Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Seeks Payola Inquiry
An Anonymous Coward writes "The big media story of the day seems to be that the RIAA, artists, and others in the industry are complaining that there are monopolies (such as Clear Channel) forming in the radio broadcast industry. The group is stating that the practice of "independent promotion" is really a new form of payola and that it is hitting the artists' bottom line directly." Another submitter writes in with another story on the subject and the industry's Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio.
Hmmmmm.... RIAA or Clear Channel? Sometimes there just isn't a white hat in sight.
The music industry opposes the "payola" that they willingly pay to get the music they want to be on the radio on the radio. Why don't they all just stop paying. Then the radio stations will need another method to decide what is played.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
A brief history of the original 1950s payola scandal is here. Another interesting payola scandal that I don't think ever went anywhere is that Salon ran an article accusing the US government of payola for having Hollywood run anti-drug plots...
It's probably worth noting that the Music Industry slime-wads aren't actually worried about the corruption of the play lists that payola causes.
From the article:
Deregulation of the radio business and rampant practices that skirt 40-year-old anti-payola laws stifle competition, drive up music promotional costs and make it harder for new artists to gain attention, the artists and record labels said in a joint statement addressed to the federal regulators and Congress.
That's right, it's all about the mighty $.
Why buy into a game you already own?
That's why I usually only listen to NPR or CDs while I'm in my car. I can't stand the horribly limited playlists of the radio stations any more.
Not to mention the 20+ minutes of ads (not including the DJ's yapping away) in every hour of music.
And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for. The corp HQ selects the playlists and the DJ doesn't get to choose very many songs to play, unless they're working after 9:30 or 10:00 pm (and who's listening then anyways?)
When I'm at work, I listen to Wolf FM. They've got some ads, but the ratio of music to ads is very high.
Well, of course ClearChannel follows "what listeners want to hear". They TELL them what they want to hear. THEY make the play lists. Absoultely absurd response on the part of CC.
CC: "These are not the bands you are looking for"
PUB: "These are not the bands I am looking for"
CC: "You will listen to our drivel and enjoy it"
PUB: "I will listen to your drivel and enjoy it"
Even more confusing is why the industry is trying to kill internet radio. In that scenario they can send their material directly to the Internet radio DJ to get considered for play. Or better yet the labels could start their own stations. Instead they are making the Internet radio people cough up Payola to kill them off.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Boo hoo. They fought for deregulation and now they're feeling the bite in a purportedly free market of monopolies. Fuck them all. They made their bed, now sleep in it.
Am I supposed to lose sleep knowing that they've gotta pay their indies $10K/song/station to get an add because the stations are all owned by the same conglomerate when the record labels have joined into a conglomerate and engaged in price fixing?
I don't listen to radio (except for the independent, supersuave WFMU) and I can't wait until inevitability catches up with the RIAA.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Oh, so the industry that is effectively controlled by five companies is saying the radio industry is too concentrated?
Oh, boo hoo. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It sounds like what might happen in the next few years is that companies like Clear Channel will do what they say they don't and only start playing the artists that they have on tour or promote.
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
Because CD sales hardly give them a dime anymore. If they would break off from RIAA run labels and sell their music online in MP3 format (.50 cents/song) they would make a lot more money and maybe could ease off concert prices a bit.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
"It is blatantly absurd that they attempt to hold the radio industry accountable for the creation or execution of business practices that they control," [Clear Channel spokesperson] Taylor said. "The money comes from them."
The recording industry is complaining that the recording industry is paying to have certain songs played on the radio. They why don't they just stop paying?
Of course, all the labels will have to agree to do this, since if all but one stops, and this payola really works, that one label will have tons of airplay.
Oh, Woe is me! I had to had to steal yet more money from the artists I supposedly represent to cover the costs of promotion. Since I'm only making 1400% profit instead of 1500%, I have to settle for a 911 instead of that Ferrari!
