|
|
Posted by Technobarbarian on 03/11/06 20:06
<default> wrote in message
news:daj5125l531v7p5g4t3p76pkem6t4t49e7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:51:55 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
> <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You don't know what you're talking about. "Payola" is illegal,
>>advertising songs is not, and never has been:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
>
> Semantics
>
> I fail to see the distinction.
Perhaps because you snipped that part:
"In the music industry, the illegal practice of record companies paying
money for the broadcast of records on music radio is called payola, if the
song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast.
Under United States law, a radio station has always had the ability to play
a specific song in exchange for money; however, this must be disclosed on
the air as being sponsored airtime, and that play of the song should not be
reported as a "spin". "
>Payola is a form of advertising - they
> play a particular song because they expect the public to go out and
> buy it. The record company effectively crowds out other material to
> present what they want the public to buy.
Yep, and that *form* of advertising is illegal. The distinction is that
all other forms of advertising music on the radio are legal.
And I'm still waiting for the quote from the constitution that says the
airwaves belong to the public.
<default> wrote in message
news:vdu312dkjf01embnj9ttjh3o39fou13stt@4ax.com...
> On 10 Mar 2006 08:38:13 -0800
[snip]
> It is illegal to "advertise" the records on the air - has been for a
> long time now, >20 years. You play it people want to buy it . . .
> You ( the record company ) pays to "air" your merchandise . . . that's
> "illegal."
[snip]
> Those airwaves belong to us, the public,- the FCC says so, the
> Constitution says so - they won't just let any body start a radio
> station - we, the public own the ether . . . (in theory at least)
TB
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|