Slashdot Mirror

I think you mean Clear Channel.

Radio's been effectively dead ever since these guys took ownership of the whole damn market back in the mid to late 1990s. As a result, most stations in the country have become watered-down corporate crap that repeats the same top 40 playlist several times per day with little attempt to try and innovate. Satellite radio is trying to get some of these listeners back, but a lot of people just gave up and went to their iPods, where they have full control over their own music.

Don't believe for a second they don't know that

I thought you might be. What many people, at least in the US, think of when it comes to "clear channel" is the broadcaster Clear Channel.

Falcon

Google should be watched for abuse of their monopoly power in advertising

If they are looking for a company that hods a monopoly in advertising, they should look somewhere else

And what percentage of your music is paid for?

In my case it's difficult to estimate, but it has never been above a few percent and I'm 52 years old. When I was young, we mostly listened to the radio, recorded a few songs on tape, and not very often bought a record.

These days, the radio is mostly shit, a consequence of a monopoly owning the radio stations, but we have the internet to get music without paying directly for it.

I see a lot of FUD thrown up on how artists don't get compensated but it sounds kind of hollow coming from a group of people that's been stealing music anyway.

Not stealing, I've never stolen anybody's music, I have higher moral standards than some people who sell music.

Where was all the concern about "artist compensation" before enforcement started getting serious?

That "enforcement getting serious" is just the media industry bosses realizing they fucked up, but not admitting it. They had a business model based on getting a very small return per item where the production of each item had a very small cost. When they tried to raise the return per item the market said "NO". That's how capitalism works.

I listen to this station a lot (Radio Kansas). They have several local programs that can't be heard anywhere else. It's wonderful programming but the funding comes from community support (i.e.: contributions). As stated on their online streaming service:

Music rights holders and streaming radio stations continue to negotiate fees and documentation procedures. The additional paperwork may include data on listener usage and musical performances that our current system simply cannot provide. We will restore our stream when we can do so in accordance with the new rules.

The problem is that this type of music isn't what the majority wants (even though people in general should take more interest in the Arts). Half the time, what the majority wants isn't of any real value anyways. For a non-profit to be put into a position where they would have to consider data-mining, it would seem that they are forced into a position where they won't be able to afford it. The other tragedy is that it doesn't just affect the music that they broadcast, it's the news as well. Due to all of this action, it is forcing the entire radio stream to be taken off the internet which limits the scope of where NPR news can be broadcasted. You can go to the NPR website but regardless it does limit the scope of viewers who would be potential supporters and contributors to the originating station. The radio stations had a system that worked well with the RIAA before. Why does the RIAA have to complicate everything when they just need to keep it simple?

You can still use your radio and surf for other local stations comparable to the content you are used to but living in Miami, Orlando, Wichita, Kansas City and Denver I had a hard enough time finding a decent station that carries similar programming. There is one exception and that is if you are a regular listener of any Clear Channel stations. At least they can guarantee the same crap anywhere you go.

Is there any way we could contact our regular Radio & Local News stations and raise awareness of this issue?

Yeah. Contact your local radio stations

I thought XM re-broadcast Clearchannel content? Where did you think all of those advertisements were coming from? http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2006/03/ 10/xm-the-sounds-of-salesmen.aspx http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/xm-canada-dumps- clear-channel-content.html And anyway, ClearChannel is dumping stations as well. http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease .aspx?PressReleaseID=1825 "Clear Channel Announces Plan to Sell Radio Stations Outside the Top 100 Markets and Entire Television Station Group SAN ANTONIO - November 16, 2006 - Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (NYSE:CCU) today announced plans to sell 448 of its 1,150 radio stations, all located outside the top 100 U.S. media markets, as well as the company's 42-station Television Group. Collectively, these properties contributed less than 10 percent of the company's revenues last year. "

silly questions but... ...do the artists get an automatic percentage of this tax collected by the music industry in canada?

