• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

What happened to the 94.1 thread?

There's another 94.1 thread about an LPFM near San Marcos.
So to clarify this thread was regarding KTFM in San Antonio and it's possible flip to an alternative or EDM format.
 
Anonymouse said:
There's another 94.1 thread about an LPFM near San Marcos.
So to clarify this thread was regarding KTFM in San Antonio and it's possible flip to an alternative or EDM format.
Click to expand...

You know what would be cool?? If they moved 103.3 the app to 94.1 and rebranded it as "The Amp". Then they could put the EDM format on the app. Just wishful thinking...
 
94.1 isn't flipping to Alternative. If any, it's a rebranding move with the same format. David E commented that there was chatter about 103.1 The App rebranding to 103.1 The Amp.

Anyhow, Magic 105.3 has done it's yearly playlist update. The 80's tracks are back.
 
Last edited:
The original thread was deleted because it contained copyrighted material from Radioinsight. I was ordered by Radioinsight to take it down.
 
Thank you for your reply. I was curious why a thread might be deleted after Anonymouse posed the question so I appreciate you taking the time to reply to his question. Thanks again.
 
purpledevil said:
I had no idea Lance ran this board too.
Click to expand...

I think the message here is that the OP used copyrighted material and the owner asked it to be removed.
 
DavidEduardo said:


I think the message here is that the OP used copyrighted material and the owner asked it to be removed.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the original topic, David, so I'm a little in the dark here. Did someone post material that came from behind Lance's paywall? If so, the person that accessed the material, through payment of the nominal fee to Lance, would then "own" the material, not RadioInsight since the published material was made available to the public via payment to Lance for the services he is rendering.

The wording used by Frank is what piqued my curiosity. "Ordered" him to take it down...quite a strong statement indeed. I don't know the specifics, unless someone would be willing to fill me in, so I'll refrain from commenting further until the facts are made known to me.
 
saradio1 said:
David E commented that there was chatter about 103.1 The App rebranding to 103.1 The Amp.
Click to expand...

You mean 103.3?



Thanks, Frank. I thought that might be the case just had to check. From my understanding the original thread started out with an exact quote from material for RadioInsight premium subscribers only that was taken down after Lance called for it's removal. What happened to an open Internet with the ability to freely share information? Also I agree with Purple and think Lance is selling the information. I guess one can paraphrase the article and get out of RadioInsight's wrath, but it won't be me since I don't have RadioInsight Premium.
 
Last edited:
Anonymouse said:
You mean 103.3?



Thanks, Frank. I thought that might be the case just had to check. From my understanding the original thread started out with an exact quote from material for RadioInsight premium subscribers only that was taken down after Lance called for it's removal. What happened to an open Internet with the ability to freely share information? Also I agree with Purple and think Lance is selling the information. I guess one can paraphrase the article and get out of RadioInsight's wrath, but it won't be me since I don't have RadioInsight Premium.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought was the case. Look, Lance has every right to charge for his work, he certainly can't be expected to continue to provide the work for free, but once a user purchases his premium service and is therefore privvy to the information supplied by Lance's site, that information becomes the property of the user as well, having paid for the privilege to view the premium service material.

If this is the standard being set, then each one of us should charge a fee to Streamline to post on this forum. After all, it's our time and effort put forth here that enables this forum to continue. Without our participation, you end up with the same fate here that happened to radio-talk.net. A dead forum is an unsustainable forum.

Unless, of course, that's the game plan. Now, that'll be $4.95. PayPal accepted.
 
purpledevil said:
I didn't see the original topic, David, so I'm a little in the dark here. Did someone post material that came from behind Lance's paywall? If so, the person that accessed the material, through payment of the nominal fee to Lance, would then "own" the material, not RadioInsight since the published material was made available to the public via payment to Lance for the services he is rendering.
Click to expand...

Paying to read Lance's material does not convey the right for one to allow others to read it for free. Think of buying a copy of Office; you pay for your usage but you can't make copies for your friends and develop a hack for the registration code. Or, closer to home, you may pay a couple of hundred dollars for Inside Radio. You can't take the publication and distribute it to all your friends as what you bought was a single use license.
 
DavidEduardo said:


Paying to read Lance's material does not convey the right for one to allow others to read it for free. Think of buying a copy of Office; you pay for your usage but you can't make copies for your friends and develop a hack for the registration code. Or, closer to home, you may pay a couple of hundred dollars for Inside Radio. You can't take the publication and distribute it to all your friends as what you bought was a single use license.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle. When I'm done with the paper, and someone wants it afterwards, I'm willing to hand it over to my neighbor, family member, etc. I paid for it, so it's mine to do with what I wish. Lance no longer "owns" the material once he released the information to the public for consumption.

Well, it's not my fight since I didn't post it, but one day we'll likely have to cross this bridge again when Daily Domains presents information regarding something transpiring in Houston and I post it here for others to pontificate.
 
Purple as I said earlier you probably can paraphrase the article and be fine. My understanding is that paraphrasing is okay, since it's different wording.

Funnily enough I did ask RadioInsight yesterday if they would include PayPal as a payment method for their premium service. So far however I have no response. I would prefer PayPal if I were to get premium, as undoubtedly others would too.
 
Anonymouse said:
Purple as I said earlier you probably can paraphrase the article and be fine. My understanding is that paraphrasing is okay, since it's different wording.
Click to expand...

What you are describing is "fair use" which allows, legally, small extracts of a larger piece for the purpose of review, citations, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use is a "fairly" clear explanation.
 
purpledevil said:
I disagree. I have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle. When I'm done with the paper, and someone wants it afterwards, I'm willing to hand it over to my neighbor, family member, etc. I paid for it, so it's mine to do with what I wish. Lance no longer "owns" the material once he released the information to the public for consumption.
Click to expand...

But your copy is still a single copy. It is not reproduced into thousands of other copies and sold or distributed.
 
Ok, now if he was plagiarized word for word and presented here at RD as the OP's own findings, without credit to Lance for his work, that's different. I was under the impression that the subject material itself being posted was the issue. My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part.
 
DavidEduardo said:


But your copy is still a single copy. It is not reproduced into thousands of other copies and sold or distributed.
Click to expand...

A single copy, David, that could feasibly go through thousands of people's hands if it were passed along from person to person. Just look how many people touch and read a single copy of the paper in a day at, say, the doctor's office.
 
purpledevil said:
Lance no longer "owns" the material once he released the information to the public for consumption.
Click to expand...

Where did you study law? I'd like to know so I can tell people where not to enroll.

I'm sure Lance politely asked for his copyrighted material to be removed. As the copyright holder, he has every right to do that, even if you don't think he does. That's the law. He may well have politely hinted that he would bring a lawsuit against Streamline if it wasn't removed.

I suspect that, if Frank had not complied, Lance would have then asked for the identity of the person who posted the copyrighted material. Even if just an e-mail address or IP, he could have then checked his own database and the person who violated the copyright would likely get his account cancelled, with no refund.

If you were that person, would you then scream that Lance didn't have the right to kick you out?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom