So there are a few TV shows that gain both of our attention, and Reunion on FOX was one of them. I am not claiming this show was the greatest ever created, but the characters were interesting, the plots and sub-plots we descents, and hell it even had a descent soundtrack to it. Those that never watched it a quick summary. Someone dies in this small group of friends, and we watch their lives progress 20 years.

Well the oh so enlightned folks of FOX has decided to cancel the show and put in it’s place the awful That 70s Show reruns. Must FOX cancel the promising shows why retaining onto 75% crap content? I can only hope it’s released on DVD so we can see what the hell happens, but I won’t put too much faith in that.

FOX. If you were reliable in one thing, it’s cencelling good shows.

Alright, I watched Prisoner of Azkaban the day after it’s US release, and I am somewhat torn. I was going to write an article on it right away, but decided to hold of for a minute and digest the entirety of the film.Visually stunning

The third installment from J.K.’s hyper-popular series about the “boy who lived” takes a turn for the better from a cinematic experience. Where the first two movies were great movies translated from the books, Azkaban takes an entirely new perspective, and darker look at Hogwarts, Harry, and the rest of the cast, crew and set.

This is not to say it’s all roses. Many people have complained about how even minor things like the layout of Hogwarts has changed, and there are many changes in the film. If this perspective (and director) was chosen for the first two, I think it would have done the books more justice, but we are left with different feeling films.

Rushes and omissions

The first thing you feel 20 minutes in is the movie is rushed, and I have heard the same comments from those that read the books and those that didn’t. For those that read the books, as the movie goes on, you quickly catch on with all the omissions from the book, and how Alfonso Cuaron attempts to consolidate scenes. Most topics are covered, but purists at the end of the movie will demand more.

Dumbledore crisis

Depending on who you talk to, the choice to cast Michael Gambon as Dumbledore has created two crowds, those that love him and those that simply do not, and I am part of the latter crowd. Richard Harris really perpetuated the essence of Dumbledore from the books. You could imagine him being this soft spoken Merlin-esque figure that guided Harry throughout his years at Hogwarts, but possesses the power to face down Voldermort in Book 5. Gambon seems to be more comic relief than the most powerful wizard of the age.

Unfortunately Harris died of cancer and we could only imagine how he would have handled the part. IMHO, Ian McKellen (of LOTR Gandolf fame) would be great for this role. I hope that future movies go back to portraying Dumbledore the way Harris did, only time will tell.

Overall very good movie

Even with the Dumbledore issue, rushing of the movie, and many omissions, the movie is still very good. If you go into the theater expecting a near literal translation of the book, then you will be disappointed. If you go in with an open mind, you will be dazzled by the “translation according to Cuaron”.

Seems America got it right for 2004, and voted Fantasia as the next American Idol. Congrats Fantasia!

Preface
This article has been spawned from a thread on the Ars boards about the EMusic service, and more so from the feedback I have been hearing about the not-so unlimited “unlimited” service. Being a person that hates virtually everything RIAA stood for, I found myself at an awkward position of defending the service, owned by Vivendi, a RIAA partner.

The service
For $9.95 a month, EMusic allows you to gain unlimited access to their music library. For its 70,000 registered users and the plethora of potential consumers that want to pay a reasonable price for downloadable music, this is a godsend.

The negative of this all-you-can-eat buffet is it brought out some consumers to essentially rape and pillage the service. A prime example of this is on a C|Net review of the EMusic service, there is a person that loaded 200 CDs in their basket in one night.

EMusic was essentially stuck with either keeping the service literally unlimited, or enacting a more conservative interpretation of the word unlimited. EMusic decided to implement that latter, and doing so is allowing the service to still be profitable.

Read the fine print
eMusic has now set a barrier on the total amount of songs you can download in a month, but according to their TOS, never specifically set a number of total downloads before it would solicit a letter to it’s customers to curtail usage. Their wording is as followed:

Because the Service is designed for personal sampling and use, you are not allowed to use any automated system for the selection or downloading of files. EMusic reserves the right to immediately and permanently terminate your access to the Service if EMusic believes that you are violating such limitation.

You agree that EMusic, in its sole discretion, may terminate your ID, password, account (or any part thereof) or use of the Service for any reason, including, without limitation, if EMusic believes that you have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of the Agreement. EMusic may also in its sole discretion and at any time discontinue providing the Service, or any part thereof, with or without notice. You agree that any termination of your access to the Service under any provision of this Agreement may be effected without prior notice, and acknowledge and agree that EMusic may immediately deactivate or delete your account and/or bar any further access to the Service. Further, you agree that EMusic shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your access to the Service.

So with this new position of the word “unlimited”, EMusic starts to send letters and cut off some subscribers that they believe are abusing the system. Immediately, some outraged consumers start to cry foul for their continued use of the word “unlimited” in their advertising.

Legal use of the word “unlimited”
Their use of the word unlimited is not this huge conspiracy against consumers. Legally, it’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet at your local restaurant. Sure, you can help yourself to three, four, five, or six plates of food, but there is this unspoken rule of enough is enough. And in the spirit of our society of turning everything into a lawsuit, many people tried, and failed to sue the restaurant establishment if their trough got cut off.

From a personal standpoint, I can apply that to an ISP that I worked at. We offered “unlimited” internet access for a very good price, but once enacted we noticed that we had a few users that were consistently on 24/7/365. We would bump them off just to see if they came back on, and sure enough their auto-dialer established that they did. After further research into their accounts, we determined that these customers we essentially wasting our limited amount of dial-in lines. So we sent them warning letters, and when they did not comply to be more sensible in their usage, we cut them off. For a mom and pop ISP, this was critical to allow for a good ratio of users/available dial-up connections. There was a legal challenge and it was ruled that we were in our rights, and we were not falsely advertising “unlimited” access. There have been other challenges to larger ISPs like Earthlink and AOL, all of which were thrown out of court, or ruled in favor of the company.

So what are the limits?
When EMusic began to send out letters and cut off some users, it provoked a response that was inevitable, but somewhat irresponsible. Since back in the days of Napster, many consumers wanted a service that had a catalog available online, offered high quality mp3s, and offered it at a reasonable price. EMusic addresses all these issues, but yet the complaints mounted, such as the following:

I’ve seen alot of responses here suggesting other ways Emusic could change their business or how I should not have expected them to deliver. All I have to say is that if they change their service to either A) limit the number of downloads per month or B) throttle my bandwidth so downloads are slower, then they have LOST a customer. As it stands right now, they’re going to have to work damn hard to get me to renew after my 3 months are up. I can get mp3s from a wide range of sources, most of which are free. So how do they want it? Keep going with a model that will work in the digital age (low per month cost, unlimited downloads) or no revenue at all. Don’t give me they can’t make this work BS. The demand is there, the music companies just lack the will to succeed.
- Arsian Banzai51

Unlimited = without limits. IT’s SIMPLE FUCKING ENGLISH.
Anyone who uses “unlimited” and does not mean “unlimited” should be sued for false advertising.
- Arsian Alpha

So what is their definition of “unlimited”? Many people began to ask what these acceptable limits were of downloads, and On 11/21/2002 a fellow Arsian mhaseltine received this letter from EMusic defining their new limits:

Dear EMusic Subscriber,
I’d like to offer a personal apology for some of our recent communication with you and other EMusic customers. Over the past several weeks, we have implemented some new tools in an effort to identify subscribers that are using EMusic in ways it was not intended. It’s important for us to do this to ensure the long-term viability of EMusic — so we can continue to offer our service to you and the rest of our 70,000 loyal subscribers.

Many EMusic subscribers recently received a letter outlining unusual activity in their accounts. After personally reading through every email sent to us in response, it’s clear to me that we need to rethink our approach. While we need to identify customers who are not using the service as intended, we do not want to do this at the expense of passionate EMusic users.

