Sony Agrees to Stop Payola 450
dsginter writes "Sony BMG Music just reached agreement with New York Attorney General. Sony spokesman John McKay admitted that the practice was 'wrong and improper' but the company engaged in the activity anyway. They were fined $10 million and have agreed to obstain from the practice in the future. Is this the first step toward getting our airwaves back or is this just a slap on the wrist?"
Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Informative)
Not being from an English-speaking country myself either, I thought I'd eye the article hoping they would be internally consistent and define the term. They were, and they did. I bet this could be used to try and teach some kind of lesson, but let's not go there.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2)
My understanding of the word payola is it's a slang term for wages. Certainly is around here. I *hope* that's not illegal in the US!!!
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Informative)
To keep it simple, what happened is that music labels began offering DJs money to play their songs. Music producers began targeting the AM stations ran high power at night since these "clear channel" (nothing to do with the company) stations could be heard for hundreds, if not thousands of miles at night.
In the end, the Feds had to step in and put a stop to this practice. Payola, as it was called, was ended around 1960, but the labels found ways around the law through the use of "Indys" and such. The practice has gotten worse since the FCC allowed companies to own many radio stations. Do some googling if you want to learn more -- it is fascinating.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way around this problem is for music fans to get their music from other sources (the internet helps greatly) and payola's influence will be a lot less. At the same time, if people voted more, buying off a congressman would have a lot less effect.
In both cases, it's up to the people to truly solve the problem, the government can't do it for them.
(Slight OT) Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:3, Insightful)
But the whole reason for governments to exist (democratic governments, at least) is to solve the problems of the society they govern. That's why they exist. In order to do what they do, they levy taxes. That's why you pay taxes.
Yes, most governments may be very inefficient, and often corrupt, but what they are in a democracy is the expression of the way a society that society, rightly or wrongly, thinks
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're welcome to talk with us, of course, even in English (which you don't misuse too badly - consider capitalization next time you post). And your fact contribution to the discussion is helpful. But as long as you're going to whine about having to look up a word in a language not your native tongue, why don't you link to the definition you found? After all, we're not all from English speaking countries, and could use the help of a fellow second-linguist. Especially when we prefer to debate the payola, rather than some tangential personal agenda about limited vocabularies.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2, Informative)
Korea, man? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2, Interesting)
No sting -- Their wrists were already armored (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside, the next time you sneer in disgust at a greedy tort lawyer (the sneer is very deserved in some cases) and think about calling for sweeping reform of our "broken" tort system, remember that manufacturers do the same thing with product safety. Probability that it will hurt somebody times what it will cost us when it does. If that's less than the savings from making an unsafe product, they make the unsafe product. The reason they don't like lawyers (and especially juries) is because they're an uncontrolled element to the damages variable. Huge jury awards hurt them (and can actually drive changes in unsafe behavior) because they can't accurately budget for them. They have such a love affair with capped awards and forced arbitration because it makes it easier for them to lock down that variable and accurately measure the benefit of hurting people.
Re:No sting -- Their wrists were already armored (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No sting -- Their wrists were already armored (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be an interesting situation for the music industry. They could double their prices, give half of their new earnings to the tax collectors, get priviledged status (any laws that they wanted would be rubberstamped), and blame everything on music file downloaders.
But this is not a good analogy with the
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering it had a profit of €32 million Q1 this year, but lets be generous considering that was down from other quarters and put it at an even €100 mil for a quarter. That means that they'd make about $500 mill a year.
They would only last 50 days before their entire profit for the year would be used up. 10 mil is a *lot* of money to *anyone*.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:5, Insightful)
"We need to investigate each particular instance that Spitzer has uncovered to see if it is a violation of federal law. This is a potentially massive scandal," he said.
The FCC has power over the nation's radio stations, which are licensed to use public airwaves.