Not a silly question at all. I was one of the official objectors on this court case in federal court a few years back. Their inability to fairly distribute brought the whole regime into question, and for that reason (among others) I argued that it should be scrapped.

Right now it's collected and distributed by an agency called the Canadian Private Copying Collective. They base their distribution to each artist baseed on statistics from major commercial radio stations. Of course, this is problematic and anti-competitive because major radio stations have their play list dictated to them by major media conglomerates and monopolies such as ClearChannel, rather than responding to actual consumer demand.

Note, incidentally, that ClearChannel is essentially liquidating its assets, so this argument may no longer fly (at least as definitively), as a means of persuading the CPCC, or anyone else, that this mechanism of estimating fair distribution is anti-competitive. But I digress.

To date, it is my understanding that the CPCC has several hundred million dollars stored from this tax (*cough* "tarriff", per the Federal Court; a tax requires Parliamentary assent, which this did not receive ... even though it is a tax), and they have distributed very little of it. It's a genuinely difficult problem. In my opinion, it's impossible to estimate consumer demand, and I argued that the levy is inappropriate, especially in a case such as this where free market forces exist precisely to determine value. (That's oversimplifying, but that's the gist)

I live in Infity Radio country (NYC area).

If you need a bit of info to understand their difference from ClearChannel: Infinity owns K-Rock [WXRK, New York], the station that runs the Howard Stern Radio Show (until he switches to Sirius). Clearchannel discontinued their airings of the Howard Stern Radio Show suddenly one morning on almost all of their stations that had rebroadcast agreements.

Aussie radio can get much worse.
Do they Kiwis have any radio stations that aren't Clear Channel crud?

Aussie radio can get much worse.
Do they Kiwis have any radio stations that aren't Clear Channel crud?

Nice hit on the evil empire of Clear Channel Communications. I think they are an evil empire. Did I say I think they are evil? And by the way: This is completly false Except the one part about the Pro-war rallies, its the only redeeming thing they have done.

Nothing beats playing my favorite EA games over my SBC Yahoo! DSL connection using my D-Link DGL-4300 Wireless 108G Gaming Router with a cool, refreshing Pepsi in one hand, my Logitech mouse in the other, wearing my Nike clothes and blasting a ClearChannel affiliate, my source for great new hits from 50 Cent and A Simple Plan.

Whoops, I meant to post that as an article.

Be careful, lest we should forget that the radio stations are evil as well. If this is a major source of dough for the buyer of mass swaths of frequency and stomper of all private, unique, and worthwhile radio stations, I say take it away! Even if it means benefitting the record labels.

And as far as the radio stations are concerned, without the cash kickbacks from the labesl, even ClearChannel stations may be more willing to play independent / non-major-label music. Fat chance, I know, but as far as I can see, everything about this move is good in principle.

XM is in bed with Clear Channel Communications. Remember The problem with the Dixie Chicks?

Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations.

First, I don't understand what the statistic is talking about -- "100" what? Second, I think it's probably wrong by vastly understating the problem.

The top media corporations in America include Advance Publications, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. You can go here to see who owns what. Where in 1983 it took 50 large corporations to accumulate control of half the media outlets, today 5 corporations control over half the outlets. Don't forget that there are also vastly more outlets today that were two decades ago.

Some examples: Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting unit alone owns 184 radio stations. The infamous Clear Channel puts that to shame with over 1200 radio stations. As Clear Channel notes, there are over 13000 radio stations, not to metion the other types of outlets. The statistic in the question is at least confusing and probably badly wrong.

This is an important topic, but please fact-check the question.

Nearly 100 American media resources today are owned by only 5 corporations.

First, I don't understand what the statistic is talking about -- "100" what? Second, I think it's probably wrong by vastly understating the problem.

The top media corporations in America include Advance Publications, Disney, General Electric, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, and Vivendi Universal. You can go here to see who owns what. Where in 1983 it took 50 large corporations to accumulate control of half the media outlets, today 5 corporations control over half the outlets. Don't forget that there are also vastly more outlets today that were two decades ago.