I want to be as clear as possible about what we consider abusive activity and how we will manage this going forward. Although EMusic is an “unlimited” service, there have to be some restrictions on this policy.

EMusic is similar to a buffet advertised as “all you can eat.” For the restaurant to be successful, it has to have reasonable limitations that apply to people that stay too long, eat more than their fair share — or waste food. The service is indeed unlimited for the vast majority of the restaurant’s customers whose actions never draw attention. The restaurant reserves the right to deny service to any customer.
EMusic was designed to be an interactive service for personal use and enjoyment. Our intent is to allow our subscribers unlimited access to an amount of music that they can reasonably use. We did not design the service for people who want to download music simply to collect it or to fill up their hard drives. This would be not be responsible for us as a business or provide incentive for our label partners to make their music available.

Obviously, the definition of “reasonable” varies by user and many of the responses I have read are simply requesting some definition. Based on our current analysis of typical subscriber behavior, we believe that downloading more than 2,000 tracks in a 30-day period is not reasonable for personal use. Using a 12-track album as the average, this represents more than 165 albums and over 10,000 minutes of music. Less than 1% our subscribers ever approach these levels.

If, for any reason, you do not find this explanation satisfactory, please use the following link: http://help.emusic.com/cu/index.cgi to cancel your
account. We’ll immediately end your subscription - even if you are still in your commitment period - and provide you a refund for the current month.
Again, I apologize for any inconvenience or frustration we may have caused. I can assure you that our team is extremely passionate about continuing to provide you with the best MP3 subscription service possible.

Best regards,
Steve Grady
General Manager, EMusic.com

So now they define that if you go over 2000 songs in a month, they feel that you are abusing the system, and will be warned and then if you don’t comply, cut off.

2000 songs, a good value
Their 2000 song cutoff per month is more than an adequate supply of music for any customer. This is a good breakdown of the value you get

• At a 16 CD track average, you get 125 CDs a month
• Equates to $1900+ if bought at a regular store
• $0.005 per track if you downloaded 2000 songs in a month, even at 1000 songs it’s a penny a song
• For a Giganews equivalent account, you would be charged $15.95 for a 8GB account or $22.95 for a 12GB account
• ~1500 CDs in an entire year

Personally, I use Giganews (I told you I hate RIAA), and I am extremely lucky to grab an average of 3 new albums a day. EMusic’s service allows for a little more than 4 full length CDs a day, and an average of $0.005 a track. My personal collection is only 10,000 songs, and much of that was ripped from my personal collection. If you collect over 2000 songs a month, you are almost for certain just filling HD space for the hell of it, or literally only listening to a song once, and virtually never again. If you really like music, why not download the 2000 song limit the first month, and then another 2000 next month and so on?

Conclusion
So clearly if you are not into the blockbuster albums (i.e.: Brittany), and feel EMusic has a wide selection for your musical tastes, the service is for you. I still don’t know if I will buy into EMusic because it’s Vivendi. I want to know what is in their catalog and determine if it is worth it for me.

This entire service still doesn’t address my other issues with RIAA, like artist treatment, distribution channel monopoly, and their attempt to categorize everyone as a pirate. But this service I would say should appeal to most users looking for an alternative to getting music “legally”.

Pros:

• Gain access to a library available 24/7
• All songs are at least 128k mp3
• All music is mp3 format, so it’s not tethered or DRM’ed
• The first “legal” service
• Music available on demand
• Excellent value

Cons:

• RIAA service (owned by Vivendi)
• “Unlimited” marketing is not truly unlimited

Preface
“Damn you. Damn you all to Hell!” This seems to be the stance of RIAA and MPAA now that they won some legal battles over the recent months. It seems every day passes, the RIAA and the MPAA want to put more of a stranglehold on all types of file sharing networks.

