Chef Jim Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Whoever listens to music on the radio is a lemming. Listen to what you want, not what they want you to hear. That's why car manufacturers install CD players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Basically that's it. Congresscritters didn't like CC because of what they represented with regard to corporate radio, so they decided to take up the Dixie Chicks action and throw a whole slew of public pronouncements at the corporate evildoers. Few of those charges would hold up in court, but it did serve as a warning shot that more regulation would be forthcoming if they didn't clean up their act (whatever that may have meant). I do have to admit that using the free speech and restraint of interstate commerce was a novel interpretation of the laws. Obviously, it didn't matter, since the public got fixated on the charges, without recognizing the emptiness behind them. Are we still talking about CC or has this discussion morphed over to former NYS AG Elliot Spitzer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 The most deadly joke in the world! One of the best sketches of all-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Being DOMINANT in a market and COMPLETELY CONTROLLING it are two very different things. yes but from what i've readen here, CC are more than just dominating their market... and anyway you got to draw the limit somewhere... in the EU commission language an anti trust violation is called "abuse of dominating position" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 In other words, how a company decides to sell, not "what". Specifically, whether a company decides to use excessive market share to stifle competition. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk up your earlier bad definition to foreign language skills (I'm not just being a smartass...I know enough foreign languages to know that "how" and "what" can be grammatically indistinguishable in translation in some languages.) And even in that case...it is NOT an anti-trust violation for Clear Channel to determine their own programming. It may be an anti-trust violation for them to exist controlling 80% of the market...but that has precisely jack sh-- to do with the Dixie Chicks. No no it's not only HOW it can be WHAT. A lot of anti trust violations have happened when a monopoly have not sold a better or cheaper version of their product because the ones they were selling represented better margins or incomes ... In a market like commercial radio, you can imagine a monopoly not broadcasting artists that are not signed to a music label that have commercial links with the radio for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No no it's not only HOW it can be WHAT. A lot of anti trust violations have happened when a monopoly have not sold a better or cheaper version of their product because the ones they were selling represented better margins or incomes ... In a market like commercial radio, you can imagine a monopoly not broadcasting artists that are not signed to a music label that have commercial links with the radio for example. What you read about CC and what is reality are two different things. (They don't control 80% of the market, for starters) The company made a business decision to pull DCs off their airwaves. Is it illegal or a bad business decision? Does Walmart not allowing Playboy on its stands fall under illegal restraint of trade and free speech violations, or was it a business decision? Same question for Blockbuster not carrying any titles NC-17 and up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No no it's not only HOW it can be WHAT. A lot of anti trust violations have happened when a monopoly have not sold a better or cheaper version of their product because the ones they were selling represented better margins or incomes ... In a market like commercial radio, you can imagine a monopoly not broadcasting artists that are not signed to a music label that have commercial links with the radio for example. Okay...so that at least clears up whether or not you know what "anti-trust" means. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Okay...so that at least clears up whether or not you know what "anti-trust" means. You don't. yeah right... ever wonder in what field i do work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 What you read about CC and what is reality are two different things. (They don't control 80% of the market, for starters) The company made a business decision to pull DCs off their airwaves. Is it illegal or a bad business decision? Does Walmart not allowing Playboy on its stands fall under illegal restraint of trade and free speech violations, or was it a business decision? Same question for Blockbuster not carrying any titles NC-17 and up? as i said earlier i don't know about the real "domination" of CC on its market outside what i've readen here. And Walmart and Blockbuster are not monopolies or dominating the US market so they do and sell what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 as i said earlier i don't know about the real "domination" of CC on its market... Yet that didn't stop you from offering an opinion on whether they exercised monoply power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 And Walmart and Blockbuster are not monopolies or dominating the US market so they do and sell what they want. Olivier......STOP NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Yet that didn't stop you from offering an opinion on whether they exercised monoply power. where did you see that?? All i said was : "well a company having a monopoly and deciding the products it sells IS an anti trust violation. They use their monopoly to sell what they want to sell and not what the market 'd buy, this is a clear anti-trust violation." I never said CC did that . I said "a company", it was just an hypothesis in case CC is a monopoly. Why don't you people actually read the posts before overeacting?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Olivier......STOP NOW. No, not now. I just got my popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 yeah right... ever wonder in what field i do work... Better not be anti-trust law, because you suck at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 where did you see that?? All i said was :"well a company having a monopoly and deciding the products it sells IS an anti trust violation. They use their monopoly to sell what they want to sell and not what the market 'd buy, this is a clear anti-trust violation." I never said CC did that . I said "a company", it was just an hypothesis in case CC is a monopoly. Why don't you people actually read the posts before overeacting?!! I'll let you decide what is worse, you misunderstanding the CC market dynamics or taking the word of those clueless about business at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Burning CDs, or running them over with a tractor or whatever, is Nazi like. Does that make this guy Hitler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Does that make this guy Hitler? Disco Demolition night was a public service devoid of political content. Even Kiss sang "I was made for Loving You, Baby" that year. Someone had to put a foot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Disco Demolition night was a public service devoid of political content. Even Kiss sang "I was made for Loving You, Baby" that year. Someone had to put a foot down. Was that THE weirdest time in music hisotry or what????? Everyone from the Stones, to the Dead, to Kiss, to....EVERYONE carried that "disco" beat on their new albums. Conspiracy, I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Was that THE weirdest time in music hisotry or what????? Everyone from the Stones, to the Dead, to Kiss, to....EVERYONE carried that "disco" beat on their new albums. Conspiracy, I tell ya. That's why I listened to band like the Allman Brothers and carved DISCO SUCKS! on every desk in high school. The 70's.....a musical wasteland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 That's why I listened to band like the Allman Brothers and carved DISCO SUCKS! on every desk in high school. The 70's.....a musical wasteland. Not with bands like Rush and Van Halen coming out...who are BOTH touring THIS Summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts