Slashdot Mirror
Spitzer Takes On Record Industry Payola
flackrum writes "NY Attorney General Spitzer has served subpoenas to four major record labels (UMG, BMG, EMI, WMG) in a continued house-cleaning of corporations employing dirty-tricks. In this particular group of cases, investigations are focusing on the circumvention of the Federal Payola Law, which forbids bribing radio broadcasters in return for airing specific songs. Mmm sweet karma."
At least it is a step up from representing unpaid restaurant bathroom attendants .
r _bathrooms.reut/
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/08/news/funny/spitze
Broadcasters are prohibited from taking cash or anything of value in exchange for playing a specific song, unless they disclose the transaction to listeners. But in a practice that is common in the industry, independent promoters pay radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations' playlists. The promoters then bill record labels for each new song that is played; the total tab costs the record industry tens of millions of dollars each year.
Why wasn't this loophole simply closed up when it began?
http://www.busyweather.com/
But government's meddling in what businesses can pay to each other seems wrong to me.
That said, Spitzer is right enforcing the law -- the practice of having stupid laws on the books without enforcing them for years is even more worrysome -- it simply leaves the door open for selective enforcement in the future.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Radio stations would have to play what people wanted to hear.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
This is good news.. these laws have long been ignored and in the age of consolidated mega media, "pay for play" is just part of the SOP.
They should enforce the law or remove it from the books. But if big media can't get the radio play they want, it really makes it hard for them to produce mega hits "on demand."
http://www.hawknest.com/
I have had the fortune of sitting in on a meeting with a potential client at a company. Let me say this... no contract or sale in the history of corporate life has ever been above board. I have never seen so much free flowing alcohol in my life... all to seal the deal... now if record companies do the same to get their crappy music on the air, good for them, it's how business is done... substitute music for software, or electronic equipment, and all of a sudden it just becomes normal business practice... I scratch your back if you scratch mine... sheesh...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Anyone...
Anyone at all...
Buhler? Buhler?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I mean, how a mere official dare confront the biggest in the mind-shaping industry???
Expect Orin Hatch to soon introduce legislation to legalize payola...
Mark my words, very soon this guy will either be the successor to Pataki as governor, or Bloomberg as mayor. From there he WILL go national.
First Spitzer reams the Mutual Fund houses, then the Insurance/Ripoff industry and now this. I'm begging all of you who can vote (I became a citizen 2 days ago - too late to register) to write-in Elliot Spitzer for President. Then we'll see some house-cleaning...
I could never sleep my way to the top
'Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up
And since my options had been whittled away
I struck a bargain with my radio DJ
I said I'd like this song to be number one
He said "I'd really really like to help you my son"
And then I knew that I would have him to thank
Because he asked me how much I had in the bank
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
He said the record wouldn't have to be hot
And no one ever seemed to care if it's not
It would depend on something else that I've got
And that the other ones who'd given it a shot
Had seen a modest sum grow geometrically
And then they had forgiven themselves
Because the net reward had justified
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives*
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Well, I told you about the world (its address)
I wonder when they're gonna clean up the mess
You know the rabid child is still tuning in
Chess piece face's patience must be wearing thin
Because they haven't played this song on the air
Not that anyone but me even cared
And the Disk Jockey has moved out of town
The district courthouse says he's nowhere to be found
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Maybe like the guys down at the NYPD, the US Attorney's office are fans too?
As we all know, the record industry are bastions of honesty and fair play, and the sole crusaders against evil terrorist pirates who steal music, and therefore murder the poor artists who create the songs.
Given their record of fair play, being law abiding citizens, and their respect for the laws of this country - so great that they even write the laws - it is quite clear that they have not done anything wrong, and should not be investigated at all.
What with this, and with his attacks against the Money Market industry and the Insurance Industry, both of which are shaking up the cronies and tycoons and is sending fear down their spines, I'd have to agree. It's about time that an attorney general used his power for real, world-changing causes.
I doubt anyone will want to hear this, but I fail to see why more traditional advertisers can pay-per-play to get their message out, but the RIAA (which has music as its product, thus radio play seems comparable to giving out free samples of product) cannot?
Don't get me wrong, it actually does please me to hear about the government finally cracking down on payola, and I hate the RIAA as much as any self-respecting geek. But in this case... I wouldn't necessarily call it black-and-white. Perhaps a matter of monopolistic control of a market, but beyond that?
As an aside... This addresses labels trying to do an end-run around the payola laws... But a much more obvious way to comply in letter if not in spirit exists. Payola laws forbid paying for songs without admitting it. Who sees the next big thing in radio as "and now, BoiBand9000's latest hit, brought to you by the kind, friendly, law-abiding, just-shy-of-saintly folks at Sony"?
Think about it, who benefits from payola, the bribers or the bribees (don't know if that is a real word, but lets pretend it is)? The record labels are forced to pay just to get their music on the air, while radio stations get to cash in on the label's desperation. Pretty much any competent record company exec would prefer to get that promotion for free, and in fact that have written complaints over the practice in the past (just the people who would normally be on their side in such a case are convinced in their close minded world that everything a record company does must be evil).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
He's like Teddy Rossevelt, but there's no way he'll be able to trick the robber barons into electing him. And if he was shot while giving a speech, he'd probably sensibly goto the hospital too.
I don't know if attorney general is an elected position, but that doesn't matter. We need to send the message to people in our government that the more they do stuff like this the more likely they are to get our vote. The two presidential candidates have not even said a word about taking out evil corporations. And the third party candidates might say something about it, but have no track record of actually doing so. I want the people who represent me to know that if they do things that hurt record companies, the MPAA, media companies, etc. That I will proudly vote for them regardless of political affiliation.
Did you hear that?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Exactly! The law is ripe for repeal.
-2 Bad Troll :-)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
He investigates and levies charges against 401k companies.
He charges recording industry with collusion and payola.
He's the first to sign on to the microsoft settlement of 2001.
I'm confused. Somebody, quick, help me form an opinion.
That dude is a libertarian. He thinks the marketplace belongs to the people with the most capital, and worthless consumers should enjoy their shit sandwiches at 300% markup.
Mmm sweet karma.
What's this? I clicked on the word "karma" and got some damn wiccan page talking about some religious concept they stole from the Hindus. I always thought "karma" was what I'll lose by posting this message.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
>normal business practice
But in the record business, that's the playing field. The law is the law - abide by it, or bribe^H^H^H^H^Hget Congress to change it.
The law is there for the same reason antitrust laws are there: to keep MCA and friends from crowding out the smaller labels the same as they crowd out indy musicians. The laws should be enforced or taken off the books so that everyone knows what the playing field is.
sigs, as if you care.
