Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Oh, man, what funny QSOs we're having on 3840  (Read 3653 times)
W6WBJ
Member

Posts: 1


WWW

Ignore
« on: July 30, 2006, 07:52:48 PM »

This is SO funny!  On 3840 out here on the West coast, we play a game called "Art or Phil"?  Somebody plays a brief excerpt from either Phil Hendrie's parodies of Art Bell, or from Art's show itself, and then everybody on frequency tries to guess whether it is really Art or Phil!  Hilarious!  Since Art has become a parody of himself, he has become virtually indistinguishable from Phil.  Try it!  It really puts some zip into your QSOs.  What a gas!
Logged
N7NBB
Member

Posts: 381


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2006, 07:20:46 AM »

So let me get this straight... You are RE-broadcasting a copyrighted and syndicated
COMMERCIAL radio program on Amateur radio frequencies?
HMmmmmm....
I'll Pass.
Logged
W6WBJ
Member

Posts: 1


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2006, 05:31:24 PM »

N7NBB: are you a lawyer?  I am.  Have you researched, or even heard of, the law of "fair comment"?  I have.  Please let me know if you are familiar with the law of fair comment.  If not, I think perhaps you should study it before making such statements.  Thanks for reading!
Logged
KI4CFS
Member

Posts: 313


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2006, 08:56:01 PM »

Would you explain the "law of fair comment"? How does that let you re-broadcast a show like that on ham bands?

I have heard Art Bell and found it quite entertaining.

I do not have your legal knowledge and think I could learn something..

Also.. Sometimes I and another guy( that are self-employed) would discuss our work. They tried to say we could not. we were not trying to sell each other or anyone else. It is just a large part of our lives for we work a lot in our business.

Would you be so kind to comment on that? You seem to understand the law.

Thank you
KI4CFS

Logged
W6WBJ
Member

Posts: 1


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2006, 03:41:51 AM »

OK, Martin, it's like this.  Remember when Tom Cruise appeared on the "Today" show on NBC, and acted so freakin' weird by jumping over couches repeatedly to "profess his love" for his wife, whatever her name is?  Well, Bill O'Reilly was entitled to play an excerpt from that NBC "Today" show broadcast on his show on Fox News in order to facilitate the discussion of how weird Tom Cruise is, and how nobody can stand to watch him anymore, and NBC can't complain that it is a violation of copyright because that would eliminate Fox News' free-speech rights.  Public figures aren't entitled to do weird shit and then claim under the law of copyright that nobody can discuss their behavior.  The same is true of Art Bell.  We are entitled to play brief excerpts from his show, and from Phil Hendrie's show, in order to demonstrate and discuss how Art has become a parody of himself, lost all of any credibility he may once have had, and is virtually indistinguishable from Hendrie, who is trying to parody him.  
Logged
KI4CFS
Member

Posts: 313


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2006, 07:12:53 AM »

Thanks and I understand you but what about NOT rebroadcasting anything but second party at your station with you or a NASA transmition form the satalite. That is the rules I read and understood. but I am not a lawyer..

KI4CFS
Logged
N7NBB
Member

Posts: 381


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2006, 07:53:24 AM »

Well, back in college (Broadcast Engineering Major) we studied all kinds of broadcast laws and situations (your "fair use" is to new for me to have studied... but all that aside,)

It would be a pretty sure bet that in regard to the Fair Use (actually it's something about limitations of exclusive use of copyrighted materials) although a valid argument in the world of COMMERCIAL (network) rebroadcasts, would not apply to AMATEUR RADIO in which case the Federal Communications Commission rules, specifically part 97.113) would supercede; which states:

"No station shall retransmit programs or signals emanating from any type of radio station other than an amateur station, except propagation and weather forecast information intended for use by the general public and originated from United States Government stations and communications, including incidental music, originating on United States Government frequencies between a space shuttle and its associated Earth stations." (additional shuttle rulings omitted).

pretty CUT AND DRIED as to what can be RE-BROADCAST.

But for the record regarding my last post:
Did I challenge you (no) why did you feel the need to flame me ?  All I said was "I'll Pass".  It was (and still is) my decision to not join in.

After viewing your comments about women in the hobby and viewing the start page of your website "HAMJAMMING" it is clear to me (law degree or not) I want no part of your good times on 75 meters.

By the way, my wife (an EXTRA CLASS Amateur license holder) pointed out that occured on "OPRAH" not the Today Show. If Tom C. did do this on the Today show as well, then it kind of DISCREDITS him doesn't it?

I have enjoyed Art Bell for many years. I will continue to do so on COMMERCIAL BROADCAST RADIO, not a questionable RE-BROADCAST on 75 meters.


cam
Logged
WA4PTZ
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2006, 11:19:23 AM »

I'll sure be glad when California falls off the
Pacific ocean, then we will be rid of these weirdos.
73,
Tim
Logged
W6WBJ
Member

Posts: 1


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2006, 12:57:43 PM »

Cam, you don't know the correct definition of "rebroadcast".  As used in Part 97, it means the SIMULTANEOUS rebroadcast of program material.  It is perfectly legal to play recordings of previously-broadcast material, so long as it does not constitute a one-way transmission.  Under your therory, it would be illegal, for example, for a ham to re-transmit another ham's prior transmission for the purpose of showing him how his audio sounds.  It is done all the time, and is perfectly legal.

Your knowledge of radio law is sorely deficient.
Logged
KI4CFS
Member

Posts: 313


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2006, 09:40:41 PM »

That is very interesting and I did not know that. So what about playing music over the air?

KI4CFS
Logged
3CX800A7
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2006, 04:46:48 AM »

Perhaps you will *really* crash your yogurt truck, when upon extradition to the United States, Art hires you as head of his legal defense team.
Logged
NN3W
Member

Posts: 147




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2006, 08:52:01 AM »

Actually, the major TV networks have agreements with each other to permit the transmission of one another's network information as long as there is an attribution to the copyright owner's identity.  

You often see video replay of breaking news stories broadcast on NBC or CBS which is actually CNN feed.  That is done because an agreement is in place.  So, yes, a copyright is in place, and agreements for the protection and dissemination of the copyright owner's work are in place.

I'm not sure if you can say that about the dissemination of Coast to Coast, unless Art Bell himself is the copyright owner of the content and the audio.

Logged
3CX800A7
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2006, 03:19:32 AM »

I think it's a hoot that Billy has conveniently ignored my post above. The last laugh is on him.
Logged
K8MHZ
Member

Posts: 115




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2006, 06:19:57 AM »

"Under your therory, it would be illegal, for example, for a ham to re-transmit another ham's prior transmission for the purpose of showing him how his audio sounds."

Wrong Billy.  The other ham is still in the amateur band.  The concern was over the original source being from commercial broadcasts.

Your concern should be with 97.101

Remember that 97.101 (a) is purely subjective.  If ever in front of an ALJ for your activities on the air you had better hope for a conservative interpretation of 'good amateur practice'.

It would be very interesting to see you represent yourself if it ever come to that.  What a great video that would make!
Logged
W6WBJ
Member

Posts: 1


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2006, 08:57:04 AM »

If, as you say, Sec. 97.101(a) is purely subjective, then it is unenforceable as a violation of due process because it gives the amateur no notice whatsoever of what activities are prohibited.  But you are simply wrong.  Sec. 97.101(a) has been interpreted as applying only to compliance with reasonable technical standards, such as prohibitions against AC hum on the signal, key clicks, chirp and spurs.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!