Maybe if the FCC starts hurting the radios some of them will be less inticed to the practice? Maybe not, becasue look what being a DJ offers:
In one case, an employee of Sony BMG's Epic label was trying to promote the group Audioslave to a station and asked: "WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET AUDIOSLAVE ON WKSS THIS WEEK?!!? Whatever you can dream up, I can make it happen." In another case in 2004, the promotion department of Sony BMG label Epic Records paid for an extravagant trip to Miami for a Buffalo DJ and three friends in exchange for adding the Franz Ferdinand song "Take Me Out" to the DJ's station's playlist.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2, Insightful)
How? It wasn't the radio stations that were breaking the law, it was Sony. Unfortunately, there's nothing illegal about taking bribes to play songs...only offering bribes to play songs.
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's the point the parent and grandparent posts were trying to make. It should also be illegal to take the bribe. It's illegal to bribe a politician and it's also illegal for a politician to take a bribe (at least in Canada it is).
If there are consequences for both sides than the crime is less likely to happen again. Especially when the radio stations are much smaller and have more to lose (i.e. their broadcast license).
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, don't forget the other four titans Universal, EMI and Warner are conspicuosly absent from this article.
And I find it interesting that the last sentence says that the 10 million is "earmarked for not-for profits" which must be code-speak for "this is a tax write off"
Companies as legal personae (Score:5, Interesting)
Should a person break the law, they may well face a jail term.
For a company, a jail sentence make sense. Who should be incarcerated? The executives?
Perhaps we need to take a different approach - one which with credible and appropriate consequences.
I suggest removing all copyrights on songs/artists that benefited from the payola crime.
The starving artists themselves can claim damages against the company directly.
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:5, Funny)
This implies that there is a congress that represents the public interests when it comes to copyright law.
This, as you know (or should know), simply is not the case.
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:5, Insightful)
Using this same logic companies every day spew out unfathomable amounts of illegal toxins. If they are caught, they pay a fine, (which they have already budgeted for) ratchet back their emissions, wait for a little while until the EPA gets off their backs, then resume their polluting. A factory farm here in Ohio (Buckeye Egg Farm) [greenlink.org] did this for over ten years amidst hundreds of complaints and clear violations of environmental laws before they were finally ordered to shut down operations. An individual in the US could not knowingly violate the law, all the while reaping huge profits, only to be told to stop after 10 years of activity. Corporations are given too much criminal protection.
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:3)
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:2)
I believe US law treats companies as legal personae, granting them similiar rights to people.
That would be a gross oversimplification of the matter. Only people have rights, but people have those rights while acting through a corporation, just like they do while acting as individuals.
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:2)
As a poster in another thread mentioned, $10 million is chump change for Sony. Now something like $1 billion will get them to change their ways. If you could save $1,000 for your business by dumping all your trash into a river, and the fine is only $100, it is simply good business to ig
Re:Companies as legal personae (Score:3, Insightful)
This works the same way with retail stores. You want your product in the store? Expect to pay a "slotting fee" (bribe) of $50,000 or $100,000 for a large retailer. Just starting out and don't have that much?
Re:Of course it's a slap on the wrist! (Score:2)
* First that paying a DJ to play a song is illegal.
(I always thought that was going on anyway how else can you account for the terrible music on the radio...)
* The general mood on slashdot that somehow this should be a jailable offense.
O no they're forcing us to listen to Britney, jail the bastards!
* That Record companies are willing to spend money to have people listen to their artists for free and also willing to spend money to prevent people from listening to their artists fo
FYI... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FYI... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it may even be a more appropriate word in this case. If "obstain" is to "obstinance" as "abstain" is to "abstinence", well, I'm pretty sure the record industry will dig their heels in and keep paying out that ol' payola. It's been going on non-stop for half a century, and previous busts did little or nothing to halt the process. Sony may have agreed to abstain, but I betcha they'll actually obstain!
Re:FYI... (Score:2)
touché
Re:FYI... (Score:2)
Re:FYI... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FYI... (Score:3, Funny)
I think you mean, as "abstain" is to "abstinacy".
Worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
They were fined $10 million and have agreed to obstain from the practice in the future. Is this the first step toward getting our airwaves back or is this just a slap on the wrist?"
With music industry profits of billions each year, I'm sure they made much more than $10m from doing so. They'll carry on with the payola until it stops being profitable for them to do it.
Don't forget it's not just direct profits that payola causes. Payola is a large factor in preventing independent musicians from getting adequate airplay, so it actually supresses the competition and reinforces the RIAA cartel's position. That alone has to be worth way more than $10m.