Some examples: Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting unit alone owns 184 radio stations. The infamous Clear Channel puts that to shame with over 1200 radio stations. As Clear Channel notes, there are over 13000 radio stations, not to metion the other types of outlets. The statistic in the question is at least confusing and probably badly wrong.

This is an important topic, but please fact-check the question.

otherwise Microsoft or someone will buy it all up and ruin it.

A company far more evil than Microsoft has already done this.

"In out view, industry-developed guidlines should be as effective as Government-imposed regulations without running afoul of the First Amendment protections that we all respect," John Hogan CEO, Clear Channel Radio.

Well, isn't it nice that the monopoly and ourt government have found a viable soulution to that pasky First Amendment? I was so worried that our Constitution might interfere with censorship. God bless these clever, clever boys.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is one of the largest radio station corporations in the world. They have something like 2000+ affiliates under them. Interesting side note: they're the ones for most of the latest bouts of censoring on the radio.

Well, they have a search form where you can find stations by city. (It's also linked off the left side of their radio section as "Station Search" and I'm not sure why it's hosted at an ip address.)

Right on McNoHogwash keep Flying...
I've got a playlist of 1200+ songs, and random is the only way... get one I really like that I haven't heard in a while, and I'll duplicate the entry for it.
Keeps ya guessing, turns ya on, and puts muddyChannel (boring opressive capitalist censors)to shame

Clear Channel has been doing this kind of crap and worse to their competition for years. Oddly enough, nobody ever seems to go after them. Think radio sucks nowadays? It does, and you can blame it on the ugly monopoly that has gone pretty much unchecked in that industry.

If Congress adopts the FCC's recommendations, it will loosen the stranglehold that companies like ClearChannel have on the airwaves.

ClearChannel has a stranglehold? If you live in the US is there a single, non public channel that isn't controlled by ClearChannel?

A list of ClearChannel stations.

Stranglehold? Nah!

No. Musical beauty was sold to Clear Channel Worldwide in a $500 million stock swap. You can now buy "musical beauty" as part of the promotional package for your newest pre-fabricated top 40 hit. Once you've paid Clear Channel your $100,000 to package up your "song" (you do have $100,000, right?) then the musical beauty comes along for free!

I strongly recommend that you boycott Clear Channel. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Music Pundit 2000

Another reality is that the cost to become a record label isn't that high anymore either.

One big problem with your reasoning is that only the big boys seem to have the finances to promote their recordings to listeners in moving vehicles.

Imagine a colossal all-conquering monopoly[1] of those!

[1]Allegedly.

What Happens When a Linux Geek Takes Over a Canadian Football Team ?

* Bob Young, founder of Red Hat and Lulu.com buys Canadian football team the Hamilton Ticats.
* Ticats playbook submitted to SourceForge for development. Fans of the Canadian Football League are invited to submit revisions.
* Initially puzzled by open source strategy, other CFL teams begin using the plays.
* Ticats adopt open-channel Wi-Fi for communications between coaches and quarterbacks using new helmet developed under the GPL, known as the GNU-Helmet. Xs and Os on playbook diagrams are replaced with 1s and 0s. Fans begin to show up at games with laptops to IM the assistant coaches.
* Ticats playbook becomes bestseller .
* First season is devoted to eliminating bugs. Bob Young called an eccentric, fringe player. Headline screams "Playbook Bazaar -- Bizarre!"
* Innovation in CFL play explodes. Stadiums host record crowds. US newspapers run stories, but most assume that the sport in question is actually soccer.
* Bill Gates surprises press by purchasing Seattle Seahawks.
* In the third season, CFL continues to gain momentum. Young brokers a revolutionary agreement with the Australian Football League incorporating new rules and tactics. Games become more interesting. Cable channel TechTV signs contract to air every CFL game. US viewers begin to abandon NFL games in droves.
* NFL sues, claiming a process patent on option plays
* Clear-Channel takes over 90% of US stadiums and inks 10-year contract with NFL. Fans are routinely strip-searched for illicit food and drink items as they enter stadiums.
* Gates responds to decrease in attendance at games by inking broadcast deal with all four networks to air games simultaneously.
* Canada announces increase in immigration. MIT Beavers win Division Championship.
* Electronic Arts announces that "Madden NFL 2007" will be open source. Furor erupts. New version quickly surfaces in which characters can be forced to play soccer.
* NYT article notes that enrollment in youth football programs across North America are up, as are demands for reinforced padding and elastic straps for eyeglasses. 'Football is all about brains!" bellow coaches.
* 2010 - Ticats win Grey Cup for the first time in decades. Average size of defensive lineman is 5'7", 155 lbs.

