Slashdot Mirror
Shocked, Shocked at Payola
"It costs a record company about $250,000 just to launch a single on rock radio today. That doesn't guarantee success; it just gives the single access to the airwaves. If the song catches on and eventually crosses over to the mainstream Top-40 format, indie costs balloon to more than $1 million per song." Salon.com has a pair of articles on payola today: one on
the widening scandal
and one specifically on
a curious Clear Channel case. For context, here's
our latest payola story,
or if you want the background on why the labels hate the promoters but can't shake the habit,
my writeup from a year ago.
(If you want some beach reading on this topic, go check out
"Hit Men.")
keep in mind that you (assuming you are an American Taxpayer) own the airwaves (IIRC). The radio and TV airwaves are publicly owned by the taxpayers. think about this the next time they are screwing you.
A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
Well, considering Clear Channel is a owner of XM satellite radio, my guess is its about the same...
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Payola distorts the system. It makes it harder for the public to hear what it wants to hear. Payola is also illegal; that's helps explain why people "jump to the conclusion" that it's a bad thing. Incentives for distribution of music (sales incentives, advertising deals with music stores, etc.) are not illegal, because music sales aren't regulated in the same way.
#include IANAL.h
I thought radios had to pay the RIAA for each single played.
Nope. They pay the composers through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The artists and their record companies (RIAA, in other words) don't get anything for radio airplay (unless they also happen to be the composers, of course).
The controversy over the recent webcasting fees mainly lies in that the Copyright Office ruling requires that the webcasters pay BOTH the composers AND the artists, so the total fee is a lot more than for traditional radio. If you're the both the singer and the songwriter (or if you're a record company who's screwed the copyrights out of the singer/songwriter) you get paid twice. Sweet gig if you can get it.
Link - Online Tonight
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
well if the proof is in the pudding, then your guess is wrong. One of the huge downsides of payola from a listeners standpoing is the lack of choice and diversity.
The choice and diversity on XM is amazing, and in fact they have one channel "Unsigned" that is specifically for bands that aren't with major labels. All bands have to do is mail in a CD, and there's a good chance that if it doesn't suck, it'll get played. I listen to that channel all the time, and it's amazing the quality of the bands and music on there... I've ordered several CDs from bands websites based on things I've heard there. (as an aside, the channel is run by Pat Dinizio formerly of Smithereens fame)
I don't know about all of the channels, especially the ones that play more "Top 40" oriented music, and how they determine their playlists, but I do know that the choice is remarkable.
I agree that there is the potential down the road for these services, should they displace traditional radio, to have a duopoly (or monopoly should they merge or one die) and that could be very bad, but at this point I think Satellite Radio is the cure for payola, not another problem.
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.