You tell me that some of these news stories aren't bought and paid for? And these news stories are driving our politics and our society in general, so that is much more important than what songs are playing.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
If the market was truely libertarian, then demand would cause new ventures to popup to undercut the markup thus putting the overpriced ones out of business.
The point of anti-payola laws were an attempt to kill rock and roll.
The music industry has always paid to get air play. The states and the feds thought that if rock and roll radio stations were forbidden to take payola, through laws selectively enforced against those stations, they'd be forced to stop playing rock and roll. It didn't work.
Why those laws are still on the books are beyond me.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Just legalize payola, with full disclosure. That way all broadcasters, web-casters, satellite, TV, etc. big and small can compete fairly for promotional money from the industry. With a ban, only the major radio players can use the loophole to collect there money while the smaller players are locked out. Closing the loopholes would only drive the big players to find new loopholes. Now would be a good time to deregulate music promotion.
Legalizing payola would create a shock to the industry's business models. Any shock can only have positive results given the state of current business models.
... of a business model becoming extinct. People can make their own radio stations now from online jukeboxes. If they really like it, they can pay for it and take it with them, so the distribution method is also going the way of the dinosaur.
How about we re-regulate radio? I'm tired of 10 song play lists being recycled 24 hours a day. God damn clear channel.
Listen, I don't like the RIAA more than anyone else here, but there's criticism, and then there's demonization. They have done plenty of other stuff to deserve derision, but this particular issue isn't about the RIAA.
No, because the people with the capital have already invested it in the purchase of politicians.
What you have under George Bush is pretty close to government under Libertarian principals, at least as close as I hope we ever get. Companies use legislation and collusion to hammer consumers and lock out competition. That's what bare knuckled Libertarianism really is. Not so pretty. Price fixing takes the place of taxes, only instead of the money being used to upgrade the infrastructure everyone uses and no one wants to pay for, it goes to the Cayman islands.
What you are saying, is legal. The Payola allows actually allows for Pay for Play IF and ONLY IF they say something like, "Mega corp has paid us to play this song for you..."
The issue is, esp., when DJ's used to pick the songs they played, that the public would believe it was picked because they liked it... not because of payola.
http://www.hawknest.com/
A lot of people just don't know exactly what karma is.
Here's a few hints:
Karma, dharma and samsara are three fundamental aspects of the Hindu world view.
Dharma, one's appropriate role or attributes, gives life its order and predictability.
Karma, the measure of how well one performs one's dharma, explains why one is born where he or she is, why there is suffering and seeming injustices.
Samsara, the continuous round of birth, death and rebirth, is the context for all experience.
For society to function, everything must do its dharma. If even a dog or tree doesn't perform its dharma, society cannot function.
Therefore, in order to have bad karma, the record industry must first not properly play its "role" and then die. In its next "incarnation", it would then get a lesser dharma or role to play.
excerpted from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/sponsid.html
Section 507 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 508 requires that when anyone pays someone to include program matter in a broadcast, the fact of payment must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast to the station over which the mater is to be carried. Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Act. Failure to disclose such payments is commonly referred to as ``payola'' and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice.
Busy aligning my non-linear thoughts.
[Please sign here]
Problem is, it's very hard to fight it. The record companies use middle men, independent record promoters, to do the dirty-work (as indicated in the article).
When I was far younger, I used to work in the radio broadcasting industry and the stories of what the indie-promoters do is shameful.
The program director, a few of his lackies, some of the higher-profile talent and an independent promoter all went out to dinner in Windsor. Not only did the promoter spring for dinner, but then he hands everyone in the group three crisp $100 bills and tells them to have fun in the Windsor Casino.
Or perhaps the station is out of money for promotions and can't buy bumper stickers or on-air give-aways. The indie will line up all sorts of cool goods to give away like video games, cell phones and lots and lots of record product and concert tickets. Funny thing is, the listeners get the record product and the concert tickets, but the video games and cell phones are traded to vendors to print bumper stickers. Or, they simply go into the pocket of the general manager and program director.
Another disturbing thing that happens now is ClearChannel has a concert promotion business too. So when their show comes into town, the playlist is modified so heavily on all their radio stations that you can't get away from the featured act. Imagine a weekend of nearly nothing but Journey!
Radio is pretty much a license to print money. It is not a surprise that it's rampant with abuse and corruption.
We need to stop talking about free markets in markets that the government inherently regulates or influences from the get go.
These include:
1. radio and tv broadcasts - no possibility of free markets here as the government licences "public" spectrum to the entities in the first place. and afaik the government will police your spectrum for you. so to talk about a free market here we would first have to let anyone who wanted broadcast on any frequency he wanted. if we do this, perhaps it will be ok to talk about a free market in this area.
2. any copyrighted work - how can you have a free market in a good that is by its very nature a government granted monopoly?
3. any patented work - see reasoning for item 2.
4. perhaps any regulated and/or licenced profession? perhaps only some of them? thoughts please.
A Nony Mouse
Drug advertising contributes to the cost of the medication, on the order of 10%. Ironically, the 'bribery' has gone down as the TV advertising has gone up. This is OT, I know, but I think the drug advertising on TV is ridiculous. Really, they should be allowed to talk about a disease rather than the drug that treats the disease. After all, if they say, for example, 'Talk to your doc about cholesterol' they will still sell more cholesterol lowering drugs.
If the market was truely libertarian, then demand would cause new ventures to popup to undercut the markup thus putting the overpriced ones out of business.
It's a myth that an unregulated market is good for the small guy trying to break in. The reason this is not the case is the concept of scale effects. When you sell 100 items of a product your fixed costs per product are a lot higher than when you sell 100.000 items, and your variable costs tend to be higher as well (due to the inefficiencies of low volume production). Because your cost per product as a small guy is higher, it is hard to compete against the bigger businesses, who can maintain lower prices and still be profitable. Over time, this effect causes the market to merge in a number of big behemoths (the larger you are the more profit you make per product), and once you reach that point usually they will form cartels, where they use various kinds of underhanded tactics, like predatory pricing, coupled sales, government bribing and so on to keep out new market entrants and maintain higher prices than market forces would dictate. Examples of this are the music industry (the big five), microsoft's windows and office empire, the telecom industry on the local level, and on and on.
Cartels or monopolies have been demonstrated to tend towards having low market efficiency, due to the profit maximalization imperative and their ability to maintain non-market-optimal pricing models at greater profit to the business.
The only way to avoid this is to limit the ability of market players to form cartels or monopolies, and then abuse their power. Retroactively, that means antitrust law. So antitrust is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy free market. Proactively it means making sure that new market players can enter without high entrance costs (like allowing small telecom companies to use existing networks for a fair price, so they don't have to build up their own network at extreme cost), so raising prices by the big players would cause new players to enter at lower price points.
So, in conclusion, to have a truly free market (meaning with near non-existant barrier to entry), you must regulate it so no market player can become too powerful. A correctly regulated market is a healthy market, an unregulated market is a diseased or soon-to-be-diseased market.
Ofcourse, big business has been very successful at spreading the meme that market regulation is bad for the market. The reality is that it's good for the market (if done correctly), but it's bad for the behemoth.
Slate (has a nice piece on how the NY Attorney General is the most powerful person outside DC. Here's the money quote: The short form is that thanks to the 1921 Martin Act Spitzer can "subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state," make investigations secret or public as his whim, and "choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants." Extraordinarily, Thompson notes, "people called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act's powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state."
I dont do meaning of life questions.
I figured you'd have some complaints about "America Bashing"...and after reading the modded down replies I see I wasn't wrong.
I hope that each of those people whining about "America Bashing" stops to think about their knee jerk reaction.
First, when whining about "America Bashing" do you see any similarities between your complaints and those of the politically correct? People whinining about the actions of others rather than ignoring the incorrect complaints or correcting the valid ones?
Second, why do you think the bad mouthing of America is on the rise? Is everyone just jealous of us Americans? Bitter, disenfranchised Europeans sick of our economic and fiscal might? Smelly brown people upset that they have to clean toilets for a living? Those two things haven't changed, they've always been so. Except at one point those people used to want to come to America and/or look to it for strength, opportunity and equality. Why do you think they no longer do?
Third, Being in some sort of a cultural, military or econimic slide is one thing, pretending you aren't and not taking steps to correct it is another. Living in any sort of a vacuum is only going to increase the rate and depth of that slide. Insulation is not healthy. It breeds ignorance.
Wake up America: Being born in the U.S isn't enough, it never was. Respect, strength, prosperity and support come through actions and shared values, not nepotism and patronage.
Look outside Fox News and CNN. Try to *understand* why those outside of the US are offering so much more criticism. Don't rely on faith or others to do your critical thinking, that's lazy. Being lazy is not a virtue.
It's a small world, and a new one. And the new world didn't start on 9/11/2001.
Whack his pee-pee.
Ahhhh if theyd only done this in the 70s,we wouldn't have had to endure disco.
Its like paying to have someone like you.
Crap,people will buy whatever you tell them to.
I hope they keep it up and torture the record co.s to death.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So I have a mild case of insomnia...nothing major, just a severely shifted sleep schedule. I went to the doctor and he precribed me ambien...and that mug he was drinking from was an ambien promo mug.
correlation? nah, he's just acting in my best interest.
How am I supposed to know what music to like if the RIAA doesn't tell me?
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Instead od re-regulating radio, how about de-regulating it further?
The big problem with radio that noone talks about is that it is like our phone system; an antiquated technology. Today, we have technology that would allow hundreds of radio stations to occupy the same part of the spectrum that only a dozen or two can occupy today.
The media conglomerates, just like the airlines, have managed to learn how to pull the strings in that sort of environment. If the amount of radio stations were in the hundreds, there is no way that Clear Channel could take over the bulk of the airspace.
While there are certainly a lot of businesses with gains to scale, but others have more neutral scale returns (consulting is a good example) or even negative returns to scale (like small cap money management--returns tend to drop after a fund gets above a certain size). Some controls are needed on a market to prevent market failures, but there are better methods of fixing market failures than cost regulation (which is used too frequently).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
As seen here, Spitzer turns his guns on the insurance industry, this man is a hell of a bulldog. He seems to be taking on just about everyone this week.
We should write to him about the DMCA, Diabold voting machines, and software patents. The EFF needs to get him on their payroll.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Both consulting and small cap money management can benefit from scale. A large firm can better advertise and boost its prestige, which other large client firms look for. If IBM needs some consulting services, it's more likely to go to a multinational megacorp than Joe and Jane's consulting.
The problem w/ payola is that it has a MAJOR adverse affect for people who don't participate. It ruins the free market, turning it into an oligopoly.
To see what the power of payola was, one record company decided to NOT participate when Pink Floyd was on their The Wall tour in Los Angeles, one of the biggest music events of the time. The song (I forgot which) was a hit across the country, but was not played by a single radio station in Los Angeles in the week before the concert.
There's a book about this called "Hit Men" or something like that. It's pretty interesting stuff. A basic overview is at:
http://www.antimusic.com/rants/2003/march.shtml
As far as Spitzer goes, he seems to be doing a great job battling corruption throughout NY. I've been impressed with how much he is accomplishing.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"Ofcourse, big business has been very successful at spreading the meme that market regulation is bad for the market."
I think you're mixing concepts here. Market regulation _is_ generally bad for the market. Antitrust regulation is good for the market.
Big companies really welcome true market regulation, because it prevents smaller players from entering the field. For example, the reasons drug prices are so high is because regulation makes it virtually impossible for small companies to compete. Therefore, the only people willing to lose money for 5-10 years before becoming profitable are those whose only goal is to become absurdly profitable.
Engineering and the Ultimate
You are correct, that they can benefit from scale, but the gains are considerably smaller (as you have to add employees to boost your capacity). The opposite would be a software company that can basically make as many compies of their software with no real increases in cost. Software companies and banks (probably insurance too) have huge returns to scale (costs rise considerably slower than sales), consultancies have considerably less (there is still some cost savings as you grow, but costs rise roughly in line with sales), while small cap management exhibits a ton (in the range of software) for a short time but unlike large cap money management where the biggest firm is the most effective) once a small cap fund gets to be too big (in the range of half a billion) they have too much difficulty finding enough investments and returns fall (costs rise faster than sales at that point).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
However, at some point you have to ask yourself if having some state AG go after them is the right way. Isn't that the whole point of electing a legislature? Should the regulatory policies of an industry be decided by one all-powerful unelected state official?
I'm sure this will go over the heads of the slashdot faithful until some state AG decides to take on something we like. At that point slashdot will roundly criticize them for being undemocratic, while failing to appreciate the irony.
Just remember -- for everything you like done without legislative approval (like going after the record industry) there's going to be something you don't like (like some judge deciding we should have software patents). The best way is to do things the right way or don't do them at all.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
My apologies to fans of Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986). Google doesn't correct the spelling unless you type in the whole movie name.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And the reason for the regulation was all of the small snake oil salesmen selling bottled sewer water as a cure-all. The free market did nothing to stop that. There's a happy medium in there somewhere.
Remember that laxer pharma regulations in Europe allowed both Thalidomide and Laetrile to reach the market there. In the US, Vioxx went to market after the approval of the regulation reducing FDAMA act.
Ofcourse, big business has been very successful at spreading the meme that market regulation is bad for the market. The reality is that it's good for the market (if done correctly), but it's bad for the behemoth.
Why call it a meme? Why not call it a lie, since the same businesses that are against regulation are for it when it suits their purposes, i.e., maximizes their profits, protects their markets, etc.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
*laugh* You need to read up on the definition on censorship. Censorship is when you can't say it ANYWHERE, the government says so. It's not when slashdot says "For chrissake, we've read this same stupid thing 900 times in the past week, get some new material or get off our damn lawn."
Once again, I'd like to point out that the GNAA sucks. Bring on the good trolls already, y'know, the ones who are both original and funny?
You guys are neither. Just sayin'.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
"The free market did nothing to stop that. There's a happy medium in there somewhere."
I think the problem is that, right now, consumers are expecting the government to protect them -- something the government ultimately cannot do without becoming a fascist entity. If the expectation of protection were removed, and citizens formed their own regulatory agencies that used trademarks to clearly identify what was approved or not, then citizens could choose to accept or reject the wisdom of the regulatory agencies.
The FDA kept Ketocal (which cures or nearly cures child epilepsy in most cases) out of the US market for years simply because it disagreed with the way that Ketocal counted carbohydrates listed on their packaging (Ketocal said 3, the FDA said 11).
Engineering and the Ultimate
Big companies really welcome true market regulation, because it prevents smaller players from entering the field. For example, the reasons drug prices are so high is because regulation makes it virtually impossible for small companies to compete. Therefore, the only people willing to lose money for 5-10 years before becoming profitable are those whose only goal is to become absurdly profitable.
That's why I used the qualifier "if done correctly". Antitrust law by itself is not adequate as market regulation, because it only goes after problems as they arise, when considerable market distortion has already happened. Market regulation needs to prevent market distortion, not just erase it as it occurs.
Main Entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
If this is your real concern, shouldn't you be lobbying for the abolition of the police and the army, rather than the FDA? After all, the government cannot protect you without being facists, right?
Berke Breathed was right. Most Libertarians are tax doddging, batshit crazy paranioacs.
Dirty deeds and they're done dirt cheap :-)
...in bed
Translation: Market regulation is bad for the market. Market regulation is good for the market.
Remember antitrust regulation is market regulation. Ie, you are regulating just how much market share a market participant can have.
You don't prove your point at all. Economies of scale occur whether or not the market is regulated. A better argument would be to note that regulation can reduce barriers to entry just as they can raise barriers to entry.
But try this exercise. Name a regulation that doesn't exaggerate the effects of economy of scale or increase barriers to entry. You can find them, but not easily.
Somebody should contact Spitzer about the SCO pump and dump scheme. They are traded on Wall Street right? That should put it under NY jurisdiction.
This will sound familiar to all under ClearChannel's miasma:
"And now a new one from * records..."
THAT was your "full disclosure."
You have no idea how happy this makes me. Sure, this may not be the job of the AG, but who else has stepped up? It's clear tyhe scummy record industry has been doing this illegaly for years. Listen to any rock station in any given city adn what do you hear? The same shit played over and over. I refuse to listen to radio anymore unless it's Howard Stern, CBS news or a sports game. Otherwise, I listen to my CDs. Radio is such a joke and is simply a marketing whore tool for the record shills. Gone are the days when DJs actually picked GOOD music to play. Now, we have record companies (who are going the way of the DoDo, thank god) dictating what we listen to. They must all be Republicans....
"If this is your real concern, shouldn't you be lobbying for the abolition of the police and the army, rather than the FDA? After all, the government cannot protect you without being facists, right?"
No. the police protect you from criminals -- people who are actively infringing on your rights. They are also needed to enforce contracts. There is a basic necessity for such things, but not so much that they control what is happening. Government control of privately-owned business is fascism.
If someone cheats or lies or steals, that's a problem and they should be punished. If someone has lower quality control than you want, DON'T BUY FROM THEM. If they are lying about their quality control, that's one thing. But just because you don't like their standards doesn't mean you have the right to force the government to change their practices. You can simply not buy their product.
For the record, I'm conservative, not libertarian. I think libertarianism is just a different form of utopianism.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"Ie, you are regulating just how much market share a market participant can have."
That's incorrect. You are actually regulating the _behavior_ of entities which have a large marketshare.
"Translation: Market regulation is bad for the market. Market regulation is good for the market."
Or maybe I have a more nuanced position than you're willing to give me credit for?
Engineering and the Ultimate
The grandparent obviously did not read the chart he posted. It shows a CLEAR downward slop of listeners.
Even just looking at 2 numbers, 98 and 2003, you can see the decrease. And if you follow the trend for all years in between, its a slow downward slope.
Why don't you ever hear KMFDM or Ministry on the radio? They've both been around for YEARS, have a pretty large following, yet are relegated to online stations or sporadic college playlists. There a quite a few bands who have the following, the history, and the talent to sell more music, but because of their message, or image, or some other unsavory factor, are kept off corporate radio.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
<armchair opinion>
We're still one step down from a monopoly, this is more along the lines of Joe's tire shop v.s. the big tire chains.
You can still produce and sell music yourself, and the costs aren't that high. You can still play at local bars and get college radio play, but you're locked out of the most popular venues you need to finance better production quality because the big guys selling the airwaves are milking too much cash out of the big record companies... it creates an artificial barrier to entry and it's not really anyone's fault.
If it were a monopoly, rather than a collection of record companies, then the record companies could starve the radio stations for content, compelling them to lower the prices. But since it is not a monopoly, he who backs down, is replaced by his competitor.
Other than that, I agree, for the health of the market, regulation is required to make this type of business practice unattractive.
</armchair opinion>
I think we can get an exception for the guy who thought he'd fullfilled his national guard obligation only to end up dead. Bush is pretty lucky an ass-clown like him wasn't president when he was hiding from vietnam. Especially after he failed that physical.
I'm all for a good RIAA bashing as the companies deserve it, but this lawsuit is the stupiest thing I've ever seen. The indie promototers are basically defunct now anyways. This lawsuit is about 8 years too late, when everything was back in full swing. Lots of indies (HITS, McCluskey,etc) aren't doing that great because the labels have pulled the budgets.
This suit is a wild goose chase, pure and simple.
...you must regulate it so no market player can become too powerful.
Conversely, you could stop protecting the monopolies.
What?
I believe this. However, I don't believe the music industry is anything close to an unregulated market.
In fact, the major labels -- throught the lobbying efforts of the RIAA -- have been increasingly successful at getting Congress to enact laws that make it more difficult for the small guy to break in.