...but then I could say the same thing about rap

I'm OT but...
Be careful there. You are generalizing - perhaps based on what the RIAA, ClearChannel, et al have "allowed" you to hear.

Rap started out as one of the purest forms of music. It was all about self expression and making the most of the "instruments" you had available to you (aka turntables).
Some of the common criticisms about rap "bands" are very similar to the criticisms the baby-boomer's parents had about rock-and-roll bands.
"It all sounds the same"
"Who's killing the cat"
"Turn it down"
"An electric guitar (or turntable) is not an instrument"
"That isn't music - its just noise"

The point i'm trying to make is: like blues, rap is pure. The turntable, while ripping off other artist's tracks, isn't always balant and sometimes is a very creative use of teh medium. When done properly it is more of a compliment to the original artist, than a "copyright infringement" (echoes from the past - as I like to think of good scratching).

I'll conceed that "popular" rap is a load of crap, but so is "modern" rock radio. So, you just go ahead a piss all over rap - you've been conditioned to think that way.

For those that care, check out:
early Public Enemy
Boogie Down Productions
Cool Herc
Eric B and Rakim
Spoonie Gee
and the Treacherous Three


There is also a pretty active turntablist movement underway right now
Mix Master Mike
Q Bert
DJ Shadow
DJ Spooky

Funny how Record industries will pay to get thier music played on FM Radio, but on the net, they will just start their own partially owned net Radio stations and crunch the little guys.

What I read of this is that the BBC is going to put these up on the net, and hope people will pay for them anyways... somehow, I'm not perfectly certain it's going to work the way we want it to...

Yeah, because the RIAA and MPAA both say it isn't true, and they'd never lie, right?

It's amusing to note that of the people who have tried have found that it does indeed increase sales.

I guess you don't realize that the RIAA not only gives their stuff away to people who don't pay for it, but actually pays people to give it away for them.

But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public.

The Media shows what people want to see

It happens to be that the majority of Americans don't want to see the anti-American retoric of Moore and other hard-core left-wingers.

When the Dixie Chicks got banned from many radio stations, do you think it was a US Gov't directive? Hardly. It was the intense demand from PEOPLE.

Given the 2002 selections (whether your favorite won or not, it was that close) there's a solution we can win with, and you all know it. Remember the old open spectrum stuff posted here several times?

Seems to me, the first candidate to oppose our own axis of evil stands to make it over the top if they have the sense to get their opposition plastered all over the p2p networks, most especially if they can make a quick and good case for the idea that the issues of p2p and open spectrum are one and the same. (I'd use the term "connectivity", since it seems to be the language of the open spectrum folk. Open spectrum is to current tv/radio what p2p sharing is to riaa's website, in more ways than one.) And of course, even if they lose, any dent in the numbers means no future candidate can afford to lose the advantage of a p2p presence, media contributions be ... lost.

From clearchannel.com:

Clear Channel is deeply disappointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile. This FCC action will extinguish the substantial consumer benefits brought on by radio deregulation

What's up with that? I can't help but wonder what this stinks of. Are they trying to look like the "good guy", while secretly getting in position to reap the rewards, or do they fear a bigger competitor taking the market away?

