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."
You probably meant "Bueller."
I have to agree with that. I didn't actually know there was a law against this (and for all I know there isn't where I live in Canada) but I noticed this happening about 2 or 3 years ago in Canada.
;-).
Radio stations I used to like to listen to were playing top 40 hits non-stop during the day, and often two stations would be playing exactly the same song at the same time. I said to myself, that isn't music it's advertising space.
In Canada there was a backlash against it by a number of top DJ's who got sick of playing this crap and the left to join a group of radio stations that were formed across the country (by a big corporation mind you) that lets them play whatever the hell they want. It ain't always in my taste but I guaruntee no one paid to get Whitesnake or Genisis played
Hopefully this means the Rock/Classic Rock stations I was listening to can stop playing top 40 music.
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
They already do pay-for-play with legal disclaimer. Couldn't find the link, but I read an article a few months back about how, late at night, radio stations are payed to play a certain song, say, 10 times in a row, from 2-3:30 AM. Why? Because Billboard's rankings don't discriminate between legitimate plays and paid plays, so record companies buy time on small town radio stations and play the song over and over again to boost their rankings.
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.
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.
What you're asking is for payola to be legalized if it isn't actually payola ;-)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"What businesses can pay to each other" IS the government's business. It prevents things such as price fixing and other forms of collusion. Regulating these transactions curbs corruption. In this case, it's meant to prevent the tight oligopoly made up by the large recording companies from monopolizing the airwaves and effectively barring the competitive fringe from getting some airplay. Now, I'm not an idiot, I realize the smaller labels get little time on the air, but it might have something to do with the circumvention of this law. I say they're right to finally enforce it.
I'm curious, you mentioned your native country. What country is that? I'm not going to use it to slam you or say something derogatory. I've just dome a few corruption studies on the national level, and we've found that cultural acceptance (basically saying "its a part of doing business here") is generally present in countries with high levels. I'm just trying to get an educated handle on your point of view, I dont mean to be insulting in any way.
There is nothing at all illegal about pay per play, as long as the pay part is disclosed or obvious to listeners. There have been artists who have legally paid to have their music broadcast, it just has to be disclosed or obvious. The payola laws are not limited to radio, it includes TV also. Did you ever wonder why game shows show a list of companies that have paid commercial consideration or why anybody would care who provided a game show host's crappy suit? Some of the TV shows in the '70's even said who provided the cars used on the show. Those disclosures are to comply with the payola laws. See http://www.vocalist.org.uk/airplay101_payola2.html
Radio spectrum is a limited resource. There are only so many frequencies available in any given area, and where major urban centres are adjacent to one another complex agreements exist to protect one station's air rights against others. In my area, where FMs normally dump 20,000 watts into the antenna, new license applicants are struggling, with much testing and expense, to find frequencies suitable for operation at 400 watts. Limited spectrum is why the airwaves are tightly regulated. It doesn't matter how much money you have if all available frequencies are gone. It's also why radio stations typically sell in the range of ten, maybe twenty by now, times annual earnings when their physical assets might be worth 50% of one year's earnings. The buyer is paying for the license and little else.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... people put WAY too much weight on the power of the presidency. In candidate ads, news articles, /. posts, and conversations, I hear/read of all these magical powers that just don't exist.
Ahh, but you missed the most obvious way to put the lie to that statement. I give you the DOJ v M$ as a case in point. IIRC the judge who was supposed to rule, and we all expected the ruling to be against M$ from the public statements made (a definite no-no according to some), was replaced by a GWB puppet, with the expected results, business as usual for M$.
So yes, the President can find a way, and the more circuituous that path back to him, the better its swept away, drowned out by the other public noises.
Cheers, Gene
Ooo.. lookie.. the cumulative number of people listening to radio increases over the years.
Ooo.. lookie.. the cumulative number of people born increases over the years.
Congratulations, you've just managed to find a (very poor) measure of population growth.
Every stat except the cumulative shows a downward trend. This includes the TSL (which I assume stands for Total Seconds Listened). More people, listening less. That certainly says something about the quality of radio, doesn't it?
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Infomercials would be illegal too without the "The following is a paid advertisement for Ronco. The views expressed in this program do not... (etc, etc)" notices.
It's about disclosure.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I assume you meant that as a joke and a dig at Kerry, but I think that the worst government is a united government. When we have a republican dominated house, senate, and President, they can 'get stuff done'. The trouble is, the stuff they can get done is stuff only they want (in addition to the bipartisan stuff). With a divided government (split presidency/congress, or 3 party congress) there needs to be more of a concensus from all sides on what to do, so only the stuff that benefits more of the population is likely to get passed.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/