Pirate Cat Will Stay Off Air
David Kaye
Given that they've always managed to move the transmitter somewhere else and
start all over again, I just figured they'd be back as soon as they found
someone else to house the transmitter.
Well, apparently not so. There's an article about the shutdown in the current
SF Weekly. It appears that Monkey wants to play by the rules now. I guess
nobody's told him that it's not going to get him very far given that there are
no FM channels available for miles around and nobody's about to sell him a
station, even if he could afford to buy one.
Some excerpts from the story:
[talking about how public Pirate Cat had been] "Now all that exposure could
cost the organization's founder, 28-year-old Daniel K. Roberts (better known
as "Monkey"), $10,000 in fines from the FCC � and it has pushed his station
off the air."
"For a good year and a half, agents stopped visiting Pirate Cat completely. "
[....]"On Aug. 31, the FCC issued Monkey a "notice of apparent liability" for
operating an unlicensed broadcast radio station. The notice gave him 30 days
to either pay up or challenge the fine. In response, Monkey hired a lawyer to
protest the agency's claims, and the station shut down its terrestrial signal
in mid-October, keeping its 24-hour broadcasts Web-only."
[....]"The station is currently staffed by 83 volunteers and nine interns.
Pirate DJs around the world can transfer the organization's Internet stream
into a terrestrial broadcast simply by connecting their computer to a radio
transmitter. Monkey explains that the shows have been broadcast around the
city and around the world, as far away as Canada and Honduras."
[...] "Monkey is using the fact that anyone can transmit Pirate Cat Radio as
his defense. Through his lawyer, he sent a letter to the FCC that refutes the
charge that he's personally responsible for Pirate Cat's terrestrial
broadcasts. His attorney, Michael Couzens, wrote that none of the locations to
which the FCC traced Pirate Cat's radio transmissions � on Post Street and
Corbett Street � were directly under Monkey's control. "
[....] "But after the FCC notice, he's agreed to steer clear of any illegally
transmitted radio stations, instead putting his efforts into advocating for
change through legal channels. [....] but he hopes his negotiations with the
agency will lead to rules that make it easier on the independent broadcaster."
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
spamtrap1888
> Well, apparently not so. There's an article about the shutdown in the current
> SF Weekly. It appears that Monkey wants to play by the rules now. I guess
> nobody's told him that it's not going to get him very far given that there are
> no FM channels available for miles around and nobody's about to sell him a
> station, even if he could afford to buy one.
>
Why does he need a transmitter when he' could stream live?
> [....]"On Aug. 31, the FCC issued Monkey a "notice of apparent liability" for
> operating an unlicensed broadcast radio station. The notice gave him 30 days
> to either pay up or challenge the fine. In response, Monkey hired a lawyer to
> protest the agency's claims, and the station shut down its terrestrial signal
> in mid-October, keeping its 24-hour broadcasts Web-only."
There you go.
>
> [....]"The station is currently staffed by 83 volunteers and nine interns.
> Pirate DJs around the world can transfer the organization's Internet stream
> into a terrestrial broadcast simply by connecting their computer to a radio
> transmitter. Monkey explains that the shows have been broadcast around the
> city and around the world, as far away as Canada and Honduras."
> [....] "But after the FCC notice, he's agreed to steer clear of any illegally
> transmitted radio stations, instead putting his efforts into advocating for
> change through legal channels. [....] but he hopes his negotiations with the
> agency will lead to rules that make it easier on the independent broadcaster."
somebody suggested a network of Part 15 transmittters, right?
I found this cool looking how-to here:
spamtrap1888
I meant to ask: Is Pirate Cat in compliance with ASCAP and BMI
licensing requirements? I ask because he has shown a tendency to flout
the rules.
David Kaye
>I meant to ask: Is Pirate Cat in compliance with ASCAP and BMI
>licensing requirements? I ask because he has shown a tendency to flout
>the rules.
I have no idea. I have only been there once, and was only in the cafe
section, and didn't talk to anyone but the guy who sold me a cookie and a
really bad Italian soda.
John Higdon
<56ad493b-4f54-4dc8...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I meant to ask: Is Pirate Cat in compliance with ASCAP and BMI
> licensing requirements? I ask because he has shown a tendency to flout
> the rules.
He'll have plenty of fees to pay if he streams.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
David Kaye
>
>He'll have plenty of fees to pay if he streams.
He's been streaming all along. This is how he's been broadcast not only in SF
but also LA and Berlin.
Phil Kane
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>somebody suggested a network of Part 15 transmittters, right?
That was suggested to Dunifer 'way back when. He told the inspector
to F*** himself. The rest is history.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>He's been streaming all along. This is how he's been broadcast not only in SF
>but also LA and Berlin.
Heck, I guess my morning newscasts tomorrow will be broadcast in SF,
LA and Berlin. :D
OK, so no one will attach a transmitter to the stream...
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> He's been streaming all along. This is how he's been broadcast not only in
> SF
> but also LA and Berlin.
So he has been paying his fees?
I guess it is easy enough to find out.
leansto...@democrat.com
The FM broadcast band is pretty close to VHF aviation band. Going on
the cheap is probably not a good idea. Now AM pirates are another
story.
There is/was a microcaster in Marin that had lots of parts 15 sites.
leansto...@democrat.com
A bit OT, but Logitech is running a special on their new "radio". Use
SBRADIO as the promo code and you get $30 off and free shipping.
David Kaye
>So he has been paying his fees?
>
Again, I have no idea. I don't know the guy and I've only visited the place
once, and didn't go near the studio.
Dave Barnett
>
> So he has been paying his fees?
>
> I guess it is easy enough to find out.
>
I don't listen that often, but my observations are that he is probably
steering clear of any CARP requirements, based on the music they play.
It is mostly local and independent.
The server is in the UK tho, so you never know.
Dave B.
John Slade
Overseas servers are the way to go for lots of services.
There are a lot less regulations in some countries and less cost
too.
John
John Slade
> On Nov 13, 1:13 am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> Well, apparently not so. There's an article about the shutdown in the current
>> SF Weekly. It appears that Monkey wants to play by the rules now. I guess
>> nobody's told him that it's not going to get him very far given that there are
>> no FM channels available for miles around and nobody's about to sell him a
>> station, even if he could afford to buy one.
>>
>
> Why does he need a transmitter when he' could stream live?
This is what I was thinking. I have never been able to get
Pirate Cat Radio's signal here in Oakland. It was apparently too
weak. But never had a problem getting the Internet feed. The
Internet is great for the independent stations. They have the
potential of a huge audience. If they know how to promote and
market their station, they could really build something big.
Then who knows, satellite radio, or make enough money to
actually buy a station.
John
David Kaye
> This is what I was thinking. I have never been able to get
>Pirate Cat Radio's signal here in Oakland. It was apparently too
>weak.
That's odd. I used to get it all the time from Richmond south to just
past the Coliseum in Oakland. Then I was able to pick it up again in
Hayward.
As for why not just streaming, radio has a far larger potential audience than
streaming.
> But never had a problem getting the Internet feed. The
>Internet is great for the independent stations. They have the
>potential of a huge audience. If they know how to promote and
>market their station, they could really build something big.
At the current state of the art this is BS. Look at Last.FM -- they are owned
by CBS and have a huge bankroll behind them. Tell me when was the last time
you listened to them?
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Overseas servers are the way to go for lots of services.
> There are a lot less regulations in some countries and less cost
> too.
That would not put them beyond the jurisdiction of the US. If the
program originates in San Francisco, that's where they'll be dealt with.
Now, if they would like to move the entire operation to the UK...
I don't know if you have noticed that the Brits and the Canadians are
more aggressive at enforcing copyrights than we are here!
Mike Ward
wrote:
>That's odd. I used to get it all the time from Richmond south to just
>past the Coliseum in Oakland. Then I was able to pick it up again in
>Hayward.
>
>As for why not just streaming, radio has a far larger potential audience than
>streaming.
Not a station with those parameters, what's apparently not even the
equivalent of a legal Class A station.
>At the current state of the art this is BS. Look at Last.FM -- they are owned
>by CBS and have a huge bankroll behind them. Tell me when was the last time
>you listened to them?
The other day, actually. All the major streaming music services now
have Android-based players, so I can listen on my new Droid. (Of
course, I can also listen to KGO, KCBS and a whole bunch of other
over-air traditional stations on the same device.)
Pandora and Slacker are there, too.