Tired of payola? Pissed off by the RIAA? Think our elected officials are owned by Hollywood? Then you need..... PIRATE RADIO! Irreverant, illegal, apolitical, and hard to find. Broadcast schedule? What's that? Lots of fun, tho, and guaranteed to pick up the corners of your mouth.
/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Pirate_Radio
Seriously, someone should investigate their buying of senators and legistlators over the past 20 years. I'd bet they put organized crime to shame when it comes to greasing palms.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Not to side with the RIAA (shudder), but Clear Channel is a pretty ugly company. You probably listen to them now and don't even know it. There's a station list available at http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp
Josh Woodward
The RIAA complaining about a monopoly. Heh, that just makes my day.
You really have to marvel at the arrogance of these people. They truly feel they can do whatever they want without consequence. Yeah I know, 50 years of history proves they have been able to so far, but even the dumbest dog will eventually attack it's master if it's beaten enough.
So downloading music off of the internet is SAVING them money on promotion? It is absurd that they are so confused about thier business practices that they bitch and moan when people "steal" from them, even when it costs them money to put it on the radio.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
So this is basically the RIAA saying, "Hey, you know, we tried to buy influence to assert more control over what listeners hear, and now a company with enough clout has arisen to force us to keep doing what we've been doing all along. Stop us before we skirt the payola laws again!"
I mean, they're saying that only the payee and not the payer of payola is at fault. They are probably enviously eyeing Bill Gate's mansion, while theirs is only on the level of, say, Aaron Spelling.
So they'd like to cut their marketing costs (remember, this is why they say CDs cost so much and that they are a vital part of the process despite the fact that CD recording and distribution no longer requires the resources of a major corporation to undertake), and they'd like the Senator from Disney to do it for them.
Then later on they'll get bored and command him to mud-wrestle midgets for campaign contributions.
Dance, puppets! Dance!
I so don't care who wins this battle.
Oh booo hoo hoo....
Poor poor RIAA, now that there are radio corperations big enough to tell them to stuff it and dictate terms they go crying to the Govt yet again...
"Wahhh, he's bigger than me! make him smaller! because he wont let me tell him what to do anymore!!! Wahhhh!"
i hope clear channel get's fricking HUGE. and then slams the door on the RIAA's hands.
hey, clear channel... ever thing of signing artists yourselves? how about bypassing the record labels directly...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
its about control.
this type of a system takes the control of creating superstars out of the hands of the RIAA - hell, if some company/band/whatever has enough money to go bribe ClearChannel into plaing non-riaa members...
... hi bingo
One organization is driven by profits to produce the least amount of lowest-common denominator bands that would maximize profits, while the other organization is driven by profits to play lowest-common denominator bands.
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
-or-
The president of Kazaa complaining that people are pirating their software by using programs like KazaaLite?
All I have to say is BWAHAHAWHAHWHAW!
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
id rather see the local band at the bar who has never been signed, now ever will be! if you were good, you wouldnt need to make your money off of radio promotion, youd promote your self nofx/grateful dead/phish... and make money by winning your fans at tours, by being a good show.
That's naive, and you're extrapolating a couple of exceptions to the rule (i.e. Phish) into the general case. In any little town, you'll find half a dozen really good bands that may be better than what you hear on the radio, and there are fifty thousand such towns. But it is really, really hard to turn that into a full-time living. You play some bars for a pittance, you sell a couple of CDs per show, and that's hardly enough money to buy equipment, go on tour, and record your next album. It isn't just a matter of being good. It's a matter of getting some backing and marketing help so you can get a wider audience. I know that's not how it works in your idealistic world, but that's how things work in this world.
they only rotate 30 songs on the radio, that means thereare thousands of songs that are never heard... isnt dling a song that isnt on the radio free advertising?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Not trying to plug the service, but I'm curious how new ideas like XM will fit into this.
I think it's easy to agree that a lot of the slashdot audience despises two things in current radio: limited playlists, tons of ads (well and yappy dj's too I guess). Both of these facts exist because the radio station has to maintain a certain level of income.
Does XM run ads? Do we know how they pick their playlists?
