Here is copy of an article that was sent to me. I have a comment.
SONY TO PAY 10 MILLION DOLLARS IN FINES
Sony has agreed to pay 10 million dollars and to stop paying radio
station employees to play its artists' songs, to settle an
investigation into "pay for play" practices in the music industry
conducted by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Record companies in the US cannot offer financial incentives under a
1960 law. Spitzer found that Sony BMG paid for holiday packages for
radio programmers, paid some stations' operational expenses and
hired middlemen to make illegal payments to get more airplay for its
artists.
(Copied from rrj yahoo group)
So let us consider the facts.
1. This is a free country that uses somewhat of a Capitalist system with privately owned radio stations in competition on government owned airwaves.
2. A private record label wants its songs played and gives a cash incenentive to the owners of the private station to play its product.
3. The government steps in between these private entities and says you may not give an incentive.
This is government interference in private transactions and has no place in a system of free trade or a free society. If the radio station plays inferior music compared to its competitor, it will suffer with lower ratings and less ad revenue. If it has no competition in the format, another station may start that format and play superior music.
If radio stations were not beholden to the government by relying on the government for their existance, then the government may not have had this law and it may have brought up Constituitional issues.
It is too bad that this country does not respect free trade and must restrict what goes on between businesses.
And what is out there now on the air? Is it a superior kind of music. I think not, and it will not matter if stations get paid to play or not. Record labels will save money and come up with some other kind of incentive and radio stations will be that much poorer for not being able to receive money for playing a song.
And why is it legal for radio stations to pay artists royalties, as they must, but labels can not pay radio stations to influence what they play? I see one as being equal to the other in economic terms.
I would like to see royalties negotiated and negative royalties or payment to radio stations for songs that radio stations need an incentive to play.
Anything short of my suggestions is government interference and it is not beneficial for anyone except the government. I don't think it will affect the quality of music banning cash incentives.
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
SONY TO PAY 10 MILLION DOLLARS IN FINES
Sony has agreed to pay 10 million dollars and to stop paying radio
station employees to play its artists' songs, to settle an
investigation into "pay for play" practices in the music industry
conducted by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Record companies in the US cannot offer financial incentives under a
1960 law. Spitzer found that Sony BMG paid for holiday packages for
radio programmers, paid some stations' operational expenses and
hired middlemen to make illegal payments to get more airplay for its
artists.
(Copied from rrj yahoo group)
So let us consider the facts.
1. This is a free country that uses somewhat of a Capitalist system with privately owned radio stations in competition on government owned airwaves.
2. A private record label wants its songs played and gives a cash incenentive to the owners of the private station to play its product.
3. The government steps in between these private entities and says you may not give an incentive.
This is government interference in private transactions and has no place in a system of free trade or a free society. If the radio station plays inferior music compared to its competitor, it will suffer with lower ratings and less ad revenue. If it has no competition in the format, another station may start that format and play superior music.
If radio stations were not beholden to the government by relying on the government for their existance, then the government may not have had this law and it may have brought up Constituitional issues.
It is too bad that this country does not respect free trade and must restrict what goes on between businesses.
And what is out there now on the air? Is it a superior kind of music. I think not, and it will not matter if stations get paid to play or not. Record labels will save money and come up with some other kind of incentive and radio stations will be that much poorer for not being able to receive money for playing a song.
And why is it legal for radio stations to pay artists royalties, as they must, but labels can not pay radio stations to influence what they play? I see one as being equal to the other in economic terms.
I would like to see royalties negotiated and negative royalties or payment to radio stations for songs that radio stations need an incentive to play.
Anything short of my suggestions is government interference and it is not beneficial for anyone except the government. I don't think it will affect the quality of music banning cash incentives.
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