I think the more direct question should be: how are these services
going to make CBS (or other operators) any money? All of 'em are
free, though I think they all offer a "commercial free" pay service. I
didn't listen to Last.FM long enough to know if they have commercials.
David Kaye
>Not a station with those parameters, what's apparently not even the
>equivalent of a legal Class A station.
My experience listening to Pirate Cat was that their signal was nearly as good
as KNGY's (92.7 Class A) east of Twin Peaks. It was surprising, which is why
I asked some months ago if anybody had done any DF on the station. I was
convinced that Pirate Cat was running two transmitters given that their signal
was so good.
>The other day, actually. All the major streaming music services now
>have Android-based players, so I can listen on my new Droid. (Of
>course, I can also listen to KGO, KCBS and a whole bunch of other
>over-air traditional stations on the same device.)
I am not discounting the fact that Internet-based listening will someday
outdraw air listening by a wide margin, but I don't see it happening very
soon. It's simply too easy to turn on a radio with no muss, no fuss, no
subscription fees.
>I think the more direct question should be: how are these services
>going to make CBS (or other operators) any money?
Well, CBS is selling ads and subscriptions which I think are some kind of
premium sort of thing.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>My experience listening to Pirate Cat was that their signal was nearly as good
>as KNGY's (92.7 Class A) east of Twin Peaks. It was surprising, which is why
>I asked some months ago if anybody had done any DF on the station. I was
>convinced that Pirate Cat was running two transmitters given that their signal
>was so good.
But the main point remains...Pirate Cat, for all of its efforts, was
an anemic and variable signal. Commercial or even full-power non-comm
stations have struggles gaining audience in a major, crowded market
like SF...even with class A or low-level B facilities.
>I am not discounting the fact that Internet-based listening will someday
>outdraw air listening by a wide margin, but I don't see it happening very
>soon. It's simply too easy to turn on a radio with no muss, no fuss, no
>subscription fees.
I'm not a huge "music radio" listener, so I'm possibly not the one who
should be answering this...but the online experience on modern
smartphones like the Droid and the iPhone is pretty seemless. You
either already have the app, or download it (iTunes Store, Android
Market), it puts an icon on your phone, and you click...you might have
to "log in" the first time.
>Well, CBS is selling ads and subscriptions which I think are some kind of
>premium sort of thing.
Yeah, I know WHAT they're doing, I'm just wondering how they're making
money off of it...i.e. how much, is it an experiment right now, etc...
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I know WHAT they're doing, I'm just wondering how they're making
> money off of it...i.e. how much, is it an experiment right now, etc...
That's a good question. KKIQ, KKDV, and KUIC have all pulled their
streams. The fees now charged by the record companies have made this
venture unbearable, cost-wise. They're not going to be the only ones.
Most stations, even if they haven't pulled the streams themselves have
removed the Arbitron encoding. Why pay Arbitron for what amounts to
guesswork when it comes to listener count when they can get exact number
off their servers?
But it's worse than that. Very few stations' streaming (VERY FEW) have
even shown up in the Arbitron reports since the numbers are so low. At
the moment, streaming for radio stations is still an insignificant
portion of the stations' listening audience, but with the new fees, it
is extremely expensive.
But wait! There's MORE bad news. Nothing is showing up on the HD-2
stuff, either! I'll say it again: Arbitron's PPM has yet to show a
single, solitary appearance of an HD-2 channel on the report! (HD-1
isn't split out because it is 100% duplication of the main analog
channel.)
So...it would appear that radio stations' main, analog carrier is STILL
the bread and butter. CBS' and Clear Channel's messing around with these
alternatives amounts to that "masturbation without the happy ending" I
mentioned in another post.
Just thought you'd like to know.
David Kaye
>removed the Arbitron encoding. Why pay Arbitron for what amounts to
>guesswork when it comes to listener count when they can get exact number
>off their servers?
This leads me to a question: How far apart are the Arbitron numbers versus
the actual server count? This would be a good way to track the validity of
the PPM overall since there's a solid standard to test against.
leansto...@democrat.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:29:58 GMT, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
On the Squeezebox, you hit favorites and go down the list. It is
pretty painless. On the blackberry, there is no one uniform
application for streaming. The clear channel streams need iheartradio.
The BBC is on Flycast. KQED is on Nobex.
If the streams had static locations, you wouldn't need any of these
streaming programs on the BB. The Squeezebox use OPML, which somehow
knows the URL of the stream. For instance, I'm listening to KFI on
http://opml.radiotime.com/Tunes.ashx?id=s32618&partnerId=16
I can't tell if it's ELL DEE or EYE DEE. Neither link works in a
browser.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> This leads me to a question: How far apart are the Arbitron numbers versus
> the actual server count? This would be a good way to track the validity of
> the PPM overall since there's a solid standard to test against.
It's all over the map. Remember, the server tracks every single computer
and every single moment. The pitifully small PPM sample is totally hit
and miss. The best way to describe it is to bake two loaves of raisin
bread. The first, one counts the raisins that have been added to the
dough before the bread is baked (server count) and the second tossing
the raisins into the dough and then baking the bread, and then sticking
a probe into the loaf about five times, counting the raisins contacted,
and then extrapolating how many total raisins are in the bread.
Bottom line: the PPM sample is way too small to provide meaningful data.
Thursday evening, a group of engineers representing four Bay Area
clusters traded "sample error" stories that included discussions of PPM
data with regard to main, HD-2, and streaming.
Yes, the stations use Arbitron because it is all they have, not because
it is really any good. At the very least, stations need to average a
multi-month period to make the best of a bad situation. The general
consensus is that diaries with larger sample groups (but with a few
errors) are superior to PPM micro-samples, even if they are mechanically
more accurate within their tiny scope.
David Kaye
>It's all over the map. Remember, the server tracks every single computer
>and every single moment. The pitifully small PPM sample is totally hit
>and miss.
So, you're saying that PPM sometimes undercounts and sometimes overcounts
versus server logs, and that there is no relation to reality at all? That's a
fairly serious charge, and in fact, the basis of a lawsuit in New York and
elsewhere.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>That's a good question. KKIQ, KKDV, and KUIC have all pulled their
>streams. The fees now charged by the record companies have made this
>venture unbearable, cost-wise. They're not going to be the only ones.
We have three streams - two for the FM music station simulcasts. Those
are sponsored. I'm pretty sure the streams would go away without a
sponsor, due to the fees you talk about.
Our AM stream is an in-house automated all
news/information/interview/sports feed. It pulls the live newscasts
off of the on-air signal, and fills the rest of the hour with various
news interviews and features.
The AM station does an oldies music format outside news, but that is
not simulcast on the stream at all. Again, the excessive music fees
for streaming pretty much make it a given that the oldies music will
never hit the streaming audio on the AM side.
>But it's worse than that. Very few stations' streaming (VERY FEW) have
>even shown up in the Arbitron reports since the numbers are so low. At
>the moment, streaming for radio stations is still an insignificant
>portion of the stations' listening audience, but with the new fees, it
>is extremely expensive.
It feels to me like we're "holding a place" for wherever the future of
"radio" goes, but it doesn't feel like there's a lot of money in the
mix right now.
On the AM side, the streaming is relatively inexpensive, since we
don't do the music or pay those music fees as a result. It always
seemed to me like whoever's extracting these fees (record companies,
etc.) are just trying to make their cash no matter if the cash is NOT
ACTUALLY THERE from the streaming.
Mike Ward
>On the Squeezebox, you hit favorites and go down the list. It is
>pretty painless. On the blackberry, there is no one uniform
>application for streaming. The clear channel streams need iheartradio.
>The BBC is on Flycast. KQED is on Nobex.
I was mainly talking about what the big streamers are doing
financially (since David brought up Last.FM, which is owned by CBS
now).
But since we're here...on my new Droid, it's similar to the
Blackberry. The Droid mostly seems to handle MP3 streaming right now,
and there are three or four popular apps for that (StreamFurious,
StreamItAll, etc.). A couple of "Pro" versions claim to do AAC, but I
haven't tried the pay apps yet.
No Windows Media/WMV/ASF streaming on the Droid yet, as far as I can
tell...and the IHeartRadio folks are apparently interested in wide
expansion of formats, including Android, if you believe their Twitter
feed.
But the whole thing, including your Squeezebox example, leads to me to
once again ask a regular question of mine. How does one deal with
this in the car, when that time comes?