Re:Worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worth it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that it's an absurd over-reaction, but if no-one is willing to accept the bribe, then there will be no bribe.
Re:Worth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Worth it? (Score:2)
Re:Worth it? (Score:2)
No, thanks. They can keep swimming in the tarpits.
Hypocritcal actions of the industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Improvement soon unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
A Salon feature [salon.com] from earlier this year offers some more information on the practice, and a tentative answer to the question posed in this summary:
"...radio playlists are unlikely to improve anytime soon. While [promoters] are often seen as dubious, they did have a knack for getting new acts their break on FM radio...station programmers may soon become even less adventurous in choosing which songs get tapped for rotation on FM stations' heavily guarded playlists.
The indie promotion fallout could be especially tough on smaller, independently owned record labels...The short-term effect is not good for independent music."
Indie promotion is a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
And as far as station programmers choosing playlists, well I don't know enough about it to make a conclusion, but given the fact that where I live Clear channel owns both 'classic rock' stations and they both play pretty much the same playlist, I doubt the station managers have any control on what Clear Channel wants played. At any specific time I can turn on a Clear Channel station and be guaranteed to hear one of 3 AC/DC songs (who knew they only put out three songs?) or some old Aerosmith song.
The music industry is stagnating right now. MTV has been useless for several years now, choosing to focus on reality television rather than music videos or innovative sound. Mom and pop radio stations have been bought out by the one or two monopolies left in broadcasting.
And anyone that can tell me Lil' Jon is a musician with a straight face deserves a frickin Oscar. It's almost as if two music executives sat in a room together and made a bet that they could make millions off of a bum with no talent just from pure marketing hype alone.
I think if there's anything that can make a big difference, it's a media-centered site like Apple's iTunes that has things like music videos, sampling, playlists, online radio stations. I can listen to more new bands in a week through iTunes than I ever heard introduced as a new band on a radio, in all the years I've been alive.
Re:Indie promotion is a joke. (Score:3, Funny)
YEEEAAAHHHHHHHH!!!
Re: agree/disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
The same thing has been said about music since at least the days of Elvis, and I'm guessing there have been discussions like this since there were room for musicians and critics.
Erm. . . I had a revelation halfway through the post. You
Re:Indie promotion is a joke. (Score:3, Informative)
The answer you are looking for is - 89.3 The current [publicradio.org] by Minnesota Public radio. CD quality [publicradio.org] aacPlus no less. Yummy.
Sera
Re:Improvement soon unlikely (Score:2)
"including outright bribes of cash and electronics to radio stations and paying for contest giveaways for listeners"
This is the same for many big gaming websites, they are happy to run a competition to win prizes of your game, they require 30 free copies of the game plus payment of X thousand dollars. This isn't even a secret, I've got emails from marketing people outlining the rate card to be featured as a compe
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Spitzer said Sony BMG's efforts to win more airplay took many forms, including outright bribes of cash and electronics to radio stations and paying for contest giveaways for listeners. In other cases, he said, Sony BMG used middlemen known as independent promoters to funnel cash to radio stations.
So if a regular Joe spreads the word about a new song and induces many thousands of random people listen to it for free it's theft, but if a radio DJ does the exact same thing he gets paid? Riiight.
Maybe Sony should just have those "independent promoters" run eDonkey clients instead. It'd be much cheaper.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:3, Informative)
"So if a regular Joe spreads the word about a new song and induces many thousands of random people listen to it for free it's theft, but if a radio DJ does the exact same thing he gets paid? Riiight."
The goal of record companies is, sadly, to make money. If I've already procured an MP3 of a song from Joe, I don't need to buy it -- I already have it. The record company (and the artist) make nothing. What, I'm going to voluntarily buy a copy of the album I've pirated, or go see the band in concert? No
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. Just about everyone has internet access nowadays. Surely everyone in their early teens knows how to download an MP3 by now. According to the RIAA lawsuits even cats,grannies, and dead people can do it, it's so easy. Yet I don't see any starving artists out there. I'm still waiting for record labels to declare massive losses because they can't sell a single album. Re
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Informative)
Piracy hurts album sales, no doubt about it...though the effect is not as direct as the record companies would have you think. In the golden days of Napster, many people were buying CD's they had "sampled" online. Some, like myself and several of my friends, actually bought more music, because we had the opportunity to, from the comfort of our homes, listen to a huge variety of music that we might otherwise not have heard.