Recording technology: new media formats and home computers make it cheaper for the small guy to create music and compete with the major labels; Congress enacts law giving percentage of money from blank media sales to the major labels -- threatens to do the same with computers. Webcasting makes it easier for the small guy to get "airplay" (since anyone could set up a webstream for minimal cost -- bypassing barriers to entry of FCC making starting a new over-the-air station difficult and very expensive ( not to mention the major labels -- through independent promoters -- having already independently blocked access to radio airplay via loopholes in anti-"payola" laws -- part of the issue Spitzer's addressing); Congress passes laws requiring webcasters to pay the major labels. Low-power FM makes it easier to start an independent radio station? Guess what, Congress blocks that, too. Peer-to-peer networks make indie distribution easier? We know what happened there...
Basically what happens: the small guy trying to enter the market is taxed and the proceeds go to keep the big guys in business -- to shore up monopolies.
Spitzer for President!
Why do record companies put singles on the air? To advertise albums. Why do companies put advertisements on TV? To advertise products. People charge for advertisements on TV (both inside of the primary content in the form of embedded ads, and outside the primary content in the form of 30 second spots)
So what's wrong with payola, anyway? It seems to me that it's not a bribing behavior (or is perhaps only because people say it is) Record companies are paying in effect to advertise their product. How is that sinister again? Because other musicians don't get heard? Does that make the New York times a bribe-accepting organization for placing their printed ads outside of my price range, or ABC a corrupt organization for pricing their 30 second spots and product placements in sitcoms outside of my range?
What again were the sinister implications of companies making deals with radio stations to promote their songs?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
As far as Spitzer goes, he seems to be doing a great job battling corruption throughout NY. I've been impressed with how much he is accomplishing.
Theres been some gossip in the political world that Spitzer has some aspirations well beyond NY Attorney General. And i agree with you, his work has been a major benefit to the state and some instances this country. He is hugely popular in the state too. I dont know if President is on his list, i can say i would vote for him... but whatever he does i think its gonna be big. Maybe possible Senate seat after Clinton runs in 2008...
...and it should be known by now
All it shows is that people prefer what they're playing to not listening at all. It doesn't mean there aren't many other things that they'd much rather hear instead.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Oh yeah I know royalties are paid for all music played. The article refers to the practice of music companies paying radio stations to get their new hits played, thus making them new hits.
So all I am saying is that no music company is paying to get 70's and 80's music played, but the radio stations do pay to play those songs of course.
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
at least in Indiana. There's a race on my absentee ballot right now, as a matter of fact.
In a Libertarian world the politicians don't have the sort of power politicians have today. There is no point in trying to buy a politician in a Libertarian world because he has no authority to promote legislation to benefit a group. That's one of the basic points of Libertarianism.
The Bush administration is nothing like a Libertarian government. A Libertarian government would not have the power to be able to pass legislation that benefits companies. What you have described is not Libertarianism.
Anyone who would like to learn what Libertarianism actually is should visit the Libertarian Party's web site.
Isn't selling a cure that doesn't work exactly that? If a vendor ignores or refuses to engage in clinical trials and people die isn't it criminal?
I'm posting anonymously because I work for a small company in this industry and having seen what I have seen, I'm grateful for a strong FDA. We've not done anything illegal, but sometimes I think the only reason we haven't is that someone would go to jail. There are a lot of cheats and liars in the healthcare industry. One look at the Ephedra peddlers, who work under the relaxed standards you free market utopians embrace should convince you.
I understand what you're saying about subjectivity. But you're acting like it's an absolute; that all bands are equally good since objective measurement is difficult or irrational. But that's not true. Subjective quality is not uniformly.
You might have a real point if airplay correlated with album sales. But there are glaring exceptions. Look at Radiohead. Look at Steely Dan. Look at the Grateful Dead or Phish. There are lots of bands who aren't on the radio, yet have huge album sales. The issue is not radio reflecting the taste of phillistines; it's radio reflecting its own corporate ambitions, and intentionally shaping the preferences of the casual listener.
As a person's devotion to music increases -- i.e., more time is paid to the hobby -- the overwhelming majority turns away from what's on the radio. They may turn to obscure country, or blues, or indie rock, or jazz -- whatever. But very few people who spend a lot of time listening to and reading about music find their love of Britney Spears' artistry deepening.
Is this just en-masse elitism? I'm sure to some extent it is. But I find it hard to believe that solo artists locked into multi-album deals -- the kind of artists that are most profitable to the record companies -- are the "naturally best" solution to serving casual listeners (at least from the listeners' perspective).
You're right that the subjectivity of art means we can argue forever about what ought to be on the radio, but one thing should be clear: whatever it is, it isn't what's on the radio now.
Haven't both DJ'd classic rock and spent a lot of time listening to it, the argument that they don't play obscure bands is ridiculous. These are called one-hit wonders.
The problem is that only a small # of songs from good bands are ever played. The Stones, CCR, Neil Young, The Floyd, _____, etc. released a LOT of music, but only a small amount of their stuff (typically, the crappier stuff) ever gets air play on commercial stations, especially during the week. Additionally, there are BIG bands of the classic rock era, that only get one hit played (e.g., Ten Years After).
I don't know if its corporate payola, or corporate rock stations with no creativity (DMX really is better than radio).
I think that the answer is real community-level programming, for better or worse, internet, and sattelite radio. I think that broadcast (i.e., sequential, single-channel) radio stations will be obsolete within the next 20 years, anyway.
I thought only highschool kids smoked cloves? So much better stuff to smoke.
There is merit in the idea of private armies and security forces. It prevents the militarization and imperialization that occurrs with large standing armies. It also leads to a situation where armies are used on a need to basis as opposed to a we have an army, lets use it basis (like the USA has). Also if you don't believe in soemthing, why should you fund it (see pacifists living and paying taxes in the worlds most militarized country)?
JAAC
How would a libertarian government stop predatory pricing to eliminate competition, consolidation into monopolies and cartels, and prevent industry from buying politicians to enact laws that prevent competition. Under the Bush administration Business sets the agenda, under libertarianism Business REALLY sets the agenda. What you are seeing a glimmer of under Bush is what a Corporate Republic would look like if it had enourmous self-control. They want a vast industrial plantation full of share croppers in perpetual debt. We've already seen what that kind of monopoly looks like. There is a reason Great Britian moved away from that. And ultimately, it makes for weak nations anyway.
This is true. In Canada, radio, print, and televions ads are allowed to discuss either a specific medical condition and encourage you to talk to your doctor about it, or to tell you the name of the (prescription) drug, but not what it treats.
Since these ads continue to be displayed, I can only conclude that they have some effectiveness. And as long as people are consulting their physicians to decide on and manage their medication, it's probably not a bad thing.
Watching U.S. drug ads on television, I'm a little concerned...or amused. I remember an antidepressant ad from a few years ago where they did everything humanly possible to show distracting visuals with positive associations (butterflies flitting about, the protagonist bouncing about gleefully) to try to distract the viewer from the rapid-fire spoken delivery of the list of side effects.