Will there be, when mobile bandwidth is more widely available (or via
cell/3G/4G whatever), an "Internet radio" receiver in the car, like a
car radio?
Sounds good, right? Well, how many online radio stations are there,
and how will a listener go through them while trying to drive a
vehicle???
Would the "Internet radio" use GPS to detect locally-focused stations
and put them on presets? How in the world would you limit such a
list, even if you discount out-of-area streaming stations entirely?
You can't "tune across the Internet" on a "car Internet radio" like
you can on a fixed broadcast band with only a handful of stations on
each band.
leansto...@democrat.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:54:50 -0800 (PST),
>
If the stream carries commercials, it seems to me it is already
monetized, so why the shell game to hide the URL?
The Squeezebox at least has a search button (ok, menu) for internet
radio, so you feed it a bit of info and it can usually find the
stream. The internet car radio will have to be that simple. It will
need presets, and once beyond a few buttons, a knob to dial through
the presets.
Since every Squeezebox has an unique ID, you can log into your account
and it can monitor your box, or let you program it via the internet.
This is useful for the streams you can't find via the search feature,
or to set up music services like pandora. You can also force feed the
Squeezebox via the Squeeze network any streaming URL. I've done this
for a few airports, i.e. stream the air traffic control to my
Squeezebox. I've also done this on the blackberry via Moodio.
The Squeeze network to some degree can find podcasts too,. That
feature can use a bit of work. But it does find stuff like Science
Friday,etc.
Getting back to Android, not only can Google code, they can do QA too.
Their software is just so robust. The old G1 phone rarely had lockups.
spamtrap1888
> John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
> >It's all over the map. Remember, the server tracks every single computer
> >and every single moment. The pitifully small PPM sample is totally hit
> >and miss.
>
> So, you're saying that PPM sometimes undercounts and sometimes overcounts
> versus server logs, and that there is no relation to reality at all? That's a
> fairly serious charge, and in fact, the basis of a lawsuit in New York and
> elsewhere.
>
I would hope that somebody knowledgeable about "confidence intervals"
spelled out everything up-front in the contract. In fact I would
expect that for any contract depending on statistical sampling
techniques.
Mike Russell
> I knew that Pirate Cat Radio was off the air and has been for some time.
I'm probably the last one to say something like this but I'm glad that
they are off of the air. The 3 times that I tuned into their signal
earlier this year I heard the F-word used more than once each
time..the S-word more than I can count. That is not something that
should go out over the airwaves. Call me prude, I could care less.
-Mike
David Kaye
> I would hope that somebody knowledgeable about "confidence intervals"
> spelled out everything up-front in the contract. In fact I would
> expect that for any contract depending on statistical sampling
> techniques.
I may be totally wrong here, but I foresee in the very near future
that advertisers will want some kind of real verification that their
ads work. In other words, I see that they will be so used to the
Google way of doing things -- basing ad dollars on click-throughs --
that I foresee that advertisers will eventually be demanding ad
"keys" (special phone numbers, special web sites) so that the actual
value of the advertising can be tracked.
Now that I think of this, this might be a new business -- a third
party verification system, like a sort of Verisign for tracking radio/
TV ad response.
I just don't think that Arbitron methods are going to be good enough
anymore.
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> So, you're saying that PPM sometimes undercounts and sometimes overcounts
> versus server logs, and that there is no relation to reality at all? That's
> a
> fairly serious charge, and in fact, the basis of a lawsuit in New York and
> elsewhere.
You bet I am. It couldn't be any other way. In the end, it is "educated"
guesswork.
And it would be proven how, and at what cost in a court of law? But
since it is much worse now than it was in the days of the diaries, you
can bet that stations aren't sitting still.
John Higdon
<5b1ce100-ceab-47fc...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I may be totally wrong here, but I foresee in the very near future
> that advertisers will want some kind of real verification that their
> ads work.
You mean you couldn't tell that your radio spots worked? All Arbitron
does is claim that so many people were exposed to the radio at certain
times of the day...not that the ad campaign worked.
> In other words, I see that they will be so used to the
> Google way of doing things -- basing ad dollars on click-throughs --
> that I foresee that advertisers will eventually be demanding ad
> "keys" (special phone numbers, special web sites) so that the actual
> value of the advertising can be tracked.
If people can't distinguish between "exposure" and "effectiveness", then
they have no business even bothering with advertising.
> Now that I think of this, this might be a new business -- a third
> party verification system, like a sort of Verisign for tracking radio/
> TV ad response.
Verification services that report on spots actually running have been
around for a long time.
> I just don't think that Arbitron methods are going to be good enough
> anymore.
Golly, I've been saying that now for some time.
David Kaye
> But
> since it is much worse now than it was in the days of the diaries, you
> can bet that stations aren't sitting still.
But how can it be worse than in the diary days? In those days people
listed extinct callsigns and retired DJs they claimed they'd heard.
John Higdon
<fde2bbc6-2dca-4d43...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But how can it be worse than in the diary days? In those days people
> listed extinct callsigns and retired DJs they claimed they'd heard.
Better that than some of the statistical aberrations they're getting
now. If a station that isn't even on the air gets listed, that's obvious
and can be discounted. Having KUIC appear as #1 6+ in any time period is
something else again. Makes you wonder what else is wrong with the
numbers, no?
The affect you are mentioning is known as "affinity". Arbitron is in the
process of addressing this very thing. It wouldn't be surprising if
after their adjustments we end up right back where we were...just with
courser samples.
David Kaye
>You mean you couldn't tell that your radio spots worked?
Most advertisers buy on multiple stations. I've noticed a trend lately among
smaller advertisers to key their responses, such as "Click on the microphone
and enter the code "Leo" for the special offer".
Larger advertisers that are either mass merchandisers such as Home Depot, or
are using tombstone spots aren't going to be able to differentiate.
>All Arbitron
>does is claim that so many people were exposed to the radio at certain
>times of the day...not that the ad campaign worked.
But given the immense success of Google and other Web advertising systems I
predict that this will change, rendering Arbitron obsolete. Nielsen has gone
to the Web in a big way, however.
>If people can't distinguish between "exposure" and "effectiveness", then
>they have no business even bothering with advertising.
Exposure doesn't matter if it's not effective at some point. Even Coca Cola
with their ubiquitous name on everything that's nailed down has begun to see
that exposure can be way too expensive if it doesn't increase sales. In
recent years they've pulled back on their sign allowance. Used to be that you
could put up any old sign for your business and Coca Cola would pay to paint
it if their name was prominently displayed.
>Verification services that report on spots actually running have been
>around for a long time.
I don't mean that at all. I mean companies that would track actual sales via
phone and Web. In other words, your call center business could participate in
such a venture as a disinterested third party. You'd provide phone numbers
and URLs that were tied in with advertising in order to track how
campaigns are running on particular stations.
David Kaye
>I'm probably the last one to say something like this but I'm glad that
>they are off of the air. The 3 times that I tuned into their signal
>earlier this year I heard the F-word used more than once each
>time..the S-word more than I can count. That is not something that
>should go out over the airwaves. Call me prude, I could care less.
I'm not a prude, but I agree that there should probably be some sense of
decorum around radio broadcasting. HOWEVER, the programming Pirate Cat
offered was far and away better than what about 70 out of 75 local stations
are doing. And that's why I'm sad to see them go.
I'm not talking about somebody playing their favorite rock music. I'm talking
about discussions about neighborhood issues, live music in-studio or out on
the sidewalk, a couple magazine-format programs that were really very good.
And they even played some of those oldtime radio mysteries overnight.
leansto...@democrat.com
It wouldn't kill them to at least pretend they are a radio station and
watch the language. I put their stream on early Saturday evening. Lots
of F-bombs. It's a decent feed (128kbps mp3 CBR). They are holding
events to raise money for their legal defense.
They should really just stick to streaming. OT, but lately my favorite
music stream is KPIG. A bit annoying in that I think they play a
constant medley during commercial breaks, i.e. snippets of sound that
probably match the commercial slot to the second. But good music
programming.
John Slade
> In article <hdn8h1$g1b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Overseas servers are the way to go for lots of services.
>> There are a lot less regulations in some countries and less cost
>> too.
>
> That would not put them beyond the jurisdiction of the US. If the
> program originates in San Francisco, that's where they'll be dealt with.
They won't be, "dealt with" at all. It's not illegal to
stream a radio show. However you seem to want it to be illegal.