I am not, however, trying to argue that P2P doesn't hurt album sales as you said...it does.
But concert attendance? Not a chance. Most people who go see a concert already own the band's CD's. Downloading an album in MP3 is no subsitute for a live show...even downloading a FLAC of an entire concert set is not a substitute for being there. You'd have a hard time convincing most people that illegal downloading hurts ticket sales...and you'd have a relatively easy time showing that it might help ticket sales. People go see the bands because they heard, and liked, the albums...it doesn't matter if they heard it in legal or illegal form.
From what I understand, the order goes like this: radio airplay is just an advertisement for the album (to the record company), and the album is just an advertisement for the concert (to the band).
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
some would argue that the goal of any company should be just like it is in all their mission statements... to strive for excellence in their chosen field.
if you're good at what you do, the money should look after itself... look at google. they don't have a corporate culture that's all about money, sure, they've got people who make sure that they are making some money, but they focus more on making innov
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Cheaper than what..? Paying shills to call up radio stations with fake requests [mtv.com], and then suggesting that "the same couple of girls" should be getting drunk, or going to clubs, or getting in a hot tub before calling the radio stations?
If you didn't think the music industry was evil, think again.
Good gesture... (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that having steady radio play is the key to selling albums, and when the the vast fortune of the music industry is at stake, dishonesty is inevitable. A VERY high percentage of Americans discover new music by hearing it on the radio, and a small fine (10 million? Ensuring that their arists get radio play has got to be worth at least 10x that) will do little to discourage the big labels.
$10m fine? (Score:5, Funny)
Mod Parent Down (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that he would accept bribes is ludicrous, not to mention stupid. In his high profile position, he would surely be found out.
a whole $10M? (Score:2)
Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:5, Informative)
Payola, while unpleasant, is nothing to people who are carefully creating radio to only be sports, 80s hits and right wing shock jocks.
But, fortunately, there is satelite with some variety but above all else the internet.
Australian radio, in contrast to US radio, is vibrant, brilliant and is a good industrial subsidy for the Australian music industry (ever wonder where INXS, Midnight Oil and many others got their start?).
If you want to check it out over the net check out JJJ [abc.net.au], RRR [rrr.org.au], 3PBS [pbsfm.org.au] and enjoy some streaming quality alternative interesting radio for a change.
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyways, I listened to the top 40 station in the region, and let's just say, I was not impressed. He then switched the radio to his iPod and listened to the a science news cast and a indie-top-40, and, the easest way to put it; I'm never listening to the radio again.
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:2)
Seriously, I had an old 1984 Volvo, and it only picked up college radio stations if you drove by the college. Now I have a new car, and it's got a CD changer. I haven't turned the radio on once -- traffic news is useless in New Jersey anyhow. (Of course there's traffic, it's 5pm on a friday afternoon going to the beach!)
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:2)
Not to be too rude, but those aren't great examples. Could you pick something from this decade? Or ever the one before it?
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:2)
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I've never been to North America but I find it a little tricky to swallow that anyone could have music that makes our crappy radio sound "vibrant and brilliant". Sure, JJJ has integrity (as do all the ABC stations) but that's because it's federally funded explicitly to stop kids from becoming as much of idiots as they would have been if they turned on Nova instead. Australian radio sucks, and sucks hard.
Re:Meh - American Radio is beyond hope (Score:3, Interesting)
Australian radio sucks, and sucks hard.
Well that depends on where you live. Here in Melbourne, there's also the community radio stations PBS [pbsfm.org.au], Triple R [rrr.org.au], Joy [joy.org.au], SYN-FM, and 3MBS [3mbs.org.au], which more than make up for the drivel on Nova and co.
I've often wondered just why (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, music criticism is difficult because someone somewhere is going to see something in a track you might detest, but I'm pretty confident that 99% of the people who heard that track would think it was rubbish. But still it got on air, a lot.