Really, there isn't anything to worry about. ClearChannel wouldn't ever mis-report the news. They are more than happy to even put the news of FCC's "vote to re-regulate the radio industry" right on their home page

Wait, "re-regulate". WTF?

Google has some hints, but I found this response to the Senate on CC's own site... I believe this is the quoted statistic, effective June 2002.

"First, while some contend that the radio industry has become too concentrated among a few large companies, in reality radio is significantly less concentrated than most other information and entertainment industries in terms of total industry revenues. For example, the 10 largest owners of movie studios account for 99 percent of industry revenues, and in cable TV systems 89 percent of the revenues are controlled by the top 10 companies. The top 10 firms account for 55 percent of revenues in the TV station sector and 48 percent in the newspaper business. And, just the top five record distributors account for 84 percent of album sales.

By contrast, the top 10 radio station owners account for 44 percent of industry revenues. Even Clear Channel, the largest owner of radio stations in the country, owns only 11 percent of the stations. So, the notion of a few large corporations controlling the majority of the radio industry is not only incorrect, but is actually less of a factor in radio than in most other media and entertainment industries."

Now it's "Ronson and Johnson"

It's "Walton and Johnson," and while they might not be PC, they most certainly ARE CC (type "Houston" in the search box) their lame-ass script won't return the URL of the search result).

Clear Channel owns 8 stations in Houston, every one of which is either the market leader in it's format or the ONLY example of it's format in the city.

Then again, they just reported a loss of $16 billion for the last 9 months. They may be overextended.

--
Simon

Obviously the RIAA member record companies will have to consent and will be recieving royalties for these CD's. They own the songs (and the artists' souls) afterall. If Clear Channel were to try to do this without a contract from the labels, they would certainly be sued. I wouldn't be surpised to see the record companies bail on this deal though. We all know how open minded the major labels are towards creating new products, especially products people actually want. I'm sure they'll find some reason to be afraid of this.

According to this page on their Web site, the Clear Channel Entertainment "Music Group currently owns, operates and/or exclusively books 135 live entertainment venues, including 41 amphitheaters in the U.S. and 30 venues in Europe"; and, "In 2001 the Music Group generated approximately 70 percent of concert ticket revenue in the U.S." When you think about how many venues a typical US tour will play, you realize just how dominant this makes Clear Channel's position.

Their dominance is further fortified by their position in the radio market: Clear Channel radio "daily reaches 54% of all people ages 18-49" according to this page, which means they control what I think can safely be assumed to be the primary means of promoting large concerts and tours to a huge share of the concert-going population.

In other words: if bands or labels don't agree to let Clear Channel put out these concert CDs, Clear Channel can simply decide to kill the tour by 1) not letting the bands play the venues unless they let Clear Channel put out the CDs and 2) not promote tours where the band has not given Clear Channel permission to put out these CDs.

Without the blessing of Clear Channel, bands and labels are simply shut off from large-scale airplay and concert tours -- and, therefore, from commercial success. See, for example, Eric Boehlert's articles at Salon.com.

Obviously the RIAA member record companies will have to consent and will be recieving royalties for these CD's. They own the songs (and the artists' souls) afterall. If Clear Channel were to try to do this without a contract from the labels, they would certainly be sued. I wouldn't be surpised to see the record companies bail on this deal though. We all know how open minded the major labels are towards creating new products, especially products people actually want. I'm sure they'll find some reason to be afraid of this.

According to this page on their Web site, the Clear Channel Entertainment "Music Group currently owns, operates and/or exclusively books 135 live entertainment venues, including 41 amphitheaters in the U.S. and 30 venues in Europe"; and, "In 2001 the Music Group generated approximately 70 percent of concert ticket revenue in the U.S." When you think about how many venues a typical US tour will play, you realize just how dominant this makes Clear Channel's position.

Their dominance is further fortified by their position in the radio market: Clear Channel radio "daily reaches 54% of all people ages 18-49" according to this page, which means they control what I think can safely be assumed to be the primary means of promoting large concerts and tours to a huge share of the concert-going population.