~Idarubicin
Spitzer is a smart guy. I could see him making a good contribution to the country.
Are you at all familiar with the effectiveness of the current New York State Legislature? Or that of the New York State Executive, Pataki? Neither are shining examples of responsive or responsible government.
Do you honestly believe either of these bodies would have punished the financial industry for their crimes during the Internet Boom? I'll have a nice hearty laugh at the thought.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
If someone dies because of a faulty product, guess what, the company owners, the production managers, and the the quality control engineers should all be put on trial for manslaughter. By protecting corporations and their employees and owners from legal action, we really deserve to reap what we have sown. Libertarianism and the free market in general are incompatible with government regulation, especially in terms of corporation personhood.
JAAC
I don't know how to be clearer: a Libertarian government does not have the authority to pass laws that would prevent competition. The only reason the laws you describe can be passed and enforced today is because the ultimate source of power and authority, we the people, has ceded that authority to the current government (regardless of party).
Great Britain has never had any close to resembling a Libertarian government.
Finally, Libertarianism has never in this history of the world made for a weak nation.
"Isn't selling a cure that doesn't work exactly that? If a vendor ignores or refuses to engage in clinical trials and people die isn't it criminal?"
Not if they were aware of these issues. If I choose to do something stupid, I will get stupid consequences.
If someone says "this will cure X" and it just flat doesn't, that's lying. That's what I think should be illegal. If it has major side-effects or problems, the information should be available. If no tests have been performed to check side-effects, that information should be available. Lying about a product should be criminal -- a consumer not checking into things should not be.
"There are a lot of cheats and liars in the healthcare industry."
Cheats and liars should be prosecuted. That's the purpose of the law. If they were fair and straight with what the side-effects or the amount of testing that their product has been under, then it's in the consumer's ballpark to decide.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Drug advertising contributes to the cost of the medication, on the order of 10%.
I doubt it. Drug companies spend more on advertising & promoting drugs than they spend on drug research & development.
The biggest scam IMHO is that all pharmacies sell prescription info to drug companies, without the patient info. They use this to build a profile of the doctors.
So, the drug salesman sees the doctor and says, you've been prescribing drug X from our competitor. Drug X is for treating disease Y. We think our drug, drug A is much better than drug X. If you prescribe more drug A than drug X next month, you'll get some cash (or a trip to Hawaii for a 'medical conference', etc)
Exactly. The reason why "pure" capitalism will never work is because humans (indeed most life forms) have a survival of the fittest atitude. Fittest meaning, "I WILL FIND ANY WAY TO PREVENT YOU FROM TAKING WHAT I HAVE AND CRUSHING YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE YOU LITTLE F*CK!". The monopolies, oligopolies, and trusts are very strong proof that an unregulated market can not work as companies will do whatever it takes to control the market. An ideal free market would follow the rules of nature, where a natural balance prevents companies from becoming too large and powerful*. Markets need smart regualtion. I still think we have a ways to go on that. ~X~ * Nature keeps a balance except for the rare genetic mutation affecting a rather obscure chimp-like creature that allows it to become an intelligent animal that dominates the planet. However, even in those odd circumstances, nature is more than happy to wait for said creature to wipe itself out and then regain the balance.
~X~
Slartibartfast provides a rather startling Informational Illusion to give Arthur and Ford the history of the Krikkit Wars, an intergalactic conflict of billions of years ago, where a seemingly innocuous and pleasant race of hominids journeyed beyond the black and opaque dust cloud surrounding their solitary planet with its solitary star and were appalled to discover they were not alone in the universe but surrounded by many other planets teeming with life. The Krikkitmen built lethal white robots wielding war clubs which were used to propel small red grenades over vast distances, to destroy everything in their path - in fact, to kill everything everywhere but their masters.
maybe you should explain it if you want credit for it. How do you see regulation of an entity in a marketplace as different than market regulation? Market regulation, to me, means regulation of the entities in a market. I am not a "free market" person at all, I am one of those damned vauge "fair market" people, but I have to agree with the summary of your post as "Translation: Market regulation is bad for the market. Market regulation is good for the market." as well as the comment that everyone is for regulation when it benefits them but not when it hinders them. Seems like your post (and my personal theories) supports that view.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
The argument above is not entirely correct. There are three basic areas in which to compete: (1) best price, (2) best reputation, (3) best product.
Small businesses which become successful usually do it as a result of being pursuing area #3 by being innovative. Regulated markets tend to discourage innovation as there are mandatory requirements that must be met. These requirements are not a problem for an established company with sufficiently deep pockets but they can be insurmountable for a small company.
Regulation is often lobbied for by existing companies to keep small companies from entering the market. For example, according to a co-worker of mine who used to be in the business, the water leaving a metal plating facility now has to be cleaner than the drinking water entering the facility. This legislation was lobbied for by the larger plating companies because they could afford the extra equipment while the smaller competitors could not. As a result, small plating companies have gone out of business.
to being able to Vote for Spitzer. And I live in California... which is a clue as to the office I want to be voting him into.
Next you'll be calling 'em clove smoking commie pinko faggot hippy oddballs.
"Hey! This guy said this should be on the air. Fuck that! He's weird!
Let's listen to this corporate pre-fab shit like everyone else! Duuuuuhhhhh!!"
They will also pay for you to regularly go to "conferences" which in hawaii, caribbean etc etc.. It ends up being a free paid vacation with the added benefit that these conferences count as the "catching up in the field" requirement of states/hospitals.
The post above is not correct. There is such a thing as a common interest where people are better off cooperating voluntarily than competing. Of course, people have to be sufficiently well educated and logical to realize that, for example, killing your neighbor today may result in your house burning down tomorrow when no one will help you put out the fire.
If I were a doctor I would have prescribed ambien for you - mug or no mug. Your point is well taken, but ambien has obscene sales for a reason... it works and, unlike the benzodiazapines, it will not dope you up.
I hear some stuff today that is actually appealing to me (some Jet, Hoobastank, new GreenDay) and a lot that is not.
I tend to favour the music that is not played 10 times a day on every radio station, unless it makes me feel something.
It has been already said that once a person becomes passionate about music they avoid the radio more. I agree. However, exposure to newer/unheard of material is the key here.
A better variety would be nice. Instead of plugging the same crap 10 times a day, how about only three times and add OBSCURE BANDs A-Z once in a while? Some radio stations used to do that. 88.7 (89X) in Windsor/Detroit used to be great for that. Then they became a CHUM group member and now they are 10 times a day with Lincoln Park (although i dont' mind the Habbit too much).
Radio will never be a variety show were everyone gets heard once. That's where the internet is helping. Many filesharing networks enable hearing the files before a complete download. That way you can sample. Yahoo and others offer links to sample music aswell. That's a great idea. Yes, mostly popular stuff is linked, but some sites devote themselves to less popular stuff.