DJ's these days are totally shackled by the system, I think they have very little freedom on large stations to play music they actually like. It used to be that an "Indie" DJ played music they liked, and if they were actually a good DJ with discerning taste and access to a lot of new stuff, it was like a filtering process to find stuff old and new you would like. But listen to any commercial station and the music is essentially interchangeable, at least here in the UK.
Anyway, talking of music that's overhyped and overpromoted, just read "most of modern R'n'B". The genre, with too few exceptions, requires little to no talent compared to too much arrogance and attitude. Recipe for success: a few hooks, some mediocre rapping and an effects/whore-heavy video. If it wasn't pushed so much, it wouldn't be popular.
The music industry is nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Record company hates music, loves advertisments. Gets given music. Gives it away for free over an unencrypted medium to anyone who cares to listen. Gets given a huge 'bribe' by record company to keep doing this and the record company is a criminal.
I know this is an over simplification, but this really is nuts.
Re:The music industry is nuts (Score:2)
"I know this is an over simplification, but this really is nuts."
You're not the first person to be confused by this. The first step to understanding it is to remember that, unfortunately, most artists and record companies are for-profit entities and need to make sales -- it's not just about publicity. Publicity is the means to the end.
Piracy is, generally speaking, a substitute for buying music.
Radio airplay is, generally speaking, an inducement to buy music.
Re:The music industry is nuts (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a matter of control (Score:2)
What's wrong with payola? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why exactly should this be illegal?
If a DJ accepts a direct payment when his employment contract forbids it, that's breach of contract.
If a radio station advertises that they don't accept payola, but they do, that's fraud.
But if a radio station wants to make a strait-up pay-for-play deal with a record producer, why should the government care? If it really bothers listeners, a competitor can lure those listeners away by promising not to.
There is the really lame argument that the airwaves are a public trust, but that just means the government was dumb enough not to auction them to the highest bidder.
There is the only slightly less lame argument that music should compete on quality alone. But if the listeners don't care, and somebody has to be the popular band, why not the one that pays the most money?
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.history-of-rock.com/payola.htm [history-of-rock.com]
The laws are there to give independent labels, that aren't flush with cash, a chance vs. the large labels
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting question. Here's my two cents: The concept of collusion between two separate industries to manipulate the marketplace to their benefit.
Sony Bertelsmann bumps the competition out of the way, and the radio industry gets to line its' pockets by the simple action of excluding independent record companies, filling their playlist with Sony Bertelsmann acts.
Imagine this: Microsoft buys out all nationwide software retailers so that there's only Windows apps in their shelves. No Linux, no OSX, no nothing, only Windows. Sure, you can get your Linux apps through the Internet, or by driving to a mom-and-pop store across town. But it's still an unfair competitive edge, brought about by Microsoft's humongous resources that will only get bigger in this manner, and so it spirals ever deeper.
The law, in theory, is there to protect the small guy from the bloated business monster with resources to burn in the pursuit of absolute control over everything.
Inevitably, after a corporation grows to a certain bloated size, it seeks power for power's sake, which historically has proven to be detrimental to society at large. They might think they are playing a clever game of chess on a grand scale, but they are actually waging warfare against a community that does not have the resources to fight back. Just look at Wal-Mart. And what did Akio Morita say back in the day? "Business is warfare".
Personally, I believe a basic mechanism to keep civilization running smoothly is to avoid allowing too much to accumulate in too few hands, and radio is no exception.
I can think of many other arguments of why something like payola is wrong, but these are my thoughts on why it should be and remain illegal.
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why exactly should this be illegal?
Because, your declaration that it's "lame" notwithstanding, there are a limited number of available channels in a given market. Given that, it's not unreasonable to insist that channel owners refrain from committing a fraud against their audience. They exist to serve the public; not the other way around.
Put it another way: we don't allow people to sell placebos as headache remedies. Ending up with a headache isn't the worst thing in the world, although it might di
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:2)
There is the really lame argument that the airwaves are a public trust, but that just means the government was dumb enough not to auction them to the highest bidder.
Exactly. That's the first step toward getting our airwaves back. Get rid of the government interference, and treat it like any other real property. Auction it off, let people use it for whatever they want (hint, it probably won't be free any more), and collect a property tax once a year based on the value of the portion of the spectrum.
