Talk:Clear Channel Communications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clear Channel Communications article.

Contents

[edit] Cofounder?

On a biography of his [[1]], Billy Joe "Red" McCombs is said to be a "co-founder (with Lowry Mays) of Clear Channel Communications." Shouldn't this page be updated, accordingly?

[edit] Patent Law

However, some media critics, as well as smaller business rivals, believe that Clear Channel is using the patent law incorrectly to drive competitors out of business or force them to pay licensing fees for the process

I'm not sure what this means. That's what patents are all about: allowing the owner to prevent others from practicing the patented material, or to collect licensing fees. In what way are they alleged to be "using the patent law incorrectly" (the link didn't help)? Josh Cherry 22:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to paraphrase the thrust of these paragraphs:
But Richardson, Texas-based Immediatek Inc. (BB:ITEK), the parent of DiscLive Inc, which also records live concert CDs, said Clear Channel's patent did not give it exclusive rights to the business of creating recordings of live performances.
"Our attorneys have provided Clear Channel's attorneys with this information and more to detail why their patent is not relevant to the DiscLive system and requested that they provide us with specific details if they disagree," said Zach Bair, chief executive of Immediatek in a statement this week.
The idea, I think, is that their claim to patent of a certain part of the burning-to-CD-immediately process is either a) common use of publicly available technology and something that shouldn't be patentable (like certain other software patent disputes), or b), that the patent in question doesn't prevent the use of the idea in its entirety, and thus ClearChannel does not have the right to force others to suspend business. Since it's not clear from this article exactly WHAT technology they're claiming a patent on, it's hard to say for sure whether competitors really do have to go through the licensing process (and obviously the courts will eventually decide that).
Please feel free to alter the text to make it more clear; I'm going to try to find a few more sources on this. Thanks for the comment! Catherine | talk 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work on this page. I hope somebody can link "voice-tracking" and do a page just on it. I never knew the name for it before. It has taken over a number of our local stations, even ones that are not owned by CC. I am a radio announcer with 20 years' experience and I cannot get a job on a local station thanks to this canned baloney out of Los Angeles. --Bluejay Young 05:19, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Just did that. I've set up enough automation systems. I know how it works. Give it a few days. The basics are there, but I have graphics to get done.--Xj14y 22:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights?

What on earth does human rights campaign have to do with ClearChannel? It sounds like a violation of "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business" -Mydotnet 19:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-clear22.html

[edit] Steve Jones

Since the corporate structure of Clear Channel is pretty dizzying, I'm not sure if this belongs anywhere in the article, but my understanding is that the L.A. radio station that hosts Steve Jones's radio show has all its advertising contracted by CC. I guess CC doesn't "own" the station, but it's pretty interesting. --Chinasaur 04:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Pirate Radio Campaign

What appeared to be a pirate station named "Radio Free Ohio" interfering with some Clear Channel stations turned out to be a marketing campaign: woxy.com, Stay Free Magazine, MTV, NY Times (reg. required), telepolis (German)84.144.61.249 11:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is or was?

"ClearChannel *was* a media company?" Why is the first sentence in the past tense? --Nephtes 21:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music promoted by clear channel?

I don't know about the "Music promoted by Clear Channel or subsidiaries" section. There is probably a negative connotation associated with being listed there and I don't see it defined as to what constitutes "promotion" in this context. If promo tickets were offered to a band's concert on a CC station, is that enough to get a band on the "you suck because CC promotes you" list?

[edit] Clear Channel Entertainment spun off

It is now "Live Nation" (http://www.livenation.com official website]), I don't know how to incorporate this into the article but I'm looking for someone who has been refining this one to look into it, I would like some guidance on fixing the Monster Jam and USHRA articles (and related) to match the change.

==

I can confirm that Monster Jam and USHRA were included in the spin-off. I submitted a Live Nation entry with the relevent Clear Channel Entertainment sections copied into the entry. Outside of these copy operations, the majority of my knowledge came from the SEC documents associated with the spinoff[2]

  • From that document it appears to me that instead of Live Nation it should be listed as CCE Spinco. They're going by the name of Live Nation, but official name looks to be different. I also believe that CC probably owns a large stake in the spinoff, but we'd need to look the reports to determine that. Wikibofh(talk) 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To respond:
  • Live Nation announcement: "As of December 21, 2005, the newly independent company will be known as Live Nation." [3]
  • In case the "newly independent" phrase doesn't convince you that it is a 100% spin-off, the SEC documents make clear that Clear Channel retains no ownership - note that "Company" = CCE SpinCo = Live Nation: "NOTE M — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS On April 29, 2005, Clear Channel Communications announced a plan to strategically realign the Clear Channel Communication businesses. The plan includes a 100% spin-off of the Company. Following the spin-off, the Company will be a separate, publicly-traded company in which Clear Channel Communications will not retain any ownership interest." [4]
      • Sorry, I'm an eternal sceptic. After reading the document more I see that CCE Spinco was a temporary name. Especially in light of CCE Holdco #2 and CCE Holdco #3.  :) As for ownership, I see what you're saying. I think their first annual report/10k will be interesting.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


        • Ok. I'm the author of the anonymous comments above. Since this is getting a lot of back and forth, I created a username.. Let me know if I'm doing anything wrong formatting-wise, etc. Ok. Some key things:

1) While Live Nation is independent, there is overlap in terms of board of directors + some agreements entered into before the spin-off. Specifically:

'"After the distribution, Clear Channel Communications will not own any shares of our common stock and we will not own any shares of Clear Channel Communications common stock. Three of our directors will also be directors of Clear Channel Communications, and our chairman will continue to serve as chief financial officer of Clear Channel Communications. In addition, in connection with the distribution, we and Clear Channel Communications are entering into a number of agreements that will govern our spin-off from Clear Channel Communications and our future relationship. We cannot assure you that these agreements will be on terms as favorable to us as agreements with other third parties."


2) Despite #1, Control of the company by the directors/insiders is *limited* as they collectively own less than 6.1% of the company: "All directors and executive officers as a group (13 persons) (9) 4,129,565 6.1 %"


Net: Live Nation is an independent company with separate assets; overlap in ownership and directorships, but not controlling overlap in the longer term.

My proposal: 1) Remove obvious Live Nation items on Clear Channel and move to Live Nation as I've already done. 2) Note the overlap of directorships and ownership on the individual officer descriptions - specifically L. Lowry Mays (Director of Live Nation), Mark P. Mays (Vice Chairman of Live Nation), Randall T. Mays (Chairman of Live Nation) 3) Put a brief section on the relationship between CCU and LYV - probably a combination of the text from the SEC statements copied into #1 and #2 above.

I hope that all makes sense.

[edit] What does this mean?

"Other controversies have included changing many syndicated shows, most notably Rush Limbaugh, from syndication to "network" status, by flipping from well-known stronger news-talk stations to much weaker stations which are owned by Clear Channel, thereby making the show a "network" show instead of being syndicated."

I have read this 6 times and still have no idea what it means. Can someone please rewrite it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will second this confusion. PunkOn 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could it mean

That Rush Limbaugh wants to distance himself from a "mainstream media corporation" like ClearChannel because Rush Limbaugh needs a target like the "Mainstream Media" he claims is liberal and biased and run by fascists and communists and is destroying values in America by promoting their unGodly bile? (who with wisdom would dispute this charge?) Rush Limbaugh personally has "gifts on loan from God" to do his Radio show. It would be uncouth and tacky to suggest God needs a "Mainstream media" bohemeth like Clearchannel Radio as a medium to deliver his word, and plan.

Excellence in Broadcasting (E.I.B Network) - Now that is far more POSITIVE and trustworthy sounding!

Isaiah 40:8


[Feb 25th, 2006]

[edit] Removal of Sports section from "Famous people managed by Clear Channel or subsidiaries"

I removed the followingSports: David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, Brandi Chastain, Pedro Martínez, Prince Naseem Hamed, Jason Giambi, Gary Lineker, Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens, Greg Norman, Nomar Garciaparra, Jerry Rice, Kobe Bryant, Warrick Dunn, Al Michaels, Trent Green, Dick Vermeil, Gail Devers, Michael Owen, Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton, and Alan Shearer. because the management of Sports was sold as detailed in the following press releases from spin-off Live Nation:[5][6]Jvandyke 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the CBS Radio Reference?

ARTICLE SAYS: Official response to controversy Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns. It also mentions a radio company owned by Viacom, a company known to own interests in weapons as well.[citation needed]

THE SITE SAYS: The corporate offices of Clear Channel Communications were not directly involved. Other radio groups with stations who sponsored Rallies for America include: Infinity Broadcasting (owned by Viacom), Cox Radio, Federated Media and Susquehanna Media.

What does weapons and why does it mention this in the article? This is an unimportant fact and should be removed, right? Or am I wrong?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/e/Talk%7EClear_Channel_Communications_487f.html"