Remove submissions

[jbaker6953]

For anybody who has submitted information to the Radio Reference database that did so with the understanding that it would be freely shared with the community, and who does not want the information they submitted used to enrich others, how can we remove information we have submitted which is not generally public information now that the same information is being withheld as incentive for people to go premium?

This isn't intended as an argument for or against premium. I just want to know how submitters can remove radio system information we put into the database if they don't want their work to be used by others to enrich themselves.

 

[KevinC]

I have nothing to do with the database, but I’m pretty sure you can’t “remove” it.

 

[jbaker6953]

Thank you.

That might open an interesting legal front. I don't believe when I submitted information I agreed that the Blantons could use the information I submitted commercially. I don't know what Texas law is on that. It will be interesting to look into.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

See this wiki

 

[GTR8000]

I don't think your four submissions from 2009, 2010, and 2016 are going to really make much of a difference in the grand scheme. It's not as if you were a prolific submitter who is sore about a few features being restricted to premium members, which by the way has ALWAYS been the case.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the RadioReference Terms and Conditions before mentioning potential legal action:

Terms and Conditions

www.radioreference.com

6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CONTENT POSTED ON THE RadioReference.com SITES:

Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored on the RadioReference.com Sites will be subject to licensing arrangements that may be approved by RadioReference.com as applicable to such Content.

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums and database ("RadioReference.com Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such RadioReference.com Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by RadioReference.com. In each such case, the submitting user grants RadioReference.com the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

 

[jbaker6953]

No need to get your panties twisted up in a knot. Contract law isn't as simple as you might think. Just because a contract says "X" doesn't mean it's enforceable. That's the part about Texas contract law I don't know.

It's true I use radioreference.com rarely. I actually came this morning to update the radio lineup for my agency's upcoming revamping of the comm plan, but I wasn't even able to view the comm plan that's in the database now because you have to pay to see what you've entered previously. So, with no way to see what's there as far as repeater inputs I can't tell if it needs updating. Nor would I want to update it any longer unless I have some way of sharing in any revenue that might be generated.

 

[KevinC]

This is not going to be resolved in the forums so I'm closing it.

For any legal actions you feel like pursuing please use the below email...

legal@radioreference.com

 

[blantonl]

Kevin, my apologies, but I’m going to reopen this thread because I do want to address this, and I like nothing more than giving someone the rope they need,…

For anybody who has submitted information to the Radio Reference database that did so with the understanding that it would be freely shared with the community, and who does not want the information they submitted used to enrich others, how can we remove information we have submitted which is not generally public information now that the same information is being withheld as incentive for people to go premium?

This isn't intended as an argument for or against premium. I just want to know how submitters can remove radio system information we put into the database if they don't want their work to be used by others to enrich themselves.

I’m going to step in here and address this directly.

First, we will not remove radio system data that you have submitted to us, and if you want to challenge me in the court of law, bring it on.

Second, Almost of the information in the RadioReference database is freely available to everyone in the world, with no advertising except a small Scanner Master sponsorship logo, without any restrictions whatsoever. Let me say it again louder for the people in the back of the room:

Almost of the information in the RadioReference database is freely available to everyone in the world.

There are two small, advanced, data points in the database that are only available to premium subscribers that might have been submitted to us by users. Conventional repeater input frequencies, and Project 25 Channel ID tables. That’s it. 99.9% of users of the Radioreference database will never have a use case for these two data points, and those that do are either advanced users or are using the database for commercial related purposes. Period.

Capabilities such and querying, searching reports, downloads, and other advanced features are available only to premium subscribers. We’re providing value add here that is for advanced users of the site.

That is the explanation from me, and the assertion or complaint about how we are approaching how we manage this business by the OP is ridiculous.

when you are ready to go toe to toe with me to debate the merits of our business model, capitalism, and how a business operates, i’m ready jbaker6953. And if you want to litigate it, I can’t wait to hear from your attorneys.

 

[jbaker6953]

First, we will not remove radio system data that you have submitted to us, and if you want to challenge me in the court of law, bring it on.

I did not expect you to change course and suddenly find morality. You've already demonstrated your lack of morals by deciding to take the work of others as your own.

There are two small, advanced, data points in the database that are only available to premium subscribers that might have been submitted to us by users. Conventional repeater input frequencies, and Project 25 Channel ID tables. That’s it.

Yes, and that's data that's not publicly available and was input by people like me. Now I can't even see the data I contributed. If that doesn't strike you as shady, what can I say? Shady people seldom believe their own behavior to be shady. They're like junkies ... they always have an excuse.

Capitalism is the freedom of two or more parties to engage in commerce according to mutually agreeable terms, it is not stealing the labor of others. I have no qualms about making additional features a premium. That is indeed good capitalism. However, I do have a problem with taking information submitted by others in the spirit of sharing and locking that away as a premium feature. It's one thing if people were forewarned that their submissions would be used in that way, but they weren't.

 

[wa88it]

Thank you.

That might open an interesting legal front. I don't believe when I submitted information I agreed that the Blantons could use the information I submitted commercially. I don't know what Texas law is on that. It will be interesting to look into.

well your pockets must be overflowing with $$$ to even consider threatening, er, talking to an legal beagle about this subject since the litigation could drag on for yearS as you keep funding the legal beagle's children in college...

best...

 

[wa88it]

I did not expect you to change course and suddenly find morality. You've already demonstrated your lack of morals by deciding to take the work of others as your own.

Yes, and that's data that's not publicly available and was input by people like me. Now I can't even see the data I contributed. If that doesn't strike you as shady, what can I say? Shady people seldom believe their own behavior to be shady. They're like junkies ... they always have an excuse.

Capitalism is the freedom of two or more parties to engage in commerce according to mutually agreeable terms, it is not stealing the labor of others. I have no qualms about making additional features a premium. That is indeed good capitalism. However, I do have a problem with taking information submitted by others in the spirit of sharing and locking that away as a premium feature. It's one thing if people were forewarned that their submissions would be used in that way, but they weren't.

first and foremost OP...if by your account, the data is not publicly available...then this non coerced and voluntary admission could signify you stole proprietary information from the rightful owner.

additionally, that you fell compelled to your argument to elementary school playground tauts...equating and comparing this site's owner they are 'shady people' and' like junkies' is beyond belief as well as pushing the morality/moral buttons...sigh

finally, you voluntarily gave the data to the owner of this site... for their use as they saw fit...

and actually, the concept of capitalism, as defined, has absolutely nothing to do with your argument whatsoever...

yepper your legal beagle will really appreciate your $$$$

 

[jbaker6953]

additionally, that you fell compelled to your argument to elementary school playground tauts...equating and comparing this site's owner they are 'shady people' and' like junkies' is beyond belief as well as pushing the morality/moral buttons...sigh

Thievery is shady. There's no ifs ands or buts about it.

and actually, the concept of capitalism, as defined, has absolutely nothing to do with your argument whatsoever...

Tell that to Mr. Blanton, who brought it up.

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

You don’t. You just perish angrily about it. You knew what you were doing when you signed up and submitted to here. If you don’t like the rules, you’re free to leave. If it were up to me, I’d just block you so we don’t have to listen to you whine about it anymore and waste our time dealing with you existence here.

 

[RaleighGuy]

I actually came this morning to update the radio lineup for my agency's upcoming revamping of the comm plan, but I wasn't even able to view the comm plan that's in the database now because you have to pay to see what you've entered previously. So, with no way to see what's there as far as repeater inputs I can't tell if it needs updating. Nor would I want to update it any longer unless I have some way of sharing in any revenue that might be generated.

And we are thrilled you are not going to submit anything else, which, by the way, could easily be found by other users with a $35 dongle or the interest in searching the FCC database.

Goodbye and good luck with your future expensive and fruitless legal battles.

 

[a417]

That is indeed good capitalism. However, I do have a problem with taking information submitted by others in the spirit of sharing and locking that away as a premium feature.

Did you submit P25 Channel ID tables or repeater input frequencies, the latter of which is public information found in the ULS?

It's one thing if people were forewarned that their submissions would be used in that way, but they weren't.

Been here for years, did you read it?

 

[Omega-TI]

I just want to know how submitters can remove radio system information we put into the database if they don't want their work to be used by others to enrich themselves.

I find it difficult to understand how someone could be so petty, especially a non subscriber that has freely used the forums for what, fourteen years? In that amount of time, I would think that someone got way more out of it than they ever contributed. In the final analysis though, it is a hobby, so sharing with others is always a good and positive thing. Getting worked up about someone making a tenth of a cent over fewer submissions than one can count on two hands, out of a database with thousands of submissions seems a little silly.

 

[wa88it]

jerry, sorry but correct us if our information is skew'd....but you gave the data to this site, freely of your own free will & w/o reservation & apparently w/o expectations being paid for said 'sensitive' and not available to the public, therefore you have relinquished rights of ownership.

you have perpetrated this scam before and in that case your rants were deleted by the owner of the forum so you raised a censorship flag...really?

sorry that you, the S CA individual, isn't aware when you enter a forum, you are now on private property per se., and can pull the plug on members whenever and for whatever cause they deem suits their needs...if you give the property owner anything it now belongs to them to do w/as they seem fit.

please do yourself a favor and pull your pants up and move on cuz your embarrassing yourself...

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

Thievery is shady. There's no ifs ands or buts about it.

Tell that to Mr. Blanton, who brought it up.

It’s not thievery if you gave it to him/us.

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

Thank you.

That might open an interesting legal front. I don't believe when I submitted information I agreed that the Blantons could use the information I submitted commercially. I don't know what Texas law is on that. It will be interesting to look into.

What you believe, and what is reality, are different things. Just because you didn’t understand the agreement you were signing when you sign up on here does not mean it’s not enforceable.

 

[blantonl]

please do yourself a favor and pull your pants up and move on cuz your embarrassing yourself...

This is why I reopened the thread. Because there is nothing more satisfying then giving some all the rope they need.

But, he's accomplished all he tried to, which was nothing. So, I think we're done here.