Rather than fight the radio, let the RIAA have their last chance at conforming sheep with the radio, and focus on the newer methods of experiencing music. Filesharing and samples.
If a new artist has decent material, say I discover it by downloading or sampling it, then I will for sure support them by buying the album.
I had the option of downloading MEPIS linux for free. I didn't. I paid $15 US to purchase the CD. I am giving it a fair chance, sampling, and if I like it I'll give them the "steak dinner" review ($30) on their website. That too goes to development.
Rather than force people to buy and let them decide whether they like it or not (or force them to like it as the RIAA would have it) let people make their own decisions and pay on their own.
Some will steal, but those people more than likely would not buy it anyway. I pay for what I like, not for what I want to try.
Just my 2cents (damn, wallet is empty now, grrr tuition fees!)
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Music is subjective to an extent. Just like fine cigar, a good car, a great photoshop document, a good photograph, etc. Those things are subjective in some ways but to claim that there is not such a thing as cheap, poorly-made, mass-produced [cars, CDs, cigars, movies] of inferior quality that mainly exist simply because they are cheap to produce and just good enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator is just wrong.
And whenever the designers I work with tell me that I can't call music "bad" because it is art, I show them my last design work (I am a programmer) and tell them they can't say it is bad because it is art. They disagree, of course, and tell me that my art sucks.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
You don't prove your point at all. Economies of scale occur whether or not the market is regulated. A better argument would be to note that regulation can reduce barriers to entry just as they can raise barriers to entry.
Economies of scale are the explanation of why a totally unregulated market over time turns into a few large behemoths, unless the product doesn't afford barriers to entry or economies of scale (very few products are like that). I think I made that point, you may want to refute it.
But try this exercise. Name a regulation that doesn't exaggerate the effects of economy of scale or increase barriers to entry. You can find them, but not easily.
You can find anecdotal evidence to bolster any argument, I could easily come back and cite countless examples of just such regulation, but it wouldn't support my case. My case is that an unregulated market is inherently a sick market because it will grow steadily more inefficient. Regulation is the fix for this problem, not the cause, even though regulation, if done poorly (most often the case), can increase market inefficiency even more than monopolization will.
So, yes, you're right that regulation can be very bad for the market. I'm not arguing that it's not. I'm arguing that you need regulation to keep a free market free.
How about this exercise: take a look at markets in zones of lawlessness, like warzones, and see how efficiently they function, how "healthy" they are.
In the past, to prevent corporations from controling information technologies, the Courts created a law to SEPERATE them. As we all know from eps of WKRP in Cincinnati, when a corporation paid off media to play thier crap it was called "payola".
Now, thanks to 20 years of deregulation from Corporate Raiders, the FCC has allowed "convergence" to replace the seperate mediums of information technology - TV, Radio, Newpaper, etc.
The affect has been complete corporate control - you listen to the same "message" on your TV, Radio, Newspaper, etc. The very same message.
Today, it's not called "payola", it's called "Business as usual". Scary but true.
Funny... but isn't this much coporate control pretty much like state run agencies? Sorta like the Soviet Union. You getting the picture people?
Can you give us an example of any country that has had a libertarian government that you can point to as a positive example of what you are advocating?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
So, under your rules I could sell radium as a cure-all?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
You could sell it, but not as a cure-all, unless you revealed that you haven't actually tested it on anything and have no idea if it really works.
Engineering and the Ultimate
At a glance I thought the headline was talking about NICK Spitzer taking payola from the record companies. I almost cried.
"Next on American Routes, a soulful singer who's Southeast Louisiana influence is still resonating in her music: Brittany Spears."
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
If you want to form a band to make money, the easiest thing to do is to play covers. That's the effect of all that marketing energy on the music scene.
Just think of the process of making music. If the artist plays covers, then they should bring something new (otherwise they're just a recording). If artists write songs, they should be creating something new. The artist is successful if they realize their intention, in that, the audience appreciates the artists intention.
In general, musicians are interested in that process of making music. If they identify with the artist on that level, then they usually consider it music.
None of that has anything to do with making money out of the music business - which focuses on marketing. Marketing is where the real return on investment is, so it makes perfect business sense, but is also makes absolutely zero music sense. Image sells, and there's a practical formula being applied.
- Own a monopoly on an artists work
- Make that artist a celebrity
- Sell that celebrity
- Watch the teens wet themselves as they dish out their pocket money
I saw a top marketer smugly declare that you can sell anything to anybody... "it's a game". All they have to do is push product, and if they can control the product, then even better.The marketers have found the perfect formula if you're interested in $$$, but the "hit parade" or "top 40" is nigh on a complete failure when it comes to real music. The truth is that while must musicians appreciate the skill and achievement of hit bands, they find a (loose) correlation between their success and the blandness of their music.
It's not the same as saying the average person doesn't have any taste in music. People (particularly children and teens) are putty in the hands of marketers. Everyone likes money, but musicians are also interested in real music!
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
They should have just used their lower costs and economics of scale to undercut the small companies until none were left, then forced all their customers to enter 20-year exclusive contracts. There's no need to use market regulation to enforce your monopoly in a free market- once you've established a trust position in a free market maintaining it is absurdly easy. This is the point of libertarianism- to create a single trust which owns the whole world.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
If you're talking about a commercial radio station which has a chance of actually giving you a return on your investment, then you're going to need at least a million for:
Engineering studies
Transmitter
A building from which to operate
A position on someone's tower, unless you want to build your own site
A plethora of fairly expensive equipment, including on-air and production studio consoles, some sort of digital audio playback system, CD players, audio processing gear, an STL link to get the signal from the studio to the tower, broadcast quality microphones, a number of personal computers and all the software that goes with them, a network and a few hundred other pieces of gear -- descriptions of which I can't think at the moment
Salaries for airstaff, newspeople, programming staff, producer(s), traffic department staff, creative department staff and sales staff
Various licensing fees
Subscriptions to record labels so that they'll send music to you
A promotion budget large enough to enable you to compete with the other stations in your market
You'll also have to spend a significant amount of money preparing a good case to the regulating authorities regarding exactly why they should give a license to YOU and not one of the other applicants.
Oh, and this is all based on Canuck Bucks. Adjust accordingly for US based operations.
Logically, I don't have to give an example, what I was saying is I know the person I was replying to cannot give an example of a weak Libertarian government. This is mainly because no country has ever actually had a Libertarian government. I was pointing out, obscurely perhaps, that his assertion was prima facie bogus.
Probably Another Brick in the Wall Part II. The we do't need no education song.
