Streaming of commercials over Broadcastify feeds?

[fxdscon]

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'm surprised that you would think that Radio Reference is not aware of the legalities involved:

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

.

 

[fxdscon]

Feed providers are providing the source for the ads to be injected in. Without the feeds, there's no ads. Is it wrong to think that feed providers should have at least been made aware or included in the decision? Why not share the financials publically? What's to hide?

Nothing to hide:

RadioReference.com is a business. Make no mistake, I run the site as a for profit business with capitalistic underpinnings. This business takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to manage, including management, problem users, general users, development, coding, license fees, you name it. This business has significant costs every month to maintain every month. Just like Uniden, Radio Shack, Icom, etc… RadioReference.com attempts to, frankly, make as much money as we can. And, we cannot make money unless we provide a valuable service that the user community deems to be a good investment.

 

[AJAT]

I'm surprised that you would think that Radio Reference is not aware of the legalities involved:

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

.

That explains my statement on the legalities of divulging info you hear. Thanks for that link. I don’t see how that address the using for profit...”or purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.”

 

[belvdr]

Feed providers are providing the source for the ads to be injected in. Without the feeds, there's no ads. Is it wrong to think that feed providers should have at least been made aware or included in the decision? Why not share the financials publically? What's to hide?

Sure I think it would have been kind to let feed providers know ahead of time. I think that’s fair.

However, I don’t think it’s accurate to think a private company has something to hide because they don’t share financials. That’s why it’s a private business. Since you’re a feed provider attached to a business, would you want to share all of your finances? Again, I’m not sure how finances correlate to your original complaint.

 

[fxdscon]

That explains my statement on the legalities of divulging info you hear. Thanks for that link. I don’t see how that address the using for profit...”or purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.”

The owner of the Radio Reference site would be best qualified to address your question with their interpretation of the laws at this link :

RadioReference.com - Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference

www.radioreference.com

Please let us know what the response is.

.

 

[ScanWorcester]

I'm surprised that you would think that Radio Reference is not aware of the legalities involved:

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

.

Sure I think it would have been kind to let feed providers know ahead of time. I think that’s fair.

However, I don’t think it’s accurate to think a private company has something to hide because they don’t share financials. That’s why it’s a private business. Since you’re a feed provider attached to a business, would you want to share all of your finances? Again, I’m not sure how finances correlate to your original complaint.

Please explain your assumption that I'm a feed provider attached to a business. My feeds have always been provided for free. I do not make any money whatsoever from my feed system. When I set-up here 10 years ago, the feeds were provided to the public for free. I even quoted previous words from Lindsay earlier in this thread, as saying there were no plans to incorporate ads in the feed.

Also, if it were my business, I would set it up as a non-profit, in which case, I would gladly show where income/expense was going. You know, how like radio clubs are.

 

[belvdr]

Please explain your assumption that I'm a feed provider attached to a business. My feeds have always been provided for free. I do not make any money whatsoever from my feed system. When I set-up here 10 years ago, the feeds were provided to the public for free. I even quoted previous words from Lindsay earlier in this thread, as saying there were no plans to incorporate ads in the feed.

Also, if it were my business, I would set it up as a non-profit, in which case, I would gladly show where income/expense was going. You know, how like radio clubs are.

No assumption made. Your feed is connected to Broadcastify, which is a business. It’s a simple fact. Still no connection to your original complaint.

It’s great to think you’d run it as a non-profit, but things and times change. We can “what if” it to death, until you start your non-profit.

 

[ScanWorcester]

The owner of the Radio Reference site would be best qualified to address your question with their interpretation of the laws at this link :

RadioReference.com - Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference

www.radioreference.com

Please let us know what the response is.

.

The

RR is providing equipment also so why do you think they are guilty?
The adds pay the bills and pay for upkeep end of storey.

They are profiting from the rebroadcasting of radio transmissions. Perhaps you missed my reference to the law, above. There's a difference in the act of rebroadcasting, and the equipment of rebroadcasting. Apples, oranges.

 

[buddrousa]

Sorry you do not understand good luck in running your own site if you choose. You are responsible for reading and keeping up with the RR ULA good luck in your ventures.

 

[AJAT]

The


They are profiting from the rebroadcasting of radio transmissions. Perhaps you missed my reference to the law, above. There's a difference in the act of rebroadcasting, and the equipment of rebroadcasting. Apples, oranges.

I would recommend you remove your feed immediately since you think you are assisting some one in engaging in illegal activity. Plus the fact you are so upset about it. I would assume that it is legal what this site does since it has been up for so long. I could be wrong and don’t really care one way or the other, but you seem to be very upset about it.

 

[ScanWorcester]

No assumption made. Your feed is connected to Broadcastify, which is a business. It’s a simple fact. Still no connection to your original complaint.

It’s great to think you’d run it as a non-profit, but things and times change. We can “what if” it to death, until you start your non-profit.

My original complaint was about ads on my feed. If you don't see the connection, then I believe it is you that does not understand.

I understand very well, actually. I find it very strange that everyone is so defensive, rather than answering simple questions. That's an answer all in itself. The issue of money was brought up by others, which started another discussion.

Also, I have been running my site for 12 years now, after taking it over from someone that ran it for about 8 years before moving away. Thanks!

 

[ScanWorcester]

I would recommend you remove your feed immediately since you think you are assisting some one in engaging in illegal activity. Plus the fact you are so upset about it. I would assume that it is legal what this site does since it has been up for so long. I could be wrong and don’t really care one way or the other, but you seem to be very upset about it.

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

Who said I was upset? Again, I'm just trying to have a conversation with some very defensive folks!

 

[buddrousa]

It is not your feed you gave all rights away

 

[belvdr]

My original complaint was about ads on my feed. If you don't see the connection, then I believe it is you that does not understand.

I understand very well, actually. I find it very strange that everyone is so defensive, rather than answering simple questions. That's an answer all in itself. The issue of money was brought up by others, which started another discussion.

Also, I have been running my site for 12 years now, after taking it over from someone that ran it for about 8 years before moving away. Thanks!

There is no connection between sharing company financials and ads on your feed. You’re right. I don’t understand the correlation and I think I’ve stated that multiple times.

I’m not defensive in this at all. I apologize if it came across that way. Forums lack the emotion of speech unfortunately.

 

[ScanWorcester]

It is not your feed you gave all rights away

Well that's odd. My BCFY dashboard says "My Feeds" in big letters. And, I get all the emails when something happens. I'll have to redirect all future tech issues to, you?

 

[blantonl]

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.

 

[fxdscon]

I understand very well, actually. I find it very strange that everyone is so defensive, rather than answering simple questions.

Your questions have been answered many times over, you just don't want to hear them.

As others have mentioned, and as stated in the rules of registering for this site... If you don't like how the site is run, you are free to go elsewhere.

.

 

[fredva]

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?

 

[ScanWorcester]

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?

Who said anything about the legalities of streaming?

 

[ScanWorcester]

Your questions have been answered many times over, you just don't want to hear them.

As others have mentioned, and as stated in the rules of registering for this site... If you don't like how the site is run, you are free to go elsewhere.

.

Who said I didn't like the way it was being run? Again... Just asking questions that have sparked off a great conversation!