Look, will you stop saying the Universal Music Group took so long to settle with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer over all things payola because they were trying to negotiate down the settlement and because they wanted to stop the publication of certain internal correspondence? A source at the label has clarified matters, telling the LA Times that the delays in reaching a deal with Spitzer over the bribing of US radio stations to play certain records occurred because Universal reckoned some of the practices the AG objected to were actually within current US radio rules.
From what we hear, they might be right, which is reportedly why radio group Entercom is preparing to fight Spitzer through the courts over his attempts to sue them for accepting bribes for airplay. If that whole case goes to court it might turn out the problem (in some cases at least) wasn't so much the practices of the labels/radio groups but the FCC rules they were actually adhering too. If the courts decide that is the case, it will be interesting to see if the major labels can renegotiate their expensive Spitzer settlements which were based on the assumption the AG's interpretation of radio rules were right.
Meanwhile, commenting on the whole payola thing, Spitzer has told the LA Times: "We'd like to see these practices eliminated. My hope is that this will inspire greater confidence on the part of the public that radio choices aren't dictated by under-the-table payments." Of course the public might find that US radio stations programme crap music even when they're not bribed to do so. Which might make the record labels wonder why they bothered in the first place.