>
> Now, if they would like to move the entire operation to the UK...
Wouldn't matter if they did or didn't, nothing legal can
be done to them for streaming their station. In fact there are
many many Internet radio stations that are based right here in
the US. And many of them can broadcast for very little or no money.
>
> I don't know if you have noticed that the Brits and the Canadians are
> more aggressive at enforcing copyrights than we are here!
>
But in some European countries, they don't care too much
about US copyright laws. Nothing can be done about that. This is
why all those major file sharing sites that deal in pirated
software, movies and audio content congregate in these
countries. One time the US government had to go through hoops to
shut one site down. It was back up very quickly.
I remember when you were hinting at some sort of legal
action being taken when I said I would post proof that
Wattenburg lied. You seem to think someone will come and knock
on my door and tell me to take that stuff down. Well that's just
plain silly. It doesn't work like that in the REAL WORLD. In the
real world, on Youtube they would just take it down and it would
go back up. You would have to make request after request after
request. On USENET, it's a different story. You would have to go
to a judge and prove it is not fair use and probably be open to
a counter suit. This is why nobody really wastes time or money
to go after commentary related content on Youtube or anywhere
else for that matter.
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> They won't be, "dealt with" at all. It's not illegal to
> stream a radio show. However you seem to want it to be illegal.
It's not illegal at all, if you honor the terms of the copyright holder.
The record companies have not relinquished their ownership of the songs
that are played just because it is "Pirate Cat".
> Wouldn't matter if they did or didn't, nothing legal can
> be done to them for streaming their station. In fact there are
> many many Internet radio stations that are based right here in
> the US. And many of them can broadcast for very little or no money.
You are privy to the contracts that they have signed with the licensing
agencies?
> But in some European countries, they don't care too much
> about US copyright laws. Nothing can be done about that. This is
> why all those major file sharing sites that deal in pirated
> software, movies and audio content congregate in these
> countries. One time the US government had to go through hoops to
> shut one site down. It was back up very quickly.
You need to wake up. Things are moving very quickly in the copyright
industry, and many countries (particularly in Europe) are even more
aggressive than the United States.
> I remember when you were hinting at some sort of legal
> action being taken when I said I would post proof that
> Wattenburg lied. You seem to think someone will come and knock
> on my door and tell me to take that stuff down. Well that's just
> plain silly. It doesn't work like that in the REAL WORLD. In the
> real world, on Youtube they would just take it down and it would
> go back up. You would have to make request after request after
> request. On USENET, it's a different story. You would have to go
> to a judge and prove it is not fair use and probably be open to
> a counter suit. This is why nobody really wastes time or money
> to go after commentary related content on Youtube or anywhere
> else for that matter.
You need to wake up. I know more than you think about legal action
against Usenet posters, even though I'm not an attorney. But it's your
issue, not mine. Do what you like.
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> This is what I was thinking. I have never been able to get
>> Pirate Cat Radio's signal here in Oakland. It was apparently too
>> weak.
>
> That's odd. I used to get it all the time from Richmond south to just
> past the Coliseum in Oakland. Then I was able to pick it up again in
> Hayward.
>
> As for why not just streaming, radio has a far larger potential audience than
> streaming.
>
>> But never had a problem getting the Internet feed. The
>> Internet is great for the independent stations. They have the
>> potential of a huge audience. If they know how to promote and
>> market their station, they could really build something big.
>
> At the current state of the art this is BS.
No it's not. The current state of the art? Exactly what
are you talking about here? Thousands can listen to broadcasts
even millions through networks.
> Look at Last.FM -- they are owned
> by CBS and have a huge bankroll behind them. Tell me when was the last time
> you listened to them?
I'm not talking about some large operation here. Just an
operation big enough to create an audience and word of mouth.
Have you ever heard of anyone getting famous because of millions
of viewers viewing their videos and such? Youtube, that site is
driven by user content and it's making a shitload of money. If
you haven't noticed major artists and labels are putting content
on sites like Youtube. It's just all a matter of the broadcaster
finding the best way to reach it's audience.
John
John Slade
"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hdr0an$m6r$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mike Russell <squ...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm probably the last one to say something like this but I'm glad that
>>they are off of the air. The 3 times that I tuned into their signal
>>earlier this year I heard the F-word used more than once each
>>time..the S-word more than I can count. That is not something that
>>should go out over the airwaves. Call me prude, I could care less.
>
> I'm not a prude, but I agree that there should probably be some sense of
> decorum around radio broadcasting. HOWEVER, the programming Pirate Cat
> offered was far and away better than what about 70 out of 75 local
> stations
> are doing. And that's why I'm sad to see them go.
Do you have any information that they are not going to stream any more?
Are you saying they're going to shut down completely?
>
> I'm not talking about somebody playing their favorite rock music. I'm
> talking
> about discussions about neighborhood issues, live music in-studio or out
> on
> the sidewalk, a couple magazine-format programs that were really very
> good.
> And they even played some of those oldtime radio mysteries overnight.
Those old time radio shows are all over the net. Thousands of episodes.
You can find them at OldTimeRadio.com and www.otr.net. I also think more may
be available at The Internet Archive at www.archive.org in the audio
section. They have entire series for download like Dimension X and Gunsmoke.
John
John Slade
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-C31216....@news.announcetech.com...
> In article <hdsdtj$ngq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> They won't be, "dealt with" at all. It's not illegal to
>> stream a radio show. However you seem to want it to be illegal.
>
> It's not illegal at all, if you honor the terms of the copyright holder.
> The record companies have not relinquished their ownership of the songs
> that are played just because it is "Pirate Cat".
>
If the show is played from an offshore site that has no copyright laws,
then there is very little that can be done. You have the music industry and
movie industry crying about this now. They're trying to stop it but they
don't have the means to stop it. I don't know if you know this but just
about every major artist's albums are downloaded for free by many people and
nothing is being done to stop that. It's too many people and too easy here
in the US, forget about going after someone overseas. I suggest you might
watch the film "Steal This Movie", it's free for download.
>> Wouldn't matter if they did or didn't, nothing legal can
>> be done to them for streaming their station. In fact there are
>> many many Internet radio stations that are based right here in
>> the US. And many of them can broadcast for very little or no money.
>
> You are privy to the contracts that they have signed with the licensing
> agencies?
>
>> But in some European countries, they don't care too much
>> about US copyright laws. Nothing can be done about that. This is
>> why all those major file sharing sites that deal in pirated
>> software, movies and audio content congregate in these
>> countries. One time the US government had to go through hoops to
>> shut one site down. It was back up very quickly.
>
> You need to wake up. Things are moving very quickly in the copyright
> industry, and many countries (particularly in Europe) are even more
> aggressive than the United States.
Yea and in some European countries they don't give a damn. The control
freaks can't control everything. They even have an illusion about what they
control now.
>
>> I remember when you were hinting at some sort of legal
>> action being taken when I said I would post proof that
>> Wattenburg lied. You seem to think someone will come and knock
>> on my door and tell me to take that stuff down. Well that's just
>> plain silly. It doesn't work like that in the REAL WORLD. In the
>> real world, on Youtube they would just take it down and it would
>> go back up. You would have to make request after request after
>> request. On USENET, it's a different story. You would have to go
>> to a judge and prove it is not fair use and probably be open to
>> a counter suit. This is why nobody really wastes time or money
>> to go after commentary related content on Youtube or anywhere
>> else for that matter.
>
> You need to wake up. I know more than you think about legal action
> against Usenet posters, even though I'm not an attorney. But it's your
> issue, not mine. Do what you like.
No you're the one who needs to wake up. I think you need to go to some
of those sites and look at the content. Some stuff stays up forever, some
stuff goes down and says down, some stuff goes down and gets put right back
up. I see it every day.
As for USENET litigation, that's a pretty funny thing to me. Someone
claiming slander and suing on USENET is the same as a six year old whining
to a teacher that someone called them a bad name. That's why it's only done
by the most pathetic and insecure people. These people are rare. However one
area on USENET and other Internet services where the law is involved is
cyberstalking. There are all kinds of weirdoes on the Internet and you have
some who have stalked people. Lots of people have been put in jail for
cyberstalking and trying to harm people. Cops do stings to catch sick people
all the time.
John
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> This is what I was thinking. I have never been able to get
>>Pirate Cat Radio's signal here in Oakland. It was apparently too
>>weak.
