Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:

> In several instances you make the statement that because the government 
> has an interest in promoting commerce, that this end justifies the means. 
> This is not valid as a  rhetorical argument or historically.

My argument is that regarding the use of public resources, Congress defines the
objective subject only to a rational basis test. Promoting commerce and
increasing tax revenue is a basis that will pass this test. Courts would
(rightly) look with scorn upon a party who tried to ask them to overturn the
democratic process because it is bad policy.

> In several other places you do not answer The point is that mere use 
> *ALONE* doesn not constitute public service. 

See above. If Congress defines it this way, then that is the end of the
argument. I gave an example (homesteading) where they did precisely this. With
broadcasting, I now agree that they have asked for a little bit more. The
extent of the increase above mere use is the "Fairness Doctrine", and the
mandatory ads for candidates. 

> Claiming that entertainment 
> constitutes public service is absurd except perhaps to lotus eaters 
> or those in Hollywierd. 

I think I said entertainment and news. As I said, I consider it only a small
service to me personally, since I don't do TV or radio much, but I recognize
that joe sixpack does rationally consider free access to media to advance his
interests. You can call it absurd all you want, but you would be laughed out of
court if you tried to make that argument.

The bottom line is that "public service" requirements for use of public
resources are defined by Congress. In a democratic society, unless you have a
claim that their definition violates your rights, you have no standing to even
challenge this.

> [...] There is something distinctly odd about 
> claiming that the public gets service for paying to use a public 
> resource. That's a dangerous argument that the mining community 
> has been using to literally rape the land for centuries. They can pay 
> dollars an acre, gut the land to extract the minerals, then leave the 
> tailing and pollluted water around for the government to clean up. 
> Does the revenues and taxes on the minerals pay for the clean up. 
> NO. Does it pay for dealing with the Local economics after the 
> mine closes NO. But a lot of people enjoy the benefits of commerce from 
> extraction and later cleaning up the land-a small number. Take the TOTAL 
> revenue minus the cost of clean up and you find that the GENERAL public 
> takes a loss for the benefit of the few. 

You are repeatedly arguing nothing beyond that the US government has made bad
policy. The foundation of democratic government is that arguments about "bad
policy" is not a sufficient argument to enforce the will of a dissenting
minority. 

> In another place you appeal to the authority  of "Majoritarian processes" 
> yet later state that Congress sets that policy. Not only is this 
> contradictory but as recent history has shown, Congress can be influenced 
> GREATLY by special interests with lots of money to throw at those special 
> "dispensations" for those special people. 

Each House of Congress signs bills by majority vote. That is the majoritarian
process established by our Constitution. 

I certainly agree Congress is often influenced by special interests. Only when
this crosses the line of violating rights do I agree that the results are
illegitimate. People, including those labeled as "special interests" have a
Constitutional right to advocate their policy beliefs to Congress. To the
extent that this results in a divergance from what people think is the public
interest, they should advocate the changing of the policital process to reduce
the influence of special intersts. I support this strongly, but I also support
the rule of law under the US Constitution, even when it means that policy that
I disagree with is enforced.

> [H]aven't you ever seen an 
> MBA's mind work? <do until retirement :maximize profits for quarter; 
> update resume; get new job; enddo>

I know many MBA's and entrepenuers. To a large extent, I find them to be highly
honorable. Corporations create value, employ people, and promote trade. Trade
allows me to improve my life. Your incessant corporation bashing marginalizes
your entire argument. 

> But in reading the caselaw, there is an telling point
> "[...] Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the 
> Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from 
> publishing is not."

By the way, when you quote caselaw or other source, please state where the
quote came from.

I hardly think this principle forces Clear Channel not to forbid their DJ's
from playing "99 Red Ballons". This quote does nothing but affirm Clear
Channel's right to publish a set of songs that do not include that one.

In fact, the quote just convinces me further that the problem is that the FCC
effectively forbids entry to small players. Basically, there's a lot of empty
space on the radio dial, so I don't buy the scarcity argument much. Perhaps
it's a finite resource, but I don't see any evidence that it is scarce.

Are you prepared to argue that if you wanted to form a radio station to play
only the Clear Channel banned songs that Clear Channel would stop you? Unless
there are no available frequencies in your area, I think the quote has no
impact to your argument. Even if there aren't any more available, my guess is
that it is FCC policy and not technical limitations that make it so.

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/