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by damiam (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @06:55PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by spuzzzzzzz (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:36PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by damiam (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @11:59PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:09PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful) by segfaultcoredump (226031) on Sunday October 09, @04:28PM (#13752113) There are two parts of the equation: technology and talent. Unfortunately for us technology minded folks, the tech is about 1% of the equation.Paint and brushes are also cheap. Anybody can go out to the local art supply store and purchase some rather high quality brushes and paints and not break the bank. Despite the low cost, it is rare to see any works of art coming out of the local high school that I would want to hang on my wall.On the flip side, one of my favorite groups [cowboyjunkies.com] actually recorded one of their first albums with a single mic and a two track system. What they lacked in tech they were more than able to make up for in talent.So while the cost of the technology is going down, the talent to do something with the tech it is still hard to find, and those folks charge a lot. After all, if this was easy to do, folks would not pay big bucks to go and see folks do it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Ruie (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @05:43PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:10PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:4, Informative) by Matt Perry (793115) <perrym3 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 09, @06:19PM (#13752791) Studio time is expensive, man.Only at big studios. The audio world is undergoing the same type of change the video world is undergoing. Fast computers and cheap software have removed most of the financial barriers for creative people. There's a lot of boutique studios that are cheap and have top notch audio engineers, most of them run by engineers who used to work for bigger studios.hiring a producerYou be the producer. Don't you know your own music well enough to know what you want? If you are renting studio time, take advantage of the audio engineer's experience. That is, after all, a large part of what you are paying for when you rent studio time.studio musiciansThere are a lot of excellent musicians online that will record tracks for you in their home studio and send it to you via email. They cost a lot less than paying a session musician to travel to a studio (+ studio time). One person I correspond with on a mailing list used this technique with his last album. He recorded all of the songs using a drum machine. He sent the tracks to a drummer who listended to the songs, recorded new drum tracks, and then mailed the new drum tracks back on a CD. The guy imported the drum tracks and mixed them in. It didn't cost him an arm and a leg either.whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensiveI can be but it need not be. There's a lot of really great software available for mixing and audio processing. For example, I've been trying out Guitar Rig [native-instruments.com] after seeing it on a friends computer. He plays gigs with a laptop, a preamp, and a firewire audio interface. He uses a foot controller hooked to the MIDI input on his firewire interface to control Guitar Rig. No need for a ton of pedals. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Great software for everything from mixing, recording, virtual instruments, audio mastering, and more are out there and can be had for very little money. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by berny@work (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:05PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Mistshadow2k4 (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @06:49PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Handpaper (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:30PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by bahwi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:43PMWe don't run a studio anymore by xixax (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @10:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:54PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Propagandhi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:02PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Informative) by IANAAC (692242) on Sunday October 09, @04:02PM (#13751941) For example, if you write a hit song, and someone else TAKES it......what happens to you? You're confusing the RIAA with organizations such as ASCAP or BMI, among others that do the actual protecting. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:12PM Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful) by StringBlade (557322) on Sunday October 09, @04:25PM (#13752096) (Last Journal: Thursday July 17, @04:19PM) Do you understand why the RIAA is protecting those bits of "intellectual property" (a horrible buzzword by the way)? It's because it belongs to them and it's in their best interest to protect thier investments. When the artists sign up with a major label, they lose the rights to their own songs nearly all the time. That's the cost of getting a chance to become famous - give up your right to make money off your own works.The RIAA, once they have your creative fruits in their grasp, will then dole out money to the band as advances (not as gifts) and start advertising campaigns and tours and what have you to make sure people find this band, hear their music, and buy lots and lots of merchandise. Of course, the cost of promotion is all put on the band's tab so that they are more or less eternally indebted to the RIAA label while the RIAA sucks up the vast majority of any income.It used to be tour money was out of the RIAA's reach, but last I heard they were trying to get a (large) cut of that as well. As a fan, you cannot even send them a check because it will be confiscated by the label and put towards their ever-mounting debt (or maybe just into the label's pocket).Using the RIAA for IP protection is like asking the Mob for help with your business. Sure they'll help you, but you'll be indebted to them for the rest of your life and will be at their mercy. It's much better to hire your own lawyer to protect your rights than to get involved with the RIAA. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:37PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Mad Marlin (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @04:51PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by po8 (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @06:56PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by bad-badtz-maru (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @07:40PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Trepalium (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:50PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by toddbu (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:09PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:15PMCover songs by tepples (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:41PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by melikamp (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:47PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by spitefulcrow (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @05:15PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by ericdano (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @07:28PMPermission to "cover" not needed ... pay royalties by Tsu Dho Nimh (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Boon for some, bust for others (Score:4, Informative) by aztektum (170569) on Sunday October 09, @04:08PM (#13751992) The problem for todays new pop stars is that they really aren't musicians in the first place. They rely on the up front $$ that the record companies throw into marketing them, paying for talent coaches and producing the hell out of their music so their cd's sound good. That said, I agree that online distribution is a boon for independent musicians that are in fact actual artists. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by lababidi (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @04:54PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by berny@work (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @04:58PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Simon Garlick (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @09:29PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by dryeo (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @05:07PMRe:The RIAA is irrelevant. by Master of Transhuman (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @08:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Thats good news by romka1 (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @03:46PM Re:Thats good news (Score:4, Funny) by lightyear4 (852813) on Sunday October 09, @04:29PM (#13752121) (http://www.fugitivethought.com/steve/blog.php) Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones [ringtown.com] We should encourage them to keep marketing these $2.49 Sponge Bob ringtones. That way, they'll run out of money a lot faster. [ Reply to This | Parent Stop listening? (Score:4, Insightful)