>
> That's odd. I used to get it all the time from Richmond south to just
> past the Coliseum in Oakland. Then I was able to pick it up again in
> Hayward.
>
Well maybe it's because I probably tried two or three times in the
last few years. I didn't bother trying it again. I streamed them and
sometimes they played stuff that made my ears bleed and other times they
actually played something I liked.
John
Dave Barnett
> But wait! There's MORE bad news. Nothing is showing up on the HD-2
> stuff, either! I'll say it again: Arbitron's PPM has yet to show a
> single, solitary appearance of an HD-2 channel on the report! (HD-1
> isn't split out because it is 100% duplication of the main analog
> channel.)
>
I'm just wondering - does the PPM even work on HD? Seems like the
watermark they add would be something that a digital compression
algorithm would throw away.
Dave B.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>That would not put them beyond the jurisdiction of the US. If the
>program originates in San Francisco, that's where they'll be dealt with.
>
>Now, if they would like to move the entire operation to the UK...
After having been burned by Radio Caroline and several others, the
Brits shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to radio
violators.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
John Higdon
Dave Barnett <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just wondering - does the PPM even work on HD? Seems like the
> watermark they add would be something that a digital compression
> algorithm would throw away.
The watermark is VERY robust. The only thing that seems to interfere is
programming with silence gaps in it.
John Higdon
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> As for USENET litigation, that's a pretty funny thing to me. Someone
> claiming slander and suing on USENET is the same as a six year old whining
> to a teacher that someone called them a bad name. That's why it's only done
> by the most pathetic and insecure people.
So you wouldn't mind if someone started using your real name in posts,
talking about your deviant sexual practices (that were made up from
whole cloth), your dishonest business practices (again, completely made
up), and then claimed that you were HIV positive (when you are HIV
negative) and accused you of going around infecting people on purpose?
And then when your clients and potential clients started asking what all
that was about, and asking why that person would say those things if
they weren't true, you wouldn't mind? And then after it had gone on for
months and months and you were not only getting sick of it but were
losing business, you couldn't get the person to stop...that would be OK?
Somehow, I can't believe you wouldn't consider using the courts
somewhere along the line.
David Kaye
> No it's not. The current state of the art? Exactly what
>are you talking about here? Thousands can listen to broadcasts
>even millions through networks.
But it's not happening. Remember that stations have been setting up separate
Arbitron PPM signals for their streams and they're showing that very very very
few people are listening.
> I'm not talking about some large operation here. Just an
>operation big enough to create an audience and word of mouth.
You're a dreamer. There has been *some* online viewing of TV network feeds,
but radio? It's so low it's down in the noise.
David Kaye
> Do you have any information that they are not going to stream any more?
>Are you saying they're going to shut down completely?
How many times do I have to say it? The FM signal gets more listeners than
the stream. People I know who follow all this stuff, in fact, people who are
part of the community that supports Pirate Cat don't even consider it viable
at this time.
> Those old time radio shows are all over the net. Thousands of episodes.
That's not the point. There is nothing like hearing them on the radio while
driving up along Skyline Drive on the Peninsula on a foggy summer night.
spamtrap1888
> "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Those old time radio shows are all over the net. Thousands of episodes.
>
> That's not the point. There is nothing like hearing them on the radio while
> driving up along Skyline Drive on the Peninsula on a foggy summer night.
>
Agree 100%. I still miss the KNX Drama Hour (9pm, repeated at 2am).
But, driving home on 280 last weekend, I discovered Imagination
Theater, on KFMB 760 from San Diego. (I had been tuning up the dial,
counting the stations carrying Coast-to-Coast AM, when I discovered
it.)
KFMB for years carried the late lamented Hooked on Trivia, produced by
Mike Cook. Even his website is gone now. As I recall he was replaced
by Clark Howard's show.
Patty Winter
In article <558a21d2-0533-461c...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 12:07�am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>>
>> That's not the point. �There is nothing like hearing them on the radio while
>> driving up along Skyline Drive on the Peninsula on a foggy summer night. �
>>
>Agree 100%. I still miss the KNX Drama Hour (9pm, repeated at 2am).
>But, driving home on 280 last weekend, I discovered Imagination
>Theater, on KFMB 760 from San Diego. (I had been tuning up the dial,
>counting the stations carrying Coast-to-Coast AM, when I discovered
>it.)
I ran across an oldtime-style radio show a few Sunday nights ago...
I want to say that it was on KNEW or KKGN, or somewhere around that
part of the dial. Anyway, something for folks to check into if you're
interested.
Patty
David Kaye
>I ran across an oldtime-style radio show a few Sunday nights ago...
>I want to say that it was on KNEW or KKGN, or somewhere around that
>part of the dial. Anyway, something for folks to check into if you're
>interested.
The other night KNEW was running an "herbal" product infomercial that claimed
to cure colon cancer. Can Dr. Brinkley and his goat testicles be far behind?
cph...@gmail.com
> The other night KNEW was running an "herbal" product infomercial that claimed
> to cure colon cancer. Can Dr. Brinkley and his goat testicles be far behind?
We're there now....ever see some of the commercials on late-night
cable TV?
David Kaye
>We're there now....ever see some of the commercials on late-night
>cable TV?
I'm pleased to say that the last time I watched any late night TV was when
Conan took over the Tonight Show. That was what, 6 months ago?
John Slade
> In article <laoMm.16063$gd1....@newsfe05.iad>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> As for USENET litigation, that's a pretty funny thing to me. Someone
>> claiming slander and suing on USENET is the same as a six year old whining
>> to a teacher that someone called them a bad name. That's why it's only done
>> by the most pathetic and insecure people.
>
> So you wouldn't mind if someone started using your real name in posts,
> talking about your deviant sexual practices (that were made up from
> whole cloth), your dishonest business practices (again, completely made
> up), and then claimed that you were HIV positive (when you are HIV
> negative) and accused you of going around infecting people on purpose?
>
Nobody takes that kind of thing on USENET too seriously.
It happens all the time. Relatively few people read newsgroups
and even fewer believe everything they read on USENET. USENET is
like IRC, tons of things get said all the time of a personal
nature. It's nothing more than name calling to the vast majority
of people. If someone wants to spread rumors on USENET, there
isn't much that can be done about it. First of all you would
have to actually find the person doing it and there are lots of
ways to remain anonymous on USENET. Everything from using
someone else's wireless Internet by hacking, using wireless
access points around town and various other things. This is one
reason few people take personal attacks seriously. It is very
hard to prove who is even posting using a given IP if an IP is
even provided. To obtain that kind of information, someone would
need no less than a court order, to actually go into a building
and examine the computers. Then that person would open up
themselves to possible litigation for harassment and if the law
is involved, false arrest. This is a major reason the RIAA and
MPAA are getting wary of suing people who download copyrighted
material.
> And then when your clients and potential clients started asking what all
> that was about, and asking why that person would say those things if
> they weren't true, you wouldn't mind? And then after it had gone on for
> months and months and you were not only getting sick of it but were
> losing business, you couldn't get the person to stop...that would be OK?
I've had all kinds of rumors spread about me over my life
and somehow, I can go on making it. I think if someone's
customers are looking to USENET as a source of accurate personal
information on people, they are pretty stupid people. One would
wonder if they are capable of even using a computer to post on
USENET. I've seen people around me have horrible rumors spread
about them in person, had the entire neighborhood talking about
them. They were shunned basically. But they managed to survive.
Eventually the rumors faded. That person didn't feed the rumors,
they didn't take the rumors seriously. Then after a while nobody
else took them seriously. If a person gets really defensive and
takes action about rumors like that, then they actually help
people to believe the lies. It's wise to let things roll off the
back rather than get bent out of shape because someone told a
lie on them.
>
> Somehow, I can't believe you wouldn't consider using the courts
> somewhere along the line.
>
Nope. Not for someone doing this on USENET. Maybe if
someone got on the radio or took out an ad in the paper. Then
that would warrant something only in very extreme cases, but on
USENET, no way. Famous people have to deal with lies and rumors
being said about them all the time in print, on TV and on the
radio. If they sued everyone who did that, they would have no
time to work.
John
John Slade
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any information that they are not going to stream any more?
>> Are you saying they're going to shut down completely?
>
> How many times do I have to say it? The FM signal gets more listeners than
> the stream. People I know who follow all this stuff, in fact, people who are
> part of the community that supports Pirate Cat don't even consider it viable
> at this time.
