David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.


Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't simply
say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to have once
owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question is quite
relevant.

The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.


I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.





Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.


Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't
simply say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to
have once owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question
is quite relevant.

The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.


I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.



Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

I'm just messing with DXass. If I am not in a position to decide on new
music ads, there is no way I could have been even offered payola. So,
naturally, I have not received any.

It's amazing how people think that programmers in major markets (the only
place paying to get a song played makes any sense to the record ducks) would
risk six-figure salaries for the small amounts record companies might offer.
Payola hurts ratings, jeopardizes jobs and is certainly more talked about
than done.

The fact that less than 10 people have been indicted for this crime in the
last 50 years says a lot.

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.

Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't
simply say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to
have once owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question
is quite relevant.
The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.

I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.


Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

I'm just messing with DXass. If I am not in a position to decide on new
music ads, there is no way I could have been even offered payola. So,
naturally, I have not received any.


That wasn't the question.

The question was, have you ever selected music at a radio station.



It's amazing how people think that programmers in major markets (the only
place paying to get a song played makes any sense to the record ducks) would
risk six-figure salaries for the small amounts record companies might offer.
Payola hurts ratings, jeopardizes jobs and is certainly more talked about
than done.

The fact that less than 10 people have been indicted for this crime in the
last 50 years says a lot.



Indictments are, like most legal concepts, narrowly defined. And are
only legal concepts. Not realities.

So is the term 'Payola.'

Elliot Spitzer built much of his legal reputation on the taking of
all the major broadcasters to task for Pay for Play, when he was AG of
New York. And extracted enormous tributes as settlement.

There were no indictments. And there were no illegalities. But he
pursued them, just the same. And won his tributes for it.

Nowhere was the term 'payola' used. But there WAS Pay for Play. Tidy.
Legal. With full disclosures. Grossly misrepresented to the public as
Payola. But it was Pay for Play.

CBS called them Audio End Caps. And we did them for a few days in
Chicago, until Rober Feder blew the entire concept out of proportion in
his column, and trashed the program as 'Payola.'

Perfectly legal. Open and above board. Pay for Play.

But not Payola.


Don't hide behind narrow legal definitions, and historic legal
subtleties to avoid answering the question. Otherwise, you just sound
like the shill you so vociferously deny you are.

As a member here once said, 'the Truth does not require debate tactics.'

I would add, that debate tactics only raise more questions.

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.


Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't simply
say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to have once
owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question is quite
relevant.

The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.


I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.



Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

Well, he's been perfecting this form of behaviour for better than 50 years.

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.

Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't simply
say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to have once
owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question is quite
relevant.
The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.

I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.


Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

Well, he's been perfecting this form of behaviour for better than 50 years.




Well...50 years so far as anyone has been able to demonstrate.

But even that gets called into question by his own presentation.

In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you
ever accepted Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is
irrelevant.

Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you
can't simply say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you
now claim to have once owned a record label as well as radio
stations, the question is quite relevant. The record label was
in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and proscribed in the
US. Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a
manager, Interesting discrepancy.

I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.


Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

Well, he's been perfecting this form of behaviour for better than
50 years.

Well...50 years so far as anyone has been able to demonstrate.

But even that gets called into question by his own presentation.

All I want to know is who is going to ask him if he ever took "pay for
play"?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

All I want to know is who is going to ask him if he ever took "pay for
play"?

"Pay for Play" is legal. Payola is illegal.

Pay for Play is, essentially, selling ad time to a record label, booking a
contract, scheduling a song as if it were a commercial, and making sure that
the play was indentified as sponsored by the record label. No different than
running any other 3 or 4 minute spot.

Payola is the taking of money or consideration by a station employee in a
manner unknown and not approved by management for the play of a song or the
promotion of an enterprise. The key element is that the money does not go to
the station, but to an employee and the act is not authorized by an officer
of the licensee.

Pay for Play is authorized and accepted by management, but as a manager I
never accepted such deals as no station I managed accepted more than 60"
spots. Payola is the acceptance of money or consideration by a
non-management person to "slip a song on the air." It's illegal. I've never
done it, and know nobody who has been convicted or even indicted for doing
it, although as a kid I listened to Alan Freed, the DJ who was first
indicted for the practice in the 60's.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

All I want to know is who is going to ask him if he ever took "pay for
play"?

"Pay for Play" is legal. Payola is illegal.

Pay for Play is, essentially, selling ad time to a record label, booking a
contract, scheduling a song as if it were a commercial, and making sure that
the play was indentified as sponsored by the record label. No different than
running any other 3 or 4 minute spot.

Payola is the taking of money or consideration by a station employee in a
manner unknown and not approved by management for the play of a song or the
promotion of an enterprise. The key element is that the money does not go to
the station, but to an employee and the act is not authorized by an officer
of the licensee.

Pay for Play is authorized and accepted by management, but as a manager I
never accepted such deals as no station I managed accepted more than 60"
spots. Payola is the acceptance of money or consideration by a
non-management person to "slip a song on the air." It's illegal. I've never
done it, and know nobody who has been convicted or even indicted for doing
it, although as a kid I listened to Alan Freed, the DJ who was first
indicted for the practice in the 60's.

Ah, the 60's! That was long before you adopted the 'Eduardo' shtick.

On Dec 6, 12:57 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



All I want to know is who is going to ask him if he ever took "pay for
play"?

"Pay for Play" is legal. Payola is illegal.

Pay for Play is, essentially, selling ad time to a record label, booking a
contract, scheduling a song as if it were a commercial, and making sure that
the play was indentified as sponsored by the record label. No different than
running any other 3 or 4 minute spot.

Payola is the taking of money or consideration by a station employee in a
manner unknown and not approved by management for the play of a song or the
promotion of an enterprise. The key element is that the money does not go to
the station, but to an employee and the act is not authorized by an officer
of the licensee.

Pay for Play is authorized and accepted by management, but as a manager I
never accepted such deals as no station I managed accepted more than 60"
spots. Payola is the acceptance of money or consideration by a
non-management person to "slip a song on the air." It's illegal. I've never
done it, and know nobody who has been convicted or even indicted for doing
it, although as a kid I listened to Alan Freed, the DJ who was first
indicted for the practice in the 60's.

And of course, given that you've lied about practically every
conceivable aspect of your past history and work experience, we have
little reason to believe you. In fact, you seem a little too
interested in the topic of payola.

Steve wrote:

On Dec 6, 12:57 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



All I want to know is who is going to ask him if he ever took "pay for
play"?

"Pay for Play" is legal. Payola is illegal.

Pay for Play is, essentially, selling ad time to a record label, booking a
contract, scheduling a song as if it were a commercial, and making sure that
the play was indentified as sponsored by the record label. No different than
running any other 3 or 4 minute spot.

Payola is the taking of money or consideration by a station employee in a
manner unknown and not approved by management for the play of a song or the
promotion of an enterprise. The key element is that the money does not go to
the station, but to an employee and the act is not authorized by an officer
of the licensee.

Pay for Play is authorized and accepted by management, but as a manager I
never accepted such deals as no station I managed accepted more than 60"
spots. Payola is the acceptance of money or consideration by a
non-management person to "slip a song on the air." It's illegal. I've never
done it, and know nobody who has been convicted or even indicted for doing
it, although as a kid I listened to Alan Freed, the DJ who was first
indicted for the practice in the 60's.

And of course, given that you've lied about practically every
conceivable aspect of your past history and work experience, we have
little reason to believe you. In fact, you seem a little too
interested in the topic of payola.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in 'payola'. I think that's just what his mother
gave him to get out of Cleveland. 'Payola' = go play somewhere else.