Sony busted for Payola.

[crimresearch]

It’s entirely different.

Right...breaking the law by paying to have extra access to one government service is entirely different than breaking the law by paying to have extra access to another.

And why is that?

 

[Darat]

Its cheating and bad for business. Youll end up destrying the entire industry. Sort of like why pro sports go nuts at the hint of players throwing games.

Why is it cheating?

I'm not being obtuse but I really do not understand why (if their contract does not forbid it) a DJ should not be free to choose how they put their play lists together.

 

[Grammatron]

Its cheating and bad for business. Youll end up destrying the entire industry. Sort of like why pro sports go nuts at the hint of players throwing games.

Not at all.

It's like paying a bookstore to display your book in front and keep the other guy's book on the same subject out of view.

 

[Darat]

Right...breaking the law by paying to have extra access to one government service is entirely different than breaking the law by paying to have extra access to another.

And why is that?

I have no idea what you mean so I can't answer your question.

 

[Tony]

Tony you have not put forth an argument beyond junior high comebacks.

You're self projecting. I've put forth arguments, you're the one whose responded with strawmen, ad homs and stupid jr. high comebacks. In fact, you're first comment in our echange was one:

Yes, turn the radio off and put on a CD. Congradulations, you are now listening to what you want!

I rightly pointed out that it didn't address the core issue. From then on, it was you who made the stupid comments:

So you want free market to regulate government owned airwaves? Sounds a bit coo-coo bananas to me.

The reality is that majority of popular radio stations of today are nothing more than marketing ploys for the big record lables. And the big record lables of today don't wish to spend time developing artist and bands they sign those who will sell records and sell out concert to promote those records.

Again, you side-step the core issue.

 

[Tmy]

Not at all.

It's like paying a bookstore to display your book in front and keep the other guy's book on the same subject out of view.

Bookstores are not govt owned limited resources. Unlike FM radio frequencies or city waterways.

 

[Darat]

Bookstores are not govt owned limited resources. Unlike FM radio frequencies or city waterways.

Are you saying radio stations shouldn’t carry commercials, or accept sponsorships?

 

[Tmy]

Are you saying radio stations shouldn’t carry commercials, or accept sponsorships?

Adversting is fair game. If we are talking Sattilite then go ahead with payola. But radio is limited and therefore you have to protect its integrty. If your getting paid to play, you should at least have to inform the public that things are fixed.

 

[Grammatron]

You're self projecting. I've put forth arguments, you're the one whose responded with strawmen, ad homs and stupid jr. high comebacks. In fact, you're first comment in our echange was one:



I rightly pointed out that it didn't address the core issue. From then on, it was you who made the stupid comments:

Excuse me, what makes that "rightly?" I may have been a bit sarcastic in my reply but that is indeed the answer yo your question of "Shouldn't we (the public) have the choice of who we want to listen to instead of the record companies shoving their product down our throats?" You have the choice of not listening to that station, that modulation or radio period.

How much "choice" do you think is apropriate to have on one privately owned radio station that is broadcast on public airways?

Again, you side-step the core issue.

I've addressed my view and understanding of the industry, how is that different from yours?

 

[crimresearch]

I have no idea what you mean so I can't answer your question.

But you can declare it different...even though you have no idea what I mean.


You just can't answer the question 'How is it different?'

OK

 

[Tex]

I would say that payola-sponsored music needs to be announced as such for the same reason that infomercials must be clearly labeled -- to avoid the appearance of endorsement.

 

[tkingdoll]

I think the conflict of interest arises because the general public may be under the impression that a DJ is playing a record because the radio station gives him/her a salary to play music that DJ thinks the general public would like/benefit from/should buy.

If they sell airtime to the highest bidder under the guise of genuine DJing, then the public are misled.

However, if you play a crummy record because Sony paid you to, and the general public are stupid enough to think that it's a great record and rush out and buy it, more fool the general public.

On mainstream radio, however, few DJs are given a choice about what records they play. They have to use a playlist dictated by the station. DJs are often chosen for their personality and brand of inane chatter rather than their taste in music. You usually have to tune in later at night to get a DJ with an actual say in the tunes.

Regarding the music business, I can confirm from personal experience that the major records don't give a monkey's ear about talent. They care about looks, marketability and compliance. The smaller, independent record labels are interested in talent, but don't have the cash to pay the radio stations to play their records. Vicious circle. The only way to break it is to be signed to a smaller record label to make your first album, get a small degree of underground success, and hopefully get picked up by a bigger label seeking to exploit, sorry, expand on that success.

 

[Darat]

But you can declare it different...even though you have no idea what I mean.


You just can't answer the question 'How is it different?'

OK

Your summary of my responses is incorrect.

I replied to the post that I stated I couldn't understand by telling you I didn't understand it. The post that I responded to with "that is entirely different" was not the post that I stated I didn't understand.

 

[Beerina]

No it isn't. Not even close.

The censorship argument is that since the public owns the airwaves, the public (via the government) should have the right to censor "offensive" material.

Private individuals invent radio. Government flat out claims ownership of it. Then, in a backdoor move, claims that since they own it (which they simply asserted) they get to censor it.

Do you see the 1-2 step here? Even if you argue the government should "own" it, censorship in the public interest (i.e. whatever some politician looking for a job can lead the population on a rage-on over) does not follow. If it were not government owned, would the government censor it?

At what point does this break down? Massive private investment has opened up a lot more date throughput of the airwaves, but politicians are making noises about censoring satellite TV because, hey, it's public airwaves, right?

Plus, government uses interstate commerce to try to regulate porn over phones; thank goodness the Internet + US Supreme Court clobbered that idiocy. William F. Buckly, Jr. argues the opposite, that Internet should be censored.

Sickening. These fights against government power should be fought on the battlefield of going too far in limiting, rather than too little.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Grammatron
It's like paying a bookstore to display your book in front and keep the other guy's book on the same subject out of view.

Exactly.

The same in the grocery business. The big companies pay slotting
fees for all the shelf space in the stores. It keeps out the competition.
But these guys probably complain that the prices are too high and
the quality is too low. Just goes to show you can't please everyone.

 

[crimresearch]

Your summary of my responses is incorrect.

I replied to the post that I stated I couldn't understand by telling you I didn't understand it. The post that I responded to with "that is entirely different" was not the post that I stated I didn't understand.

OK, Let's see...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
Oh nothing much...just the difference between running a huge campaign to get people to vote for your candidate in the next election, and paying the person counting the votes to count your side's twice.

Just the free market in action, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the reply.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
It’s entirely different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...<SNIP the really, really, really, difficult and confusing part**>...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Crimresearch:
And why is that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Better?





** Right...breaking the law by paying to have extra access to one government service is entirely different than breaking the law by paying to have extra access to another.

ETA: Color and highlights for clarity

 

[shanek]

Sony busted for payola.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has forced Sony BMG Music Entertainment to stop paying radio stations for airplay. In case you didn't know, this practice known as payola, is illegal.

Funny; I thought the practice of paying for airtime was called "advertising."

 

[Darat]

OK, Let's see...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
Oh nothing much...just the difference between running a huge campaign to get people to vote for your candidate in the next election, and paying the person counting the votes to count your side's twice.

Just the free market in action, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the reply.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
It’s entirely different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...<SNIP the really, really, really, difficult and confusing part**>...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Crimresearch:
And why is that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Better?





** Right...breaking the law by paying to have extra access to one government service is entirely different than breaking the law by paying to have extra access to another.

ETA: Color and highlights for clarity

Again you have incorrectly summarised our exchange by missing out your second post.

The exchange was:

You:Oh nothing much...just the difference between running a huge campaign to get people to vote for your candidate in the next election, and paying the person counting the votes to count your side's twice.

Just the free market in action, right?

To which I replied:

Me:It’s entirely different.

Then in response to my "It's entirely different” you responded with:

You:Right...breaking the law by paying to have extra access to one government service is entirely different than breaking the law by paying to have extra access to another.

And why is that?

And I replied to that post

Me:I have no idea what you mean so I can't answer your question.


So as I said your first and now second summary of my responses are incorrect and do not reflect our actual exchange.

To accurately describe exchange: I understood your first post and could state it was entirely different to the situation of the DJ being paid to play certain records. However as I replied at the time (and is still true) I did not understand your second post.
To therefore state that I (in your words) "But you can declare it different...even though you have no idea what I mean." is incorrect since I have never said that your second post set up an example that was not comparable to the DJ being paid to play records by the record company, it would have been difficult for me to do so since I could not and do not understand your second post.


(Edited for formatting and words.)