>
I think this is the first time you said it. I wasn't
arguing with you, I was just asking a question.
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I think you have no idea what it's like to be in that position and your
answer is meaningless. I think twenty posts a day about your (using your
real name) deviant sexual practices, your dishonesty in business, and
your intentionally infecting people with AIDS, every day, month after
month, would change your armchair attitude somewhat.
John Slade
It's called having a thick skin and not letting someone
on USENET get to them. I've had all sorts of rumors spread about
me in the workplace before, in real life, not on USENET. Some
people just have a thin skin, are very self centered, think
they're better than everyone else and can't take the slightest
bit of criticism. I really laugh at people who are so fickle
that they let anything like that get to them. I don't know
anyone stupid enough to go to USENET, read someone has been
infecting others with AIDS and actually give it credibility.
Must be someone who doesn't have much of a social life, lives
alone and doesn't have a special someone. So USENET is their
social life and they take it too seriously. This is why if
someone says something on USENET like that, it's a good idea to
ask for proof.
It reminds me of when Willie Wattenburg was yammering
about when I called him a liar. I actually posted the comments
that proved that he lied. You then saw what happened, he shut
his mouth and hasn't come back. Case closed. Tough I will put up
the audio sometime for people to laugh at as it is really funny
to hear him talk about what happened a day or two after you
actually HEARD what happened.
BTW. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around someone
wanting some work done and actually basing that decision to hire
them on what someone says on USENET. That one has me stumped.
John
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> No it's not. The current state of the art? Exactly what
>> are you talking about here? Thousands can listen to broadcasts
>> even millions through networks.
>
> But it's not happening. Remember that stations have been setting up separate
> Arbitron PPM signals for their streams and they're showing that very very very
> few people are listening.
No, no, no. You're not understanding what I'm talking about.
People have become famous by using the Internet in the right
way. Ever hear of Shoutcast? I suppose you can't think of anyone
who put videos up on Youtube and got millions of people to look
and listen.
>
>> I'm not talking about some large operation here. Just an
>> operation big enough to create an audience and word of mouth.
>
> You're a dreamer. There has been *some* online viewing of TV network feeds,
> but radio? It's so low it's down in the noise.
>
No, I'm a realist. I see what's happening on Youtube and
other sites that can potentially make people a lot of money.
When anyone views something millions of times, that's
money-making potential through advertising and sales.
John
David Kaye
> No, I'm a realist. I see what's happening on Youtube and
>other sites that can potentially make people a lot of money.
>When anyone views something millions of times, that's
>money-making potential through advertising and sales.
You've changed the topic. We were talking about RADIO broadcasts via
Internet. You have changed it to YouTube. I have no argument about the
heavy use of video. I'm talking about listening to streams of RADIO
programming, and that is not large, and likely won't be for some time.
Thus, Pirate Cat will get much more listenership with an FM transmitter in the
Bay Area than a stream available worldwide. THAT is the current situation.
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No, I'm a realist. I see what's happening on Youtube and
> other sites that can potentially make people a lot of money.
> When anyone views something millions of times, that's
> money-making potential through advertising and sales.
Do you understand the difference between "potential" and "actual"? Most
on-line ventures are burning through venture capital, not even coming
close to being self-supporting, let alone making "a lot of money".
Have you seen YouTube's P&L?
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It's called having a thick skin and not letting someone
> on USENET get to them.
It is a lot more than that. Maybe one has to experience something to
really get it.
Phil Kane
>> The other night KNEW was running an "herbal" product infomercial that claimed
>> to cure colon cancer. �Can Dr. Brinkley and his goat testicles be far behind?
>
>We're there now....ever see some of the commercials on late-night
>cable TV?
Don't even have to have cable here -- the network affiliates,
allegedly the "big boys in town" - have them all night and on
weekends as well.
David Kaye
>Don't even have to have cable here -- the network affiliates,
>allegedly the "big boys in town" - have them all night and on
>weekends as well.
If there's anything I miss about local broadcast TV it's this:
(1) Late night movies KPIX used to run. There was no better place to see the
gems of bygone eras. KPIX was where I first saw Al Jolson's "The Jazz
Singer", as well as "42nd Street", and even "San Francisco", but it was also
the place to see clunkers that showed the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't quite
as golden as people remembered.
(2) KTVU's live wrestling matches. I had no idea that the Bay Area was
probably the center of both professional wrestling and roller derby. I had no
idea that other communities didn't have places like the Cow Palace to see
these bouts.
(3) Quirky kids' shows such as Mayor Art, Skipper Sedley (later Sir Sedley),
Mister Bob, Captain Satellite -- all live shows based around the gimmicks and
special interests of their hosts. Sedley was into inventions. Mister Bob
(Fillman) was into magic tricks. Bob March (Captain Satellite) was a space
buff. Mayor Art Finley was into news, education, politics, and getting kids
interested in this stuff. And then there was Marshall J...
Now what we get for local programming is...infomercials. National ones at
that. It would at least be fun if Margie the quiltmaker from San Lorenzo did
an infomercial about her quilts or Joe the carpenter showed off the new level
he had designed. Instead we get the most awful infomercials that make even
the county fair home show hucksters look good by comparison.
norml
>
>(1) Late night movies KPIX used to run. There was no better place to see the
>gems of bygone eras. KPIX was where I first saw Al Jolson's "The Jazz
>Singer", as well as "42nd Street", and even "San Francisco", but it was also
>the place to see clunkers that showed the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't quite
>as golden as people remembered.
Movies were on in the daytime, too. Remember "Del Courney's Movie Matinee?"
(Incidentally, the big 70th Anniversary DVD of "Wizard of Oz"includes an
MGM promotional booklet that lists available recordings of songs from the
picture--including a Vocalion disc of "Over the Rainbow" played by Del
Courtney's band. Courtney is also remembered as an afternoon jock in the
great days of KSFO. "Music is my business," he used to say. AIR his band
was undistinguished and of the "sweeet" variety.
>
>(3) Quirky kids' shows such as Mayor Art, Skipper Sedley (later Sir Sedley),
>Mister Bob, Captain Satellite -- all live shows based around the gimmicks and
>special interests of their hosts. Sedley was into inventions. Mister Bob
>(Fillman) was into magic tricks. Bob March (Captain Satellite) was a space
>buff. Mayor Art Finley was into news, education, politics, and getting kids
>interested in this stuff. And then there was Marshall J...
You left out Captain Fortune (KPIX) who, it turned out, was into little
kids.
Norm
David Kaye
>You left out Captain Fortune (KPIX) who, it turned out, was into little
>kids.
I was too young to remember Captain Fortune, and hopefully too young to be
noticed by him, too.
John Slade
> In article <he1sp3$plj$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> It's called having a thick skin and not letting someone
>> on USENET get to them.
>
> It is a lot more than that. Maybe one has to experience something to
> really get it.
>
I'm sure everyone has had dirt thrown on them. However you
have a few people who think they're above having dirt thrown on
them and they let it get to them. I understand a lot more than
you think about the subject. I've been on a job where rumors
about me led to me even getting fired, yet I didn't let it get
to me. As it stands now, I find that doing a good job, well
that's what gets spread rather than rumors. If you're nice to
people and do a good job, you greatly lessen the chance that
someone will spread rumors and if someone does, few people will
believe them.
As for someone going to USENET reading it and acting upon
rumors to the point that it interferes with their good judgment,
I think that's a load of bullshit.
John
leansto...@democrat.com
If the programming were compelling, people would stream it. I've
listened to Pirate Cat on and off. It's a novelty, but hardly must
hear radio.
Larry
remember what that creed was?
"David Kaye" <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:he4sqk$pvs$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Patty Winter
In article <he4v2j$eog$1...@aioe.org>, Larry <lv...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Who/whatthe Laham foundation that Captain Fortune hawked.... Does anyone
>remember what that creed was?
http://www.latham.org/posters1940.html
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I'm sure everyone has had dirt thrown on them. However you
> have a few people who think they're above having dirt thrown on
> them and they let it get to them. I understand a lot more than
> you think about the subject.
And so do I.
> As for someone going to USENET reading it and acting upon
> rumors to the point that it interferes with their good judgment,
> I think that's a load of bullshit.
Think what you like.
Now I realize how naive you really are.
John Slade
Not naive, I've seen a few lawsuits over what someone said
about someone else. But I don't know anyone stupid enough to
read a USENET post about someone and take it seriously. It's
bullshit.