Seems to me a subscription based radio is the "next step". Pay a little to get less ads, get more music, get a better variety of music. I just figure paying a subscription will reduce the pressure to maximize profits just a tiny bit, leaving some wiggle room so the radio can actually be enjoyable to listen to.
Course the question is, does XM achieve this?
...can and will be used against them.
;-)
If the RIAA lawyer are worth there money they would make a great case, again Clear Channel as well as against the RIAA. So lets see what they have to say
Who first read the headline as...
Music Industry Seeks Payola.
Z.
"Nothing new there" I thought.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
because they can give larger campaign donations.
an industry with many small players suffers from the fact that none of the players can give very much and most of them don't want to give any at all, because a) they don't need any news laws or b) they figure someone else will fight the fight for the industry.
in an industry with a few large players, however, each of the players can give very large donations, and they tend to stick together to a) fix prices for mutual benefit and b) buy the legislation they need in order to self-perpetuate.
congress knows this and adjusts the industry accordingly. for instance, deregulation is just congress's way of allowing an industry to clump together, creating large generous conglomerates. it makes congress's job much easier: fewer checks to cash, and each check is larger.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Man, that reminds me -- I really ought to subscribe to Salon :-/.
PS Since ClearChannel has a large stake in XM Radio, I completely expect XM Radio to support payola >:-[. But, does anyone know if SiriusRadio also support payola? I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Clear Channel's motto is "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today". And you thought Microsoft was obnoxious. Their corporate creed is "We believe the ultimate measure of our success is to provide a superior value to our stockholders.".
Clear Channel even owns Rush Limbaugh. He was a big help in getting Congress to remove all limitations on one company owning all the radio stations.
...And it ain't payola.
.05 mhz of their frequency and driving circles around their transmitter should give their engineer a nice Excedrin headache...
Part of the story here is that Clear Channel is also in the "Concert Promotion" business. I put the term in quotes because it's more like legalized racketeering. Their standard procedure, regardless of what specific business they're working in, is to make as much for them regardless of the damage it does to their customers, business partners, and the public. Their theory is, what's good for us is good for us, fuck all others. (I can already see the knee-jerk "the market will decide" Rush Limbaugh clones racing for the reply button about how this is a good thing...Read-on first, please.)
So CC will do things like leverage all their businesses... So, if you want to play a concert at the desirable venues (ie. Not a shitty dive bar) in XXX City, you'll have to have a "music promotion" contract with WXYZ to get your tunes played, a concert prmotion contract with CC Entertainment which also includes a budget for ads on WXYZ, agree to do these other CC shows in other cities, AND do it all for what CC is offering.
In other words, CC is victimizing the RIAA membership the same way the RIAA members victimize their customers. (Ie. Accept our lowball offer to do a conecert, or get no airplay the month you play at a competing venue vs. Pay $19 for a CD we paid $2 to create.)
What we're getting ready for is a battle royale of influence and political contributions, as the two big behemoths who both think they own Congress and have a constitutional right to their obsolete business models go toe to toe, trying to see who can spend the most to get their way.
If I didn't know that this battle will only result in the consumer being screwed even further, I'd say get some popcorn and enjoy the show. As it is, I'd say go pirate some music on Kazaa and start your own pirate radio station.
Or just jam CC properties, if you don't feel like you'd make a good air personality... Tuning your 50 watt transmitter to +-
Who did what now?
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
How many US citizens does the RIAA represent? No, I don't mean how many artist or backroom techies or even corporate weasels in suits, because it's not actually representing them. The RIAA (rather the labels that comprise it) are businesses. As such, they represent their owners, not their employees, and not third parties relying on them to market their talents or products. Answering only to shareholders is a fiduciary duty for a publically traded company. If happy employees are the key to financial success, great, but if sacking 95% of them becomes a smarter move, they'll do that without batting an eye. The RIAA represents only the shareholders (or private owners) of the companies that comprise it.
