Streaming of commercials over Broadcastify feeds?

[ScanWorcester]

We are a for profit private business, so no P&L will be forthcoming, and I'm under no obligation to provide one either.

You quoted a policy that I posted 8 years ago with regards to ads in streams - things can change in a business over 8 years.

I have an enormous amount of time and money invested in this business, and it is a full time job for me. Our expenses alone to run this business run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. We provide free premium subscriptions to feed providers, and we pay collective bonuses to our volunteer database administrators of over 40K a year. The owners and operators of this site have tremendous risk, but we are also handsomely rewarded for our efforts and work.

ScanWorcester: if you don't like how we are providing services here, then terminate your feed. No hard feelings, our platform isn't for everyone, and sometimes even the most ardent supporters of capitalism get envious, or whatever. That's up to you my friend.

Now before anyone storms in here and starts telling "you can't talk to a feed provider like that!" remember that I'm well known for speaking my mind and fiercely defending what we have in place here. We know what we're doing, we're on the right track, and things are better than ever here. You can lecture me on what I should/could/would be doing, but so far we've kinda proven we know what the hell we're doing around here. The listeners, the feeds, the platform, everything stands on its own and speaks for itself.

Given all this - none of this is up for debate further. Thank you.

Thank you for your attention, Lindsay. I was thinking you had forgotten about me after not answer my earlier email to you as to why the ads were being injected without notice. Hopefully you can answer that, so that we all can understand better. Thanks!

 

[buddrousa]

A streamer wanted adds removed or a share of the money and would not listen to ULA or reason.

 

[AJAT]

But I thought it was perfectly legal according to statements above? I'm in the clear! Phew.

If you want to take legal advise from someone that starts off saying “I am no Lawer” “I think” and “I assume” go right ahead. Again it is a free country. You seem to be convinced it is illegal yet you are still providing your feed. If you do take my “assumed” legal advice great! I will send you a bill. Capitalism is great!

 

[ScanWorcester]

A streamer wanted adds removed or a share of the money and would not listen to ULA or reason.

Wow! That's a lot. I just looked back through the whole thread and didn't see any of that. It must've gotten deleted.

 

[fxdscon]

Who said I didn't like the way it was being run?

Too funny... those posts must have been deleted also!

 

[fredva]

Who said anything about the legalities of streaming?

You did:

ScanWorcester said:


Since we've established that the feeds are FOR profit, I'm curious how they would be exempt from: 1058. Penalties

"The basic penalty provision for the intentional interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is five years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a).

The first exception applies to unscrambled, unencrypted radio communications provided that the conduct is a first offense and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose, or purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain."

 

[AJAT]

How did this thread get on the topic of the legalities of streaming? Was somebody unable to win the argument against ads, so they then suggested the whole operation was possibly illegal? After a dozen or more years of continuous streaming?

It got on the topic of the legalities of profiting from streaming.

“Since we've established that the feeds are FOR profit, I'm curious how they would be exempt from: 1058. Penalties”

 

[buddrousa]

Dear feed provider please put on a face mask get out walk around outside get some fresh air.

 

[norwichfeeder]

We are a for profit private business, so no P&L will be forthcoming, and I'm under no obligation to provide one either.

You quoted a policy that I posted 8 years ago with regards to ads in streams - things can change in a business over 8 years.

I have an enormous amount of time and money invested in this business, and it is a full time job for me. Our expenses alone to run this business run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. We provide free premium subscriptions to feed providers, and we pay collective bonuses to our volunteer database administrators of over 40K a year. The owners and operators of this site have tremendous risk, but we are also handsomely rewarded for our efforts and work.

ScanWorcester: if you don't like how we are providing services here, then terminate your feed. No hard feelings, our platform isn't for everyone, and sometimes even the most ardent supporters of capitalism get envious, or whatever. That's up to you my friend.

Now before anyone storms in here and starts telling "you can't talk to a feed provider like that!" remember that I'm well known for speaking my mind and fiercely defending what we have in place here. We know what we're doing, we're on the right track, and things are better than ever here. You can lecture me on what I should/could/would be doing, but so far we've kinda proven we know what the hell we're doing around here. The listeners, the feeds, the platform, everything stands on its own and speaks for itself.

Given all this - none of this is up for debate further. Thank you.

Hey ok.. My questions answered.. With out you, none of this would be what it is. I''ve always respected your hard work. I'll stop posting. Thanks.

 

[ScanWorcester]

You did:

ScanWorcester said:


Since we've established that the feeds are FOR profit, I'm curious how they would be exempt from: 1058. Penalties

"The basic penalty provision for the intentional interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is five years imprisonment and a fine under Title 18, United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a).

The first exception applies to unscrambled, unencrypted radio communications provided that the conduct is a first offense and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose, or purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain."

I said nothing about the legalities of streaming, which I know is perfectly legal.

 

[fredva]

I said nothing about the legalities of streaming, which I know is perfectly legal.

And you know that a for-profit business has been providing streams for years.

 

[ScanWorcester]

And you know that a for-profit business has been providing streams for years.

I'm pretty sure you can't say what I know and what I don't know. However, I do know that the business wasn't previously injecting ads in the feeds; didn't even make the feed providers aware; and that my question hasn't been answered about the legality of profit from rebroadcasting 1058. Penalties

 

[AJAT]

and that my question hasn't been answered about the legality of profit from rebroadcasting 1058. Penalties

The more I read the penalties and the legalities of intercepting a broadcast I think I have your answer. Once again I am not a legal expert take my opinion for what it is worth. Intercepting and broadcasting a police feed is not Illegal. I think Lindsay explained that well. Since it is not illegal, the penalties do not apply. You can’t be punished for a legal activity. Section 1058 is the penalties for intercepting a broadcast illegally, which is not being done.
For what it is worth I do think it would of been a common curtesy to notify the feed providers of inserting commercials, but he chose not too. His web site his rules.

Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives

Many questions come up about the legality of our audio feeds and archives, so here is RadioReference's position on the matter. 47 USC 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) states in the beginning (emphasis added): Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[dcr_inc]

Cant we all just get along !!

 

[fxdscon]

Cant we all just get along !!

As always, most of us can!

.

 

[rcool101]

I am no Lawer, but I do love a good logical debate. My first reaction to this thread was... This is a free country, you agreed to to the terms, if you don’t like it remove your feed and broadcast it yourself.... the above law you posted is interesting. Since you are now knowingly providing that feed for profit would that make you an accomplice? Maybe you should remove your feed and contact the FBI and report the site. I am going to assume RR has at least one Lawer on staff and addressed this law. It is interesting, just reading it I would think it violates the law, there is more to it then just the written Words, judges do interpret laws differently. I also remember another law that states you can not divulge any info you hear and a scanner. I forget the exact wording. I always wondered how streaming feeds got around that.
A lot of money is made from the data base. All that info comes from people listening for hours finding and verifying new TG, frequencies. They submit them, the site makes money, the submitter to my knowledge gets nothing. If you don’t want anyone making a profit off of your hard work, don’t submit the new talk group, or make up your own site and post it there. We are free not to help someone make money, or to help them make money. Don’t help them make money and then complain about it. Remove your feed. Problem solved.

law·yer
/ˈloiər/

 

[AJAT]

law·yer
/ˈloiər/

Not only am I not a lawyer, I will never win at a spelling bee either.

 

[belvdr]

Not only am I not a lawyer, I will never win at a spelling bee either.

You're no “lawer” either! Lol