John
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> No, I'm a realist. I see what's happening on Youtube and
>> other sites that can potentially make people a lot of money.
>> When anyone views something millions of times, that's
>> money-making potential through advertising and sales.
>
> You've changed the topic.
No I have not. It's always been about using the Internet.
>We were talking about RADIO broadcasts via
> Internet.
That's what YOU thought it was but I was talking about
using the Internet. Sorry if you didn't understand.
John
John Slade
> In article <he1tc6$rj2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> No, I'm a realist. I see what's happening on Youtube and
>> other sites that can potentially make people a lot of money.
>> When anyone views something millions of times, that's
>> money-making potential through advertising and sales.
>
> Do you understand the difference between "potential" and "actual"? Most
> on-line ventures are burning through venture capital, not even coming
> close to being self-supporting, let alone making "a lot of money".
Do you understand the difference between what is happening
and what isn't? You seem not to understand that people have
become famous in the Internet and made money. Ever hear of Perez
Hilton? He got famous by putting up a blog and a gossip web
site. He found his audience and got tons of hits, then
advertisers then he got really famous. If Pirate Cat can find
it's audience, they can make money using these methods. It's
done more and more every day.
>
> Have you seen YouTube's P&L?
>
This is irrelevant. I'm not talking about Youtube making
money. I'm talking about people using Youtube and other free
Internet services to get famous and make money. You seem to have
a problem comprehending the difference. I know of some rappers
and others who actually put their stuff up on Myspace and became
somewhat famous and made money.
John
John Slade
Pirate Cat's programming is OK, hardly anything I haven't
heard on other Intenet radio and college radio.
John
spamtrap1888
> You left out Captain Fortune (KPIX) who, it turned out, was into little
> kids.
>
I couldn't find anything about that on the web, just stuff that made
the host look like a multitalented artist and writer.
David Kaye
> Pirate Cat's programming is OK, hardly anything I haven't
>heard on other Intenet radio and college radio.
Usually the best stuff is happening on college radio.
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Did you read the part about someone posting ten or fifteen times a day,
using your real name (the one on your birth certificate), describing in
detail fantasies about YOUR sexual practices, describing (as if it were
documented fact) YOUR supposed dishonest business practices, and
repeatedly announcing to the world that you had and were a carrier of
loathsome diseases? That's quite a bit different from "what someone said
about someone else".
Oh, and did I mention it would be continued for month after month after
month without a single day of respite? And the only way you could make
it stop was not only filing a lawsuit, but getting a judgment and court
order?
So you would just let it go? Shall we see?
leansto...@democrat.com
I don't need my news analysis from a pimple faced kid where every
other word is shit or fuck.
I have to agree with John here, Pirate Cat sounds like a run of the
mill college station.
John Slade
> In article <he6sdc$i88$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Not naive, I've seen a few lawsuits over what someone said
>> about someone else. But I don't know anyone stupid enough to
>> read a USENET post about someone and take it seriously. It's
>> bullshit.
>
> Did you read the part about someone posting ten or fifteen times a day,
Yes. It's called spamming. Have you ever been in a
political newsgroup. I used to frequent one where people posted
more then 15 post a day about someone they actually knew. Yet
nobody took it seriously if it were true or not. Most people who
read USENET know that most of the personal stuff is just sour
grapes and childish name calling.
> using your real name (the one on your birth certificate),
What difference does this make? I use my real name that is
on my birth certificate. I've only had one problem back in the
mid 90's with a stalker who actually found where I lived and he
was arrested. So I know better than most what a risk it is to
put your real name up. In fact after that incident, for a while
I used a fake name on USENET and other sites. But I then
realized that hiding my real name wouldn't make much difference
as they can easily find where you live through your IP. They
just have to sort out what user is using that IP or even that
computer at the time. So real names don't make much of a
difference.
I never even tried to find out if someone was using their
real name or not on USENET because I'm not some crazy weirdo who
needs to get that personal. I can only imagine the mental
illness of someone like that. Why recently someone whom I can't
remember, claimed to "know" what my real name was, and claim I
was using a fake name to post on USENET. The first thing that
popped into my head was, does he know that there is no way to
really know who's using any given computer? I just took it as
bluster.
> describing in
> detail fantasies about YOUR sexual practices, describing (as if it were
> documented fact)
Yea, I've seen this and more. I've seen people actually
post facts about someone. Very disturbing and true facts, yet
they didn't lose any business because nobody believed them or
paid attention to them. They know what USENET is. It's the same
as someone calling me names on IRC. Nobody is gonna hear
something about me on there and believe it except for a fool.
>YOUR supposed dishonest business practices, and
> repeatedly announcing to the world that you had and were a carrier of
> loathsome diseases? That's quite a bit different from "what someone said
> about someone else".
No that is EXACTLY the point of someone saying something
like that. It's the same old thing that is done in real life.
However USENET makes it harder to believe. I even had someone at
a job be accused of having being HIV positive and having AIDS.
Yet, the truth came out, people considered the source of the
rumors and the person may have lost a phone number or two and a
job, but those rumors didn't get spread too far past that job
and circle of people. That person found another job and is doing
fine. For that matter I know people actually had AIDS and
managed to do well even though people knew it.
Just curious, are you used to being around a lot of people
and/or working in an office? Rumors get spread, gossip and
everything. Have you seen gossip about famous people lately?
People are accused of having herpes and all other illnesses and
they manage to keep singing and making tons of money.
>
> Oh, and did I mention it would be continued for month after month after
> month without a single day of respite?
This is called spam. This gives the rumors less
credibility. When did this happen if it did. I want to go back
and read the old posts on Google to actually see what happened.
>And the only way you could make
> it stop was not only filing a lawsuit, but getting a judgment and court
> order?
>
Is this actually something your making up? If not, I'd
love to read the case about it. I could go and read the old
posts, it would be fascinating to read about this case.
> So you would just let it go? Shall we see?
>
Shall we see what? If I get sued for calling someone a
liar or say something else about someone?
John
John Slade
Actually, I don't listen to Pirate Cat when people are
talking. I usually listen to the music and not the DJ. So I
don't really hear much profanity.
John
leansto...@democrat.com
But why play music on a pirate radio station? It's not like their
music is banned. The same thing with Free Radio Berkeley. If it was
music not commercially available, that would be different. The last
time I was on 24 and listening to 104.1, they were playing Frank
Zappa. Hey, who doesn't like Zappa, but it is hardly worth running a
pirate station, risking fines, to play Frank Zappa. You can stream
Zappateers radio if you need a fix. 320kbps MP3 no less.
David Kaye
>But why play music on a pirate radio station? It's not like their
>music is banned.
While Pirate Cat did/does a lot of music, they have had a huge amount of
discussion programs over the time I've listened.
But as for music, it's not so much that music is banned, but that it's not
played elsewhere. Once case in point is Tornado Rider, the punk band led by a
cellist. They didn't get airplay anywhere except possibly KUSF, until they
did a few shows at Pirate Cat, and then they got better bookings. Now,
they're playing the Whisky in LA (and are probably too famous now for me to
book them for my own music show). http://www.myspace.com/tornadoriderband
John Slade
I must say as a cellist myself, I'm glad to see one of us
get work! However I just went to Youtube to check this band out
and I must say I've never seen a cello used quite like that.
John
David Kaye
> I must say as a cellist myself, I'm glad to see one of us
>get work! However I just went to Youtube to check this band out
>and I must say I've never seen a cello used quite like that.
It's a hoot. I spoke with the guy one day. Turns out that he spent a
several years teaching classical cello, but decided to try punk.
As for cellists getting work, I know a few cellists and they get work. Jess
Ivry comes to mind. She does everything from chamber to Eastern European to
jazz and whatnot. Here she is doing a promo for beatboxer Tim Barsky for his
"The Bright River" show being performed in December at the Climate Theater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs3ts-5K6Iw
And then she's also in the Cello ChiXtet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSdO2z-RaO4
There's some amazing stuff going on musically. Too bad that few DJs outside
of Dore Stein on KALW's Tangents play any of it.
leansto...@democrat.com
Now doing recordings at clubs is something I favor. Often those
entertainers go on to bigger venues, and the old recordings become a
part of history. The old recordings done in Palo Alto's "Top of the
Tangent" of one of the precursors of the Dead is a good example.