So, does anyone actually know how many US citizens are shareholders in the music businesses that comprise the RIAA? Do these US citizens know? Do they know or care that their ownership legitimizes RIAA demands on Capital Hill?
I ask this because I keep hearing about how much money the RIAA represents, and there seems to be some sort of connection between this and the political influence that they have. Now, in a democracy, this can't be true, because then your vote would count more depending on your income, right? And that's not how a democracy works, is it?
So, let's hear it. Does anyone know how many US citizens the RIAA actually represents (that's US shareholders, not employees)? I'd really like to hear someone in government asking this, because it might (not likely, but perhaps) make Jane Investor start asking exactly where her financial representatives have been gambli^H^H^H^H^H^H investing her money on the stock market, and who she's legitimizing with her investment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
She insisted that decisions about airplay are driven strictly by research showing what the public wants to hear
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"She insisted that decisions about airplay are driven strictly by research showing what the public wants to hear."
That's bass-akwards. By definition, you can't run a poll asking what people want to hear. What the public wants to hear is something different.
They hear something and they like then at that moment or they don't. The same thing at another time might get a different result.
These media corporations have the depth of a puddle of dog urine and the soul of adding machines.
What THEY want is to use yesterday's content as filler between the ads. I'm sure they'd be happier to do away with the content altogether (All those freaky artists. What do they know? And that noise?) and run informercials 24/7. "Sigue, Sigue Sputnik" writ small and quiet.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I work at a student-run radio station, and you wouldn't believe how great the state of music is in america. We get tons of music everyday from great independent artists. But if you listen to Clear-Channel, you're likely to think that American music has reached an all-time low.
And Clear Channel is the company that imposed a ban on about a 1000 songs after September. It hurts artists when their music isn't played anymore.
RIAA offers bribe. "Look everyone, THEY ARE TAKING BRIBES!" Why are people so stupid? The groups also criticized broadcasting giants, such as industry leader Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 stations nationwide, for flexing their "sheer market power" in ways that can "make or break a hit song." Yeah, nobody wants industry giants to use "sheer market power" to determine the fate of others. Apparently it's bad if such an action crushes a song, but not an artist. Or maybe they should just come out and say that everything that doesn't result in profit for them should be illegal.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I am not really into the "get / listen to music online" scene (so keep this in mind as you read the next paragraph). Steadily over the past few years, I have tapered off buying CD's to almost nil, and I've sworn off the local radio stations (not so much their CC tie-ins, but that their playlists are insanely short; I heard the same song going to work three days in the same week... and it wasn't a great song to begin with. ARGH).
So now I'm wondering... would it be feasible to setup a slashdot-style online music forum for independent artists to submit music tracks to, such that members of forum could categorize, comment on, rate/rank those submissions to get streamed online? Wouldn't need much of a DJ (per se) as much as a few people to keep the forum running. Heck, if it works, you could probably let members design their on CD for burning for, say, $5 to get sent to them, the proceeds of which go to the forum upkeep as well as the artists themselves. Granted it would take a little while to work up a good user base, but would something like this work? Pros and/or cons?
Radio stations aren't out there for for the benefit of artists or record companies, they are out to make money like any other business. If it takes money to get them to play your record, that's fine. They aren't obligated to play anyone's record. They aren't even obligated to listen to anyone's record. I don't see how this is a problem. Why is it "bad" to accept money to play a record? Because someone else didn't get an opportunity to be heard? They are NOT obligated to hear anyone. This isn't socialism here, it's capitalism!
I will say that eventually this behavior will lead to people to stop listening to a station, as their content will inevitably turn into crap. I personal don't listen to radio for music for that reason. It's all preprocessed pop crap. Their own behavior will drive them out of business, as no one will want to advertise on a station that plays crap and has no listeners. We don't need any legislation to fix this!
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
First Microsoft is right for once, and now the RIAA is right for once. Better step up the fur coat exports to Gehenna, 'cause it's getting COLD down there.
I found this part to be confusing:
"Artists, in particular, are hurt because under most recording contracts, promotional costs come out of their royalties", said Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition.
Why? I thought it was the record company's job to promote music. Shouldn't that come out of their percentage? If it's not worth promoting enough to make a profit, they probably shouldn't have signed a contract with the artist.
What happens when the record label decides to do a couple $100,000 promotional parties^H^H^H^H^H campaigns on relatively unpopulated tropical islands? "Er, sorry, but your promotional expenses exceed your royalties. You owe us money."
-ez
I live in Connecticut. Sometimes, that alone is depressing. However, when Clear Channel broadcasting owns 70% of all radio stations in your listeneng area, life just sucks. Retarded, automaton-like DJ's with no local knowledge and a 20 song rotating playlist between endless advertisements. I have boycotted all Clear Channel Stations and I think everyone else should too. They suck.
--Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
It's sad that in the Twin cities, radio station formats change here as often as the weather.
I think I know just about every song on Mix104's('80s radio station) playlist, which all seems to fit on a 6-CD changer. It's been 15 minutes, can we hear "Heard it from a friend...." from REO Speedwagon AGAIN?
The saddest part was that the most diverse station, Rev105 which played just about anything(including the Golden Palominos, inspiring me to buy the CD) is nothing but a faded memory. It's now an alternative station, and about a year ago it was a disco/funk station with a super-limited playlist that's dwarfed by my winamp playlist.
Okay, I'm just venting about how bad twin cities radio is, but someone has to mention the Rev.
I'm a (part-time) indie promoter in Canada. I call campus stations and do my best to turn them into major label mouth pieces with free things and celebrity access.
99% of the people who can afford to play that game are big labels. Universal, EMI, Virgin, La Face, at least as big as Koch.
Clear Channel must really have their game together if the RIAA is willing to blow their own tool. I mean, what do they think, radio stations are going to *buy* CDs? The campus stations I work with don't have the money to keep the lights on, without free stuff they'd dry up.
My favourite quote from the article:
Man, this woman is on some bad crack.Paul
I remembered reading several of these articles in the past. Very informative about the whole situation. It's about time someone attempted to do something about it.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
IIRC, this is called a vertical monopoly, where a single company controls the means of creation and distribution. IIRC, there was a situation like this many years ago with the motion picture industry, where threatres were actually owned by MGM, Paramount, and the like.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
The reason that radio stations were regulated is because the airwaves are a public asset. When they accept pay for play, they are essentially becoming a giant commercial for the record companies.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
And what are they doing with my other $14.00 anyway?
Sending it to their dealers to support their crack habits.
Imagine there was no AM or FM radio, just ubiquitous wireless networking. Moreover, within an area the size of a city, there was multicasting capability over the network. What would most people tune in to? Bittney Spears, regardless of city.
That is why there is Clear Channel. They have a significant economy of scale in operating multiple multicast (i.e. FM broadcast) operations in multiple cities.
Now if we really had that ubiquitous wireless networking, perhaps small stations playing more "interesting" music could integrate listeners from multiple metropolitan areas (around the world) into a large enough audience to be useful. But in any particular city on its own, they would be unable to break even because of the small size of their audience.
Anyway, I'm not too bothered about the monopolization of the FM broadcast band, because there is always XM, which does provide "interesting" music because they have a nation-wide signal, and a different business model.
This is off-topic (more or less), but I felt an urge to contribute my own personal experience in the pre-digital radio industry:
I used to work for an FM station, too -- KQ102 in Canton, Missouri -- and it was pretty interesting. It was from 1988-1989 -- and seemed to be the time right before "digital" took over everything FM.
Everything we played was on 45s -- vinyl -- and each 45 was rated according to its "tempo."
There were thousands of 45s at the station and about ten different tempo numbers. A #1 song was really, really fast -- and a number 10 was really, really slow.
Someone listened to all the music and -- based on the tempo -- placed them into the appropriate tempo bin.
Now, our mission was to look down at our playlist and play songs of varying tempo. We had markings like 1-5-8, or 2-6-10 to indicate the next three songs (fast, medium, slow) and breaks for each commercial or public service announcement.