PS That was a great concert!
qz
Yes, I'll admit it --I am the one calling all the radio Stations requesting Shakira---ohhh she's a real latin spitfire. I also called ABC hoping to have Shakira replace Charro on the next Love Boat Special. When I was younger I made radio stations play Manilow's Copacabana. Thereby singlehandedly creating the Punk backlash. I also filles my iPod with Styx, Journey, and REO Speedwagon to see if I make it implode. Good luck changing the music industry---It all sucks, and really kind of always has sucked. (Honestly I really do like John Denver though..)
Reality is all that stuff that doesn't care if you believe in it or not.--Solomon Short
Things were so laissez faire during that era, at least one country (Rhodesia: what Zimbabwe is today) was annexed by a private army hired by a diamond tycoon (the infamous Cecil Rhodes.)
No welfare state, low taxes, government generally (until the end) keeping out of people's private and economic lives with the exception of the occasional bit of censorship. Extreme punishments for screwing up (debtors prisons and whatnot.) Very close to a libertarian system - get rid of the censorship, and it's actually a little more extreme than most libertarians I know would feel comfortable with.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You are quite mistaken about Britain being a Libertarian society at any time, let alone the 19th century.
Your example is flawed: Cecil Rhodes was only able to operate in Rhodesia because the British government gave him the OK. Once he was ensconced in Rhodesia he was able to make sure their laws favored him and his friends.
To quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Perhaps this will help?
And what? Did somebody die? Did ambulances stop running? Did the "Emergency Broadcast System" malfunction?..
Since when is the government responsible for entertainment's quality or lack thereof?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Incidentally, people argue that governments aren't libertarian enough on the grounds that the government prevents something from happening, not that it allows it.
Oh, good grief. May I suggest you take a history course. Other than a bizarre description of Rhodes which is factually wrong, wouldn't matter if it's factually right or not because the comment's irrelevent, you haven't actually addressed any of my comments. Do you deny that it was possible to raise private armies in nineteenth century Britain and invade countries without government support? Do you deny that welfare was completely privatised (limited to workhouses provided by the church), that taxes were low, that the government generally kept out of people's private lives, not to mention that the government left health and safety and wages and job security to the discression of the employers and employees, that in general, with the exception of censorship, the government stayed out of people's private lives?If you do not, what else - other than the censorship I mentioned - would you say means that the UK government was so fascistic that you'd consider it "not even close to a libertarian government"? I'm not asking for proof it wasn't libertarian, I'd like to see something that you can point at that the UK government did that made it so anti-libertarian it wasn't even close.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hey, easy on us damned Wiccans!
I do wonder tho, the site says that the function of Karma is learning. Isn't that essentially against the purpose of RIAA, who appear committed to apply and twist a select section of status quo ideas to cover very different circumstances?
Or does it mean learning to be a better bad guy?
and this next one has a fair amount of control over the only 'deep time' that exists in our tertiary system: a few more justices will be added over the next four years.
from www.electoral-vote.com:
"It is very likely than multiple vacancies will occur on the Court in the next four years. The court will undoubtedly have to rule on cases involving abortion, the Patriot Act, and other divisive issues."
I don't see any point in continuing this. You are clearly utterly ignorant of Libertarianism and you don't care to learn, otherwise you would have read the Wikipedia article which would have answered your questions.
I expect you will respond that I've failed to make my point and therefore I am not responding to your points. I assert here that I have responded to your points by providing a pointer to a detailed 3rd party article and I now find myself in the position of "trying to teach a pig to sing".
You might also benefit from reading the articles about Cecil Rhodes, Rhodesia, and Zimbabwe. More on Cecil Rhodes is here, here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, none of those sites support your assertion that the British government couldn't stop him (or that it even wanted to) but then life's not always the way we want it to be.
However, the Bush administration (in
conjunction with his GOP majority in
Congress) doesn't have any problem what-
soever spending money like a drunk sailor
(on shore leave). Unfortunately, the
really big money is being funneled to the
GOP's corporate sponsers, instead of where
it does the most good.
Stem cell research (particularly embryonic)
offers the greatest potential for actually
curing diseases. This is in direct competition
with the big pharacutical companies that would
rather find a "customer for life" for their
medications that treat the symptoms. Hence,
the Bush prediliction toward opposing stem
cell research. (They have been bought and
paid for, and they will try their damnest to
stay bought.)
What you have under George Bush is pretty close to government under Libertarian principals
NO IT IS NOT! Dear lord you are an idiot.
What Bush practices is crony capitalism -- he uses the government's power and mondy to the benefit of business interests. Libertarians are *fundamentally* opposed to the use of government for *any* business purposes, because in the eyes of libertarians, government is bad.
If anything, Bush has done a magnificent job of *proving* why government is bad.
Get it right. I'm known here to be distinctly-libertarian, and Bush has done nothing but flip the bird to libertarians everywhere, by increasing the size of the government in fiscal terms while simultaneously depriving citizens of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Bush is a fucking disaster (and he *causes* disasters too) and a menace to society.
You would have to put a gun to my head before I would vote for Bush, and that is *not* an exaggeration.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
You should be able to pay whomever you want to broadcast whatever they want.
Does anyone know or has anyone seen a study that states what percentage of America's medical costs go out as profit to Insurance Companies, HMOs, Drug Companies, Pharmacies and every other leech on the medical system? Once you stack the required (by Wall Street or your stock goes down the toilet)10% growth in revenues that each of these companies must post per anum it isn't too hard to see why we have the most expensive medicine in the world.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
my 2 favorite essays on the subject of Labels vs. Bands (a situation that is over half a century old but that only now has a chance of being changed, thanks to the internet) are Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference and Steve Albini's "the problem with music". Very few people outside the music industry know (or care) about this and most artists don't find out until it is too late.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
But that is irrelevant to your claim that regulated markets are easier to break into than unregulated markets.
You can find anecdotal evidence to bolster any argument, I could easily come back and cite countless examples of just such regulation, but it wouldn't support my case. My case is that an unregulated market is inherently a sick market because it will grow steadily more inefficient. Regulation is the fix for this problem, not the cause, even though regulation, if done poorly (most often the case), can increase market inefficiency even more than monopolization will.
Can you provide anecdotal evidence?
How about this exercise: take a look at markets in zones of lawlessness, like warzones, and see how efficiently they function, how "healthy" they are.
Good example. Markets in such areas tend to be very efficient given the constraints of almost no infrastructure to speak of. But one can do better with a regulated market and the considerable infrastructure that can be supported in a regulated environment.
If I were incorrect, then you would be correct. But you were refering to "anti-trust" regulations. Those are intended to regulate market share. Else they are worthless.
Or maybe I have a more nuanced position than you're willing to give me credit for?
That could be. :) When it comes to subtlety, I'm an unappreciative audience.