Decentralized = RIAA/MPAA scared s***less
Ah the Gnutella network, what a wonderful creation. Originally coded by some AOL/Nullsoft programmers, the Gnutella network is a system of decentralized file sharing comuters that come together to share ANY type of file. But naturally the RIAA and the MPAA feel threatened by the free will of individual users to share data. It has gone so far now that the MPAA is going after each individual users:

While many Gnutella users assume they are anonymous when using the software, in fact, they reveal the “IP” number of their PCs, roughly analogous to its telephone number. Anyone with a court subpoena can trace an IP number to a specific person, by name, since the information is stored by Internet-service providers.

That’s the tack taken by the Motion Picture Association of America, which has begun sending out legal notices to the Internet-service providers of Gnutella users caught exchanging pirated movies. - (WSJ)

So Road Runner is going to shut down my IP at the behest of the MPAA? I don’t think so. They get their $39.95/mo from my checking account and they shouldn’t care what traffic is going over my coax. But then if you consider Road Runner in this area is controlled by AOL/Time Warner, then I become a little mad. Mad because a media giant can theoretically control what IP traffic I send and receive, what movies I watch and what music they can force down my throat and over the airwaves.

Arrrrrr, Pirates!
So now they come after the users. The consumers. The people that spend billions of the hard earned money on their products. Most people that download mp3’s or mpeg’s/avi’s ultimately buy the licensed copy.

I personally have a collection of over 500 CD’s. I personally haven’t bought any new CD since 12/31/1999 because of my ongoing boycott over their price gouging and mostly crummy music coming out as of late.

So they label me and millions other pirates. “Kill one person, label me a murderer, kill a million, label be a conquer”. I hope that these millions of pirates, including myself, overtake the RIAA and the MPAA and force better music, movies at REASONABLE prices. I am sorry, but Eden’s Crush new LP is not worth $17.99.

I bet if the RIAA started charging $9.99 for CD’s there would be less file sharing use of the masses. Not everyone, but many would flock back to CD’s.

As for the MPAA, they shouldn’t fear the Gnutella network that much. Most people don’t have the patience to spend hours downloading a very inferior copy of a movie. I personally don’t have any, so don’t try to go after me.

Sales figures. An illusion?
RIAA’s quote on numbers not too long ago show stated a huge decrease in album sales but what they fail to mention is the details of the sales:

Despite a very strong first half of the year, the market for recorded music, measured by what manufacturers ship to retail, sharply declined in the last six months of 2000. However, the mainstay of the recording industry, the full-length compact disc, continued to grow in dollar value, according to a report released this week by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

While full-length CDs increased 3.1% in dollar value over last year, manufacturers saw their bottom line drop nearly 7% in unit shipments, while the dollar value of those units declined 1.8% from $14.6 billion in ‘99 to $14.3 billion last year.

This decrease is largely attributed to a dramatic reduction in shipments of CD singles which fell 38.8% in 2000. This one-year decrease in CD singles shipments is preceded by a 200% growth between 1995 and 1997 and flat growth in ‘98 and ‘99. - (the full RIAA sales article)

So who cares if Full length CD sales slipped slightly. Overall prices rose 3.1%. RIAA overall lost three million in total value. How RIAA came up with this “huge decrease in sales” was in sales of CD singles down 50%.
This is a great thing for consumers because CD Singles are priced from $2.99 - $8.99, for one song! Outrageous! If $14.3 billion in sales is hurting, sign me up, I want some of that money.

RIAA also fails to take into account that overall consumer sales in the 2nd half of 2000 were miserable. So combine all those factors, and their outright hatred against file sharing and volia, they come out with a scathing report that Napster is killing CD sales. How nice. Maybe I should send them a food basket while they weep over their $3,000,000 loss this year.

Conclusion
If all honesty, I hope the RIAA and the MPAA come after individual users. This way the government can see how these industries are bulling the common consumer and take action directly against them.

Personally I hope both the RIAA and the MPAA die a most horrible death.

The following is an article from Eric Boehlert, a senior writer at Salon and I have been granted permission to publish the article in it’s entirety.