Su
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:2)
Yes, it is. There's only a limited amount of bandwidth to go around, and (capitalism being what it is, and the cost savings being not insignificant) this seems to tend to gather in the hands of a few large corporations...
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:2)
Ultimately, there's no problem if you have a free market on the airwaves.
But there isn't a free market on the AM/FM radio airwaves. Not even close. This part of the radio spectrum is given to the radio stations essentially for free, in return for acting in the public interest in certain ways (not encrypting, not being obscene, broadcasting public safety announcements, not accepting payola, etc).
If the airwaves really were free, if they were auctioned off to the highest bidder who could then use them f
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:2, Insightful)
what if all the stations in your area all play the same music?
Re:What's wrong with payola? (Score:3, Interesting)
Slap on the wrist (Score:2)
Re:Slap on the wrist (Score:2)
Why does it matter? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't think it is simply that radio stations are using a public resource -- if all radio was private (ala Sirius or XM), I think folks _would_ mind a bit if stuff was getting paid because the company was getting stuff in return. But I think they'd mind less, because they'd figure that Sirius can do with its spectrum what it wishes, because they've paid for it.
I think what bothers folks is the fact that it is done in an underhanded, secretive fashio
Re:Why does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
It bothers people who would like to listen to the radio, because they're frustrated with the level of (ostensible) quality of the music played on most of the available stations. Those of us who gave up on radio decades ago don't care so much.
Re:Why does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would make the music show a defacto advertisement. People would tune out in droves. By hiding the money, they can make an ad seem like a music show.
Listeners don't like being lied to, and given that the airwaves belong to them, they have a right to honesty.
Honest artists and producers don't like it because it's anticompetetive. Implicit in the deal that "you will play *our* music more" is the undeniable fact that "you will play *their* music less".
What amazes me, is that they've been getting away with the "new payola" for so long now. I think it's fair to say that the reason "popular" music sucks so bad is that most of it doesn't become popular on its own merit. Its popularity is engineered in boardrooms.
Independent Promoters (Score:2)
Go Spitzer (Score:2)
God I love that guy. He's as close to a knight in shining armor that we'll find in his position.
RIAA-RICO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA-RICO (Score:2)
What? Record companies hypocritical? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess the moral is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Meanwhile, I'm going to start downloading music again.
Hmm. NY. (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently, NY is completely without a modern rock station, leaving only pop Z-100 to play anything new.
Wow! (Score:5, Informative)
Can anyone explain why payola is wrong? (Score:2)
I never figured out why radio stations had to pay record companies for the right to broadcast advertising material for them. The recording industry's greatest ever scam was reversing the advertising model to such an extent that if they are caught actually paying for their ads to be broadcast, it's seen
Re:Can anyone explain why payola is wrong? (Score:2)
oops... they do that.
Interesting how monopolies work isn't it?
Tom
payola for radio, but fines for p2p! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course p2p could result in the listeners having a permanent copy, but so can radio and tv.
- And then there are all the streamripping and peercasting options to grey-out the difference even more.
Re:payola for radio, but fines for p2p! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's because P2P services are uncontrolled, so they don't focus the "promotion" on the commodity acts from which the Big 5 make the most money. (or, alternatively, P2P exposes the filler material surrounding the one presumably palattable track on a given release) So P2P does damage sales, but by exposing the
NY AG (Score:4, Informative)
My big question is this
From http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/
the poll showed state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer continuing to hold a double-digit lead over the three-term governor in a possible matchup for the 2006 gubernatorial campaign.
What happened to freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Possible solution: (Score:2)
Why should companies be able to dominate what is essentially a fixed resource.
Would it be fair if Pepsi bought lake michigan and emptied it for it's own use?
Would it be fair if Shell set up solar cells that blocked out all of the sunlight for an entire city?
etc, etc, etc...
There are only so many FM "channels" in the given band. When you have companies like Chum, Clearchannel, etc... buying them all up you're left with the m
Re:Possible solution: (Score:2)
I'm afraid communist radio is doomed to fail like local government. Apathy of the poplace will ten