The idea was that you were supposed to take a 45 from the front of the bin, play it, and then put it in the back of the bin. Of course, it didn't work like that, since our playlist was based on tempo and not song titles -- so all the shitty stuff was in the back of the bins never to be touched, and all the good stuff was in the front.
And we only had to hit our commercials plus or minus two minutes -- and give our top of the hour station announcements within 60 seconds plus or minus -- so we had a *lot* of leeway to play what we felt like, when we felt like it. It was fantastic, actually.
We broadcast out of a tiny white house that had been converted into a radio station. Transmitter in the living room, main booth in one bedroom, production studio in the other, and the sales office in the kitchen.
And we had a *huge* listener base. I used to do a lot of Friday and Saturday night shifts -- from 8pm to 2am -- and, man, I had groupies. I couldn't fucking believe it. People would hear your voice -- on account they'd be playing you at parties and in their car -- and they'd drop by in droves to see what you looked like. It was sick and bizarre, but it was loads of fun. We'd be sitting in the booth and staring out the window into the backyard and see all these people back there, waving and trying to get your attention.
It was really a bizarre thing but amazingly exciting. The fact that we were spinning 45s, playing more or less what we wanted (within reason) made for some amazing nights of music.
Sadly, KQ102 was put out of business by the rise of digital and the fact that they were one of the last stations in the area to still use vinyl. We actually had *turntables* -- as if we were a college radio station. It was a trip.
Great fun. Huge listener base. Gave away lots of prizes and cash.
But it was pretty much stomped out by corporate radio.
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
The RIAA has a point, but what they're really mad about is that they want more power to make and break songs. The RIAA has the power to make and break songs. So does Clear Channel. So the reason the RIAA's pissed off is because another organization can break a song that they wanted to make, or make a song they wanted to break. That's all they're upset about. Don't fool yourself into thinking they actually give a damn about artists. Also, this is a tactical move on the part of the RIAA to try to get some good press, after getting so much bad press over their previous wrong-doings.
That said, politics does make strange issues. For this particular one, the RIAA happens to be right. No sense in refusing help from a powerful ally; just so long as you remember this is like WWII, in the RIAA is like Stalin. The enemy of our enemy is only our friend in that particular case, and only so long as our enemy is a threat.
In fighting against Clear Channel, the RIAA may be a useful ally. However, they will not be an ally in building a new world order afterwards. They will simply want to replace Clear Channel with an organization they control.
What is really needed is what Lawrence Lessig proposed -- free airwaves. This is now possible due to current technologies. Free does not necessarily mean unregulated, as Lessig says. The basic idea behind this is that people wanting to use the airwaves are dynamically assigned a frequency upon request. Each person would have some identifier which would help radio-goers find him, no matter what frequency he was on.
This is very much possible with upcoming technology. We should start moving towards this ideal of free airwaves -- the airwaves need to be revolutionized to be like then net, where everyone has an opportunity to put something on them. Perhaps we can start out by making "half" of the radio-frequencies "free" in such a manner.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In other news, the American Medical Association is warning that cigarettes may kill you, and NASA has released a press release stating that the sun is "very, very hot."
I mean, isn't it totally common knowledge that independent promotion is payola vaguely disguised? I can only assume ClearChannel is making noises to push a little bit harder, squeeze a little bit more, and this is the RIAA pushing back. 'Cause this has been going on forever.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I don't know why people haven't gone apeshit on Ticketmaster yet. They're obviously a miserable, vicious monopoly. I've bought tickets from them twice and will do almost anything possible to not do so again.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
$25??? I remember seeing Van Halen for $12 back in 1984. Last concert I went to was Elton John (by himself, with just a piano... awesome show) and it was about $60 if I remember. I'm trying to think of other things that have increased in price 5x in 16 years, and only movies come close.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
They make me want to puke whenever they come on the radio. I can't even fathom what they'd be like live.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
I just don't get it. The RIAA is getting killed by Clear Channel because CC is so big. Yet by requesting huge payments from webcasters they are moving to raise the bar for entry into the broadcasting business, assuring that only companies the size of CC can play in the game.