If you have to pay $10,000 to shut your boss up, goddamn it, you pay. — A major-label executive

For an industry that has been bedeviled by federal investigations in recent years, the music business would seem like an unlikely one to call for serious governmental overview. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening.

Concerned about the pervasive and costly pay-for-play independent-promotion system that has become entrenched at commercial radio, some are wondering if it’s time for federal regulators, in effect, to save the industry from itself.

“There are lots of brilliant people who’ve gotten out of the business because they’re sick of it,” says one broadcaster who’s both owned stations and more recently managed a cluster of influential music stations in a top-10 market.

“They’re tired of people making an obscene amount of money — and that is the right word, obscene — and the obscene amount of abuse that’s going on. It’s just wrong. We need regulators to look at it, someone who stands up and says this stinks. Because the airwaves belong to the public, they’re federally licensed. You can’t do anything you want with them.”

The question has become more pressing with the announcement that industry heavyweight Clear Channel Communications, which owns 1,200 radio stations, is on the verge of finalizing an exclusive agreement with the independent promotion firm Tri State Promotions and Marketing.

As a recent report in Salon detailed, record companies pay the independent promoters, or “indies,” hundreds of millions of dollars each year to ensure that the records the companies release get played on the radio; the indies, in turn, slip the radio stations a large chunk of this income in the form of on-the-books “promotional expenses.” With a partnership formed, the rivers of money start flowing between labels, indies and stations.

Sources say that the money goes to the stations below-board as well: They say that broadcasters get money in different forms — in vacations at hotels and on cruise lines, and in American Express gift certificates, all of which leave no paper trails. In the end, it’s doubtful that even the extraordinary sums the record companies admit they’re paying equals the actual amount of money changing hands.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The pending Clear Channel-Tri State alliance, the industry worries, will give Tri State extraordinary leverage and the clout to charge record labels even more money for station airplay. And it will solidify a system that awards the airwaves to the highest bidders.

“It’s outright bribery and extortion, and it’s nothing more than payola,” complains Bernie Cyrus, executive director of the Louisiana Music Commission, part of the state’s Department of Economic Development charged with promoting the state’s $2.5 billion music industry.

Prompted by Salon’s recent investigation, Cyrus contacted Rep. Billy Tauzin, a Republican from Louisiana, and Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, urging congressional investigations into the pay-for-play system: “The radio market is now clearly driven by greed and corruption rather than creativity and talent. Something must be done to bring attention to this, and I strongly believe that swift federal action is necessary.”

Cyrus’ concerns are being looked at by staff counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which Tauzin chairs, according to Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson. The practice, Johnson says, has “raised a lot of eyebrows. I’m a former broadcaster and I had no idea how really mercenary [indie promotion] has become.”

Inside the industry, where indie promotion remains a taboo topic and is rarely discussed on the record, some wonder how the current system, which revolves around federally licensed airwaves, has avoided close regulatory examination.

“The Justice Department has never really stuck its nose in this far enough,” complains one artist manager, a 30-year industry veteran. “Damn it, if I have to pay off [indies] in order to promote my record, that’s restraint of trade.”

A veteran of the promotion business agrees: “I don’t know what exactly will trip the [Department of Justice’s] trigger if it hasn’t already been tripped. There are certainly enough smatterings of improprieties in this ordeal. If an investigation happened, we could once and for all put this whole thing to rest, and the industry would be better for it.

“Instead, it’s ‘Hey, everybody’s doing it.’”

The Federal Communications Commission has jurisdiction over any payola complaints; it would pass along matters to the Department of Justice if enforcement is needed. But the FCC acts only if a formal complaint is filed that someone at a station is receiving illegal payments.

Since the new pay-for-play payola has become a profitable part of the day-to-day business at nearly every pop music station in America, who’s going to complain?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Here’s how the lucrative, back-scratching system works:

Record companies need radio to play their artists, but legally they’re prohibited from paying stations directly. (Technically, payola laws bar only nondisclosed payments, but for obvious reasons, neither record companies nor radio stations want on-air announcements that the airtime is being bought.)

So the companies employ middlemen, the indies. In this age of consolidation, disc jockeys and increasingly even local program directors have little input over playlists; that comes from above. The indies form alliances with a station’s general managers (or the corporate owners) and cut deals, typically guaranteeing a station in a medium-sized market $75,000 to $100,000 annually in what is termed “promotional support” to buy a station van, T-shirts, billboard ads, etc.

The annual promotional payment secures the indie as the station’s exclusive point man, the only one (or at least the first one) its programmers will talk to about playing a new single — an “add,” in industry parlance. The indie becomes a high-priced toll collector. Once that indie has claimed a station, he (it’s almost always a he) sends out a notice to record companies, letting them know he will invoice them, on average $1,000, every time the station adds a new song to its playlist. If indies don’t get paid, the songs don’t get played.

Considering most current music-based stations add roughly 150 new songs each year to their playlist, that translates into at least $150,000 worth of adds for that station’s indie.

A small indie, working out of his office with just one or two employees, might have a dozen claimed stations; that makes for an annual income of at least $1.5 million. For larger indies like Tri State and McClusky, multiply that $150,000 by several hundred stations to get a sense of the amount of money changing hands annually behind the scenes — even as the radio stations themselves continue to boast to listeners they’re hearing “the best new music.”

For the record companies, the system costs big bucks. Launching a single at rock radio can cost between $100,000 and $250,000. If the song’s a hit — if it gets played at hundreds of stations across the country, with added charges for multiple plays a day — the costs skyrocket. Appearing on a panel at the South by Southwest music conference earlier this month, Mercury Nashville president Luke Lewis told attendees his label spent more than $1.5 million on promotion for a Shania Twain single that crossed over to pop radio.

The exclusive station deals were pioneered during the ’90s by indie Jeff McClusky, whose firm became the leader in the Top 40 promotion business. The practice, adopted by competitors like Tri State, has become common at R&B as well as rock radio, and even extends into niche formats, like the so-called Triple A (for “adult album alternative”) stations. Now, after years of fighting the exclusive, pay-for-play approach, country radio may be the final format to succumb. That was the recent talk among industry attendees at the Country Radio Seminar in Nashville last month: that Clear Channel country stations will soon be using Tri State only.

With that sort of commodities approach applied to music, it’s no surprise that songs come with a price tag — and that it’s not even a well-kept secret in the industry. TVT Records recently sent out a typical directive to indies informing them that playlist adds for Bosson’s cheery dance-pop single “One in a Million” would be worth $2,000 in the country’s top 50 radio markets, $1,000 in markets 51 to 125, and $500 in the remaining smaller markets. Meanwhile, when record labels submit their weekly lists of new singles to radio trade magazines, the correlating add prices are often included right next to the title.

“Radio’s not about the music anymore,” laments Glenn Gardner, operations manager at rock radio WJJO in Madison, Wis. “And it’s becoming less special every day in many places.”

Says one major-market broadcaster: “I was approached many, many times” by indies looking to secure exclusive, six-figure deals. “I didn’t do it,” this source says, “because it’s morally and ethically distasteful. You cannot serve the general public and have the decision-making influenced [by indies], yet not disclose that to listeners. Because that’s what these people are trying to buy, influence. It’s an ugly situation.”

Yet the system today seems to adhere to the letter, if not the spirit, of the payola laws, no matter how badly out of date or irrelevant they are to today’s marketplace. (They were passed 40 years ago after pioneer rock DJ Alan Freed was convicted of taking payments from record companies in exchange for airplay.)

“The labels, through their attorneys, have found a way to be one step removed from the money,” explains one industry source. “You go through Capitol Records, and all those indie invoices are for services rendered. That’s nothing but good, solid business practices. They’re clean.”

Some insiders suggest if investigators did some digging, they would find plenty of questionable practices imbedded in a promotion system drowning in money.

For instance, the six-figure “promotional” deals the indies make often don’t go to the station’s promotional department. In fact, industry watchers say, sometimes they don’t even go to the station.

“I’ve heard stories where indie arrangements have been made with the GMs and the payment goes directly to GM in scrip,” says one manager, referring to the age-old radio term for coupons or gift certificates handed out by hotel chains and cruise lines. In this case the scrip is purchased by indies in bulk and shipped out to client radio stations. “There’s a Top 40 station in the Midwest that did a deal with McClusky and after he made the arrangement the GM went on three or four vacations every year. Theoretically those trips were for promotional purposes at the station, but the GM decides to take his family instead.”

Or, recounts another source, “It’s like the West Coast station where Neiman Marcus gift cards with money on them [provided by an indie] were used for promotions. The station was going to give them away, and the morning show gave away two, but where did the rest go? Seems that a lot of merchandise was purchased at Nieman Marcus by management. There is no tax implication there, no paper trail to deal with. Just $15,000 worth of value on those cards.”

Sources say American Express gift certificates have become the currency of choice among stations looking for something in exchange for playlist adds. “That’s the way [stations] want to be paid by us, because they can’t be traced,” explains one record company’s head of radio promotion. “They can buy whatever they want; it doesn’t have to be station-related. They can go out and buy themselves fishing poles.”

The question becomes, are those indie payouts reflected in the station’s (or the managers’) bottom line? “If not, isn’t that something the IRS may want to know about?” notes one indie promoter. “That’s the Achilles heel of this whole system.”

Meanwhile, there is strong suspicion that individual stations receive additional payments from indies above and beyond the agreed-upon annual “promotional budgets.”

For instance, imagine that a label desperately needs an add; it offers the indie $6,000 to get it done and the station makes room for the song on its playlist. Will the station see a portion of that $6,000 payment? Says the head of promotion at one label: “I guarantee you. Otherwise, there’s no incentive for the station to make room.”

Adds another indie: “You can’t see it, but you sense it’s out there; the kickback.”

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The extraordinary amount of money spent on indies has another, perhaps, unintended effect: locking small labels off the mainstream, commercial airwaves. “The only people who can play that indie game are the ones with the deep pockets,” says the head of promotion at a independent label. “There’s no way we can compete.”

Consider this hypothetical situation: If a small label releases a single that becomes a runaway hit and is added to Top 40 stations across the country, almost overnight the fledgling record company would face a potentially fatal financial crush — invoices for playlist adds from indies totaling nearly a quarter of a million dollars. Because of the established rules, even if the indies never even heard the song, let alone pitched it to programmers, the invoice would be sent out once the song was added to their stations. And if the label didn’t pay promptly, indies could do their best to get the song yanked off the air.

So why do the major labels pay the extraordinary fees and vest so much power in outside sources like indies? That complex relationship has been forged over years. But the bottom line is the music business is wrapped in rampant insecurity and revolves around one simple, short-term question: Where is the next hit coming from? Period. And the strain internally at record companies to make those hits happen is immense.

“You have no idea what the pressure is like Tuesday at 3 o’clock, if you’re VP of promotion at a label,” says one person who has held that post at a major label. He’s referring to the weekly ritual when radio stations inform labels — and indies — which new songs will be added to the playlist. Those adds will determine whether a song continues its rise up the charts, stalls or begins its descent. In a business built on perception, either of the latter two are considered the kiss of death.

If a single seems to be cooling, programmers nationwide often suddenly lose interest. Without airplay, the chances of CD sales diminish greatly. So labels are desperate to maintain momentum behind new songs, often at any cost. And the indies know it.

“How’d you like to have [Columbia Records president] Donnie Ienner in your office screaming at 3 o’clock on Tuesday?” asks the promotion veteran. “If you have to pay [an indie] $10,000 to shut your boss up, goddamn it, you pay, let me tell you. You’re looking for every scrap of information to give you the edge or to give to your boss. And if Tri State [is] able to do that, and you have to pay a premium, so what? It’s not your money.”