RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

So ... how is this to be addressed?  Is Clearchannel 
supposed to be forced to play all of these banned songs?
Who is going to tell them what they must play?  The
GOVERNMENT?  ... sounds like the cure is worse than
the disease.

Unless Clearchannel owns 100% of the market, I repeat
that this is not a true ban.  Tune in to another station
if you don't like what you hear (or don't hear) on the
Clearchannel station.

Failing that -- propose a _realistic_ way to correct
the problem that all of you seem to be seeing here.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Sanchez [mailto:DSanchez@fcci-group.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 9:18 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
> 
> 
> An a example that I think it noteworthy is news coverage of the "new"
> DRM on cds.  The only stations in my area that covered it 
> were the local
> university radio station and a small independent.   None of the
> ClearChannel stations have reported on it.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy A Erwin [mailto:jerwin@gmu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 12:12 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, at 11:41 AM, Richard Hartman wrote:
> >   What are you
> > going to do, pass "equal time" legislation so that every
> > song must be played once before you can ever repeat one?
> 
> Imagine a government monopoly over radio stations. Imagine, further, 
> that the top admins of this monopoly have, for 
> political/graft reasons, 
> neglected a great many artists, and that these neglected artists have 
> asked Congress to solve the problem.
> 
> Essentially, there are two solutions to the problem--
> 1) pass a law demanding equal time
> 2) allow competition in the radio market.
> 
> The first solution is a bit heavy handed, but nonetheless, it is 
> expeditious, appears fair, and would probably eliminate  that one 
> specific form of political favoritism-- and thus the most likely.
> 
> 2) The second solution, deregulation, is fraught with peril, 
> and may not
> 
> bring about the desired result. After all, consolidation does 
> occur, and
> 
> the influence of money on the radio industry is rather corrosive.
> 
> There are limited slots in the radio spectrum, and in many markets, 
> Clear channel has bought most of them. I think we agree that solution 
> No. 2 depends most heavily on the free market and competition-- but 
> without such competition, a  corporation such as Clear Channel can 
> exercise just as much power as the state owned/operated radio
> monopoly...
> 
> 
> Jeremy
>