If the RIAA was smart, they would be using tens of thousands of foot soldiers (i.e. small webcasters) in their war against CC. They would try to get their music played as much as possible instead of trying to control who does play it.
Diversification! Don't rely on the two-ton gorilla, instead rely on 20,000 monkeys, because if you lose a monkey or two, you still can get the job done, but if you lose your gorilla you're screwed.
Its as though the marketing VPs and the accounting VPs at the RIAA don't talk to each other. The marketing VPs should be getting as many people to buy CDs as possible, and the best way is by getting people to hear the music.
The accounting VPs are trying to figure out how to get more money in their coffers, and their best shot at it is to charge people more for playing their music. They haven't figured out that charging people will cause less to play the music, and that will kill CD sales because people won't listen.
They truly deserve this mess if they can't see that.
Ralph
Actually, I've been really pleased with the radio station at CU Boulder, radio 1190. They play a HUGE variety of music, are mostly listener-supported, and have live mp3 streams at various bitrates.
You guys should check them out-- everything from Japanese pop to reggae to industrial to "world music." (Actually, I think the J-pop host is away for the summer, but I bet she'll be back in the fall)
Don't like being on the receiving end of a monopoloy, do you RIAA?
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
The owners of MTV and VH1 definitely push songs as much as any radio station. And your big 4 broadcasters own most of the radio stations. Disney has hundreds of stations, GE, hundreds, and of course News Corp. (FOX).
It's funny that the RIAA is fighting something that is so much like them--so close in fact, that they are practically hand in hand. Radio drives album sales, albums drive radio sales.
It's all a big mess. My solution is to boycott everything. I don't buy CD's, I just listen to my old stuff. I don't listen to the radio and I don't watch Television.
Problem solved.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Any others?
_______
2B1ASK1
Also, webcasting would let new, not part of a multimedia conglomerate, record companies come into being to compete with the big guys.
Of course if the law were changed so that the big record companies could be the ones owning half or more of the radio stations on your dial this whole issue would quietly disappear and if you think that you hear the same songs over and over again now...
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Again, the socialists and un-politically-savvy geeks are blaming big business, when it is really big government that is the problem.
Want to wipe the RIAA, ClearChannel, and all these "big bad businesses" out of business? Deregulate the radio industry. Entirely. Don't allow the feds to regulate who can broadcast on what radio frequency.
Overnight, you'll see ma and pa (and large commercial) radio stations pop up all over the place. If the airwaves are free, why do we need government to regulate it? Let the airwaves be what they are good for -- to broadcast to your peers and those around you. Big radio antennaes shouldn't broadcast hundreds of miles anyway, let the locals decide what they want to hear...
I'm sick of people thinking its BIG BUSINESS that causes corruption in America. It's not. It's government giving itself powers it constitutionally can not have.
Every 3 or 4 or 6 letter law you guys are afraid of, and every big organization or company you're afraid of, would NEVER throw money at Congress and the President if the fucking federal government would abide by the limitations set forth in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution.
Want to hurt these pricks? Vote libertarian. On your 2002 ballot, you'll find a lot of them, no matter where you live.
As far as the government having a say over what content they broadcast, it must satisfy the requirement "to operate in the public interest".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I thought that radio was for my wireless appliances and for truckers to communicate.
Does this have something to do with the "FM" button on my receiver? I thought that was a white noise generator.
It's not confusing at all. If more and more artists continue to bypass the middleman (RIAA) and release music through alternative media such as the Internet then the RIAA is doomed. This bill is only a boon for artists under the old system which is rapidly changing.
But if the RIAA can lower the bar for the hot new artists to come in under the system which they already control then they keep their grip on both the artists and the consumers. The losers will be the independent promoters. But the RIAA knows that the "indies" have to be sacrificed, so now after 40 years of collaboration they point fingers and scream 'Payola!'