I had Pirate Cat on last night. Er, Leslie Gore? Roy Orbison? Really,
this is not the material for a pirate radio station.
David Kaye
>I had Pirate Cat on last night. Er, Leslie Gore? Roy Orbison? Really,
>this is not the material for a pirate radio station.
I can't say that I've heard either of those on Pirate Cat before. But then,
where else on the radio are you going t to hear them anymore? Oldies ain't
what they used to be...
By the way, I have a copy of Rick Nelson singing "I Will Follow You", his
take-off of the girl group song, "I Will Follow Him", and it's fantastic. Why
it never became a hit I don't know.
John Slade
I take by your lack of response to my post that it was
nothing but bullshit or a mountain made out of a mole hill by
some insecure person who can't take criticism.
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
What more is there to say? You have indicated that your mind is firmly
shut. I have first hand experience on this issue and you don't. I don't
see any need to subject my actions to your judgment, based upon nothing
except what is firmly implanted in your closed mind.
There are others here who know exactly what I'm talking about. However,
it's off topic. Go back and look through ba.broadcast articles in many
parts of 1999 if you are really interested. In the interest of at least
paying lip service to the charter of this group, address your questions
to me in email if you please.
Otherwise, I have nothing more to say about it.
John Slade
> In article <hekf0m$gti$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I take by your lack of response to my post that it was
>> nothing but bullshit or a mountain made out of a mole hill by
>> some insecure person who can't take criticism.
>
> What more is there to say? You have indicated that your mind is firmly
> shut. I have first hand experience on this issue and you don't. I don't
> see any need to subject my actions to your judgment, based upon nothing
> except what is firmly implanted in your closed mind.
Some people tend to overexaggerate the importance of
USENET to say the least. I have never seen anyone nor heard of
anyone going to USENET and reading personal attack spam and
basing a business decision on that.
>
> There are others here who know exactly what I'm talking about. However,
> it's off topic. Go back and look through ba.broadcast articles in many
> parts of 1999 if you are really interested.
OK thanks, I'll look into it.
> In the interest of at least
> paying lip service to the charter of this group, address your questions
> to me in email if you please.
Wait a minute, didn't you guys start a whole new moderated
channel? I will only respond to you in here as I will not give
you my real e-mail address.
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
The recently created newsgroup does not provide a license to misuse this
one.
In any event, if you are too important or paranoid to use email, then I
guess you aren't sufficiently interested in the matter. Furthermore, I'm
not interested in communicating with anyone with that attitude by any
means.
No problem.
John Slade
Just as I thought. I found absolutely nothing about
someone spamming in here about someone having AIDS. No wonder
you want to end the discussion.
John
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You have just made a fool of yourself to many people in this newsgroup.
Thank you.
John Slade
> In article <hfcn5k$gub$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Just as I thought. I found absolutely nothing about
>> someone spamming in here about someone having AIDS. No wonder
>> you want to end the discussion.
>
> You have just made a fool of yourself to many people in this newsgroup.
>
> Thank you.
>
No you're just pissed. You lied. You made something up,
got called on it. And that brings us to why you seem to worship
Wattenburg. I caught him in a lie and you didn't like it.
As I was saying. Nobody but an idiot and someone who has
no social life save USENET, would actually give credibility to a
personal rumor here. Case closed.
John
bozo
> > "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> As for USENET litigation, that's a pretty funny thing to me. Someone
> >> claiming slander and suing on USENET is the same as a six year old whining
> >> to a teacher that someone called them a bad name. That's why it's only done
> >> by the most pathetic and insecure people.
>
> > So you wouldn't mind if someone started using your real name in posts,
> > talking about your deviant sexual practices (that were made up from
> > whole cloth), your dishonest business practices (again, completely made
> > up), and then claimed that you were HIV positive (when you are HIV
> > negative) and accused you of going around infecting people on purpose?
>
> Nobody takes that kind of thing on USENET too seriously.
> It happens all the time. Relatively few people read newsgroups
> and even fewer believe everything they read on USENET. USENET is
> like IRC, tons of things get said all the time of a personal
> nature. It's nothing more than name calling to the vast majority
> of people. If someone wants to spread rumors on USENET, there
> isn't much that can be done about it. First of all you would
> have to actually find the person doing it and there are lots of
> ways to remain anonymous on USENET. Everything from using
> someone else's wireless Internet by hacking, using wireless
> access points around town and various other things. This is one
> reason few people take personal attacks seriously. It is very
> hard to prove who is even posting using a given IP if an IP is
> even provided. To obtain that kind of information, someone would
> need no less than a court order, to actually go into a building
> and examine the computers. Then that person would open up
> themselves to possible litigation for harassment and if the law
> is involved, false arrest. This is a major reason the RIAA and
> MPAA are getting wary of suing people who download copyrighted
> material.
>
> > And then when your clients and potential clients started asking what all
> > that was about, and asking why that person would say those things if
> > they weren't true, you wouldn't mind? And then after it had gone on for
> > months and months and you were not only getting sick of it but were
> > losing business, you couldn't get the person to stop...that would be OK?
>
> I've had all kinds of rumors spread about me over my life
> and somehow, I can go on making it. I think if someone's
> customers are looking to USENET as a source of accurate personal
> information on people, they are pretty stupid people. One would
> wonder if they are capable of even using a computer to post on
> USENET. I've seen people around me have horrible rumors spread
> about them in person, had the entire neighborhood talking about
> them. They were shunned basically. But they managed to survive.
> Eventually the rumors faded. That person didn't feed the rumors,
> they didn't take the rumors seriously. Then after a while nobody
> else took them seriously. If a person gets really defensive and
> takes action about rumors like that, then they actually help
> people to believe the lies. It's wise to let things roll off the
> back rather than get bent out of shape because someone told a
> lie on them.
>
>
>
> > Somehow, I can't believe you wouldn't consider using the courts
> > somewhere along the line.
>
> Nope. Not for someone doing this on USENET. Maybe if
> someone got on the radio or took out an ad in the paper. Then
> that would warrant something only in very extreme cases, but on
> USENET, no way. Famous people have to deal with lies and rumors
> being said about them all the time in print, on TV and on the
> radio. If they sued everyone who did that, they would have no
> time to work.
>
> John
Both of you must be getting paid by the word. I would like to hear
more about your respective deviant sexual practices, dishonest
business transactions, and the people you've infected with HIV though.
Could you include some pictures doggie style too.
-bdn-
John Higdon
John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No you're just pissed. You lied. You made something up,
> got called on it. And that brings us to why you seem to worship
> Wattenburg. I caught him in a lie and you didn't like it.
My offer stands. Contact me personally, and I'll give you proof of
everything.
> As I was saying. Nobody but an idiot and someone who has
> no social life save USENET, would actually give credibility to a
> personal rumor here. Case closed.
Indeed. You're the one who refuses to interact in real life not I.
If you are really interested in facts, you know how to get them. I'm not
posting any of it here.
Norm in S. F.
Lou Kipilman
OK - enough already. Mr. Slade, please see:
http://www.smbtech.com/ras/suit.html. And in case you don't believe
that: http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-98-CV-772062
I'm a long-time lurker, very rarely a participant on ba.broadcast, and
even I knew about this. I thought for sure after the amount of time this
thread has dragged on, Mr. Slade would have tried getting himself out of
the hole he dug. Consider this a helping hand.
Lou
John Slade
Higdon could have provided that information. Thank you for
doing so.
But my original comments stand. Nobody, save an idiot
would go to USENET and believe a rumor about someone. I have had
similar things done to me including the stalking by a nut. But I
never had to go to court because very few people believed the
rumors. You see most people don't live their lives on USENET
like some people. To some people, it's their only social outlet.
So they take silly name calling to heart.
I actually got a big chuckle out of the stalking part.
iI also see the word "feacal" in there. It reminds me of Willy
Wattenburg and how he's called many of us names in the past. He
calls me "Slimey Slade". I Wonder if I should sue him for
defamation of character. I've seen those things done all over
the Internet and nobody sues. I think the claims about Higdon
actually being hurt by this is bullshit. It all boils down to
Higdon whining about someone saying something about him.
For a while, all Higdon did was personally attack people
and make snide remarks. So he was put on ignore, then I would
see responses to his postings where he would cry about people
talking about him and not to him. I think Higdon needs to not
take USENET so seriously. Then he could have saved a lot of
money on lawyers, and a lot of time.
John