In other words: if bands or labels don't agree to let Clear Channel put out these concert CDs, Clear Channel can simply decide to kill the tour by 1) not letting the bands play the venues unless they let Clear Channel put out the CDs and 2) not promote tours where the band has not given Clear Channel permission to put out these CDs.

Without the blessing of Clear Channel, bands and labels are simply shut off from large-scale airplay and concert tours -- and, therefore, from commercial success. See, for example, Eric Boehlert's articles at Salon.com.

Clear Channel (owner of every radio station in America)

And according to this Byte article they are not even that good. Too many advertisements, the same dull chart songs everywhere. Apparently they have real competition in the satellite radio market too, but I am not American so this is just all hearsay to me :)

There is always NPR too!

• Despite Clear Channel Radio's far reaching geography, radio remains a live and local medium in every market the company serves.

Except, of course, when it's not actually live nor local.

• Clear Channel Radio's size, however, allows it to leverage state-of-the-art technology and large-market on-air talent to deliver premium programming to smaller towns.

"Leverage" is must be a euphanism for "use our market power to drive everyone else out of business".

"Premium programming to smaller towns" is a nice phrase... You certainly don't want any local DJ on the airwaves. Thank goodness for Clear Channel!

• Hugely popular shows can be broadcast all over the country, giving listeners the programming and diversity they crave no matter where they are.

Ever wonder what "diversity" means? According to Clear Channel, it's "everyone listening to the same thing."

There's a difference between "everyone is forced to listen to it" and "hugely popular". Pretty much everyone had to eat cafeteria food in my elementry school, but I don't recall it being "hugely popular."

• Clear Channel uses digital voice tracking and in-market feeds to deliver a sound that is live and local.

Except, of course, that it's neither live nor local. Oops, I'm repeating myself.

The biggest scam is that the audience is largely unaware that it's canned, which means that your profit stream is based on the idea of deceiving to your customers. Any what justifies this?

Oh, yes... Premium profits.

• Technology enhancements across the board are changing the way Clear Channel logs inventory, sells airtime, programs radio stations, bills advertisers and runs promotions. Result: Greater value for both advertisers and listeners.

Thanks again, Clear Channel! Those tunes sound so much better, now that you more efficiently sell huge blocks of advertising time through national markets.

It's pledge drive at my local NPR station. I'm suddenly feeling much, much more guilty for not contributing.

They say that ClearChannel has no real competition but it's not true -- check out CheapChannel Radio, a satiric competitor with a voice tracking program to rival even the big boys. Voice tracking is the system ClearChannel stations use to have a DJ in Houston pretend he's from cities all around the country to give canned stations a little "local" flavor. CheapChannel is a project of the Prometheus Radio Project, which was recently featured on the PBS's McNeil News Hour for their work promoting Low Power FM stations. The first site is fun, and the second is interesting, if you're concerned about media consolidation.

I'm sure the conglomeration of radio stations has an effect on sales as well. There are very few independent radio stations anymore, and the differences between the Rock, Rap, and Alternative stations is becoming less pronounced with every merger.
Why does the 'new music station' play a Bob Marley song every half an hour??? It's getting harder to find new music.

Clearchannel is "just" radio and billboards, they own ~1300 radio stations.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Taken directly from http://www.clearchannel.com/ci.php:

"Clear Channel Worldwide (Clear Channel Communications, Inc., NYSE: CCU), headquartered in San Antonio, TX, is a global leader in the out-of-home advertising industry with radio and television stations, outdoor displays, and entertainment venues in 66 countries around the world. Including announced transactions, Clear Channel operates approximately 1,225 radio and 37 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear Channel also operates approximately 776,000 outdoor advertising displays, including billboards, street furniture and transit panels around the world. Clear Channel Entertainment is a leading promoter, producer and marketer of live entertainment events and also owns leading athlete management and marketing companies." (emphasis mine).