Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Radio Paradise

By Shimmer in Culture
Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 11:19:06 AM EST
Tags: Help! (Ask Kuro5hin) (all tags)
Help! (Ask Kuro5hin)

Radio Paradise is an excellent Internet music "station". Run by a married couple with lots of real-world radio station experience, it broadcasts a wide variety of high-quality, ad-free music. They describe it as "old-fashioned radio for the 21st century".

Apparently, however, nearly all the music they broadcast is borrowed from their listeners' CD collections. They don't appear to own a single CD, MP3, or LP of their own.


I had been listening to Radio Paradise for several months (and even contributing money, a la NPR) when I started to get a hankering to hear specific songs. When I asked, I was told the best way to make a request was to upload the songs I wanted to hear.

Sure enough, buried deep in their web site is a page called "MP3 File Upload". It says "This function allows you to upload MP3 files for consideration by Radio Paradise. We don't facilitate the downloading or trading of music. All files uploaded will be used for review & broadcast purposes only & will not be distributed under any circumstances."

This seemed intriguing, but quite fishy. IANAL, so I e-mailed the owners, who told me that "We do not redistribute the song files (like Napster, etc.). We only use them for radio airplay, for which we pay all copyright fees - so there aren't any legal issues." This was good enough for me, so I happily started ripping and uploading.

But I'm still nagged by the feeling that the RIAA wouldn't be too happy if they understood how Radio Paradise operates. Is Radio Paradise truly in the clear? If so, would this approach make a good model for other Internet broadcasters?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Is Radio Paradise operating legally?
o Yes 32%
o No 15%
o Only God knows 52%

Votes: 165
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Radio Paradise
o page
o Also by Shimmer


Display: Sort:
Radio Paradise | 70 comments (52 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Simple question, simple answer. (3.66 / 3) (#6)
by Greyjack on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 05:21:49 PM EST

Email ASCAP the URL, and find out if they're legal or not.  Simple!

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


The following recipient(s) could not be reached: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Shimmer on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 05:31:27 PM EST

I sent an e-mail to that address and received the following response:

weblicensing@ascap.com on 2/10/2003 5:28 PM
            The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to.  Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
            <notessmtp2.ascap.com #5.1.1 X-Notes; User weblicensing (weblicensing@ascap.com) not listed in public Name & Address Book>

Good idea, though.

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

oops, my bad (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Greyjack on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 02:45:23 PM EST

I mis-typed the email from the ASCAP site. It's weblicense@ascap.com, not weblicensing.

(mind you, the other addresses are licensing, radiolicensing, tvlicensing, cablelicensing, and so forth, so I don't feel entirely stupid. Yet another object lesson in standardization)

--
Here is my philosophy: Everything changes (the word "everything" has just changed as the word "change" has: it now means "no change") --Ron Padgett


[ Parent ]
This gives me a wacky idea (4.66 / 3) (#16)
by Spork on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 06:53:05 PM EST

How about a radio station that doesn't really play songs but instead only publishes a playlist. However, the playlist updates dynamically and plugs into one (or more) of the major P2P networks, essentially getting all the music content from other peers.

The songs would be queued up about 30 minutes into the future, giving you plenty of time to find and download them. In order to participate, you would agree to upload as much as you download, and chunks of upcoming songs that you're about to listen to would be sent to other users tuning in to the station. The system would be infinitely scalable and sound just like high quality radio.

Frankly, some people still use radio broadcasts to expand their musical horizons and to expose themselves to good music they are not yet familiar with. However, with ClearChannel having taken over the US airwaves and internet radio in a moribund state, a place where good music is being broadcast is hard to find.

Might this be a solution? Surely, just publishing a playlist through a computer application is legal...

nope (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by blisspix on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 07:56:50 PM EST

The webcasting regulations recently set down forbid the publishing of playlists ahead of time.

[ Parent ]
Webcasting (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by dennis on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 10:58:05 PM EST

But in this case, you wouldn't actually be a webcaster, since you're not streaming the files yourself. You'd be publishing playlists only. There's nothing to prevent you or me from publishing playlists on our personal websites, even if it's a standard XML format readable by P2P software.

Get a bunch of good, idiosyncratic "DJs" out there doing this, and it might be a good way to find new music...

[ Parent ]

why? (none / 0) (#34)
by Fuzzwah on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:31:34 PM EST

Why call it a radio station. I read a few blogs every day where the posters mention a couple of tracks that they're listening to. Hell one of them even has the track as a link to edonkey....

I figure your idea is just an extension of this. For the person doing it I figure you could argue they're in the clear, simply showing that you own the original and the fact that you're not hosting the mp3...

--
The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
[ Parent ]

Pretty much, just more convenient (none / 0) (#64)
by dennis on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 10:45:55 PM EST

Yeah, it is just an extension of weblogs...but if you had some kind of standard format that P2P clients could read, you could tune into a "station" and have it all happen without further intervention, just like if you were listening to the radio.

I don't see why the person posting the playlist even has to own the original, given that they're not reproducing it. I don't own any Britney Spears albums, but if I put "<song>Oops, I did it again</song><artist>Britney Spears</artist><time>1500</time>" on my blog, I haven't broken the law.

[ Parent ]

Wow! (none / 0) (#33)
by Spork on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:22:09 PM EST

I know very little about webcasting law, but this seems to me to have nothing to do with webcasting. It would just be me publishing a list of song names (and maybe hashes). If that's illegal then somebody really screwed up.

[ Parent ]
Non issue (none / 0) (#18)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 07:17:17 PM EST

I suspect the RIAA knows exactly how they are operating, since the RIAA are seeing royalties. Seems this station works the same way every legit mp3 radio station works except other people rip their songs instead of them ripping their own.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
yes, but... (none / 0) (#24)
by pb on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 08:40:10 PM EST

If that is the case, do they have any right to use copyrighted music that they don't own?

...or can I just pay royalties on any mp3's I download?  That would be preferable to getting sued by the RIAA, at least...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

What about the copying? (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by gbroiles on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 07:32:16 PM EST

Does their broadcast license grant them the right to make additional copies incident to the broadcast? When a listener uploads a song, they're making a copy of a copyrighted work, which is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights, unless they've granted a license for making the copy, or a fair use exception applies. Assuming that the broadcast is pursuant to a license (which it ought to be, if they're paying royalties), no problems there.

While broadcasters can make ... (4.75 / 4) (#20)
by blisspix on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 07:55:45 PM EST

... a single copy for broadcast purposes only, they must own the original work, or get permission from the copyright owner to broadcast the mp3. This is laid down in the Copyright Act. The issue of licensing for rebroadcast (ie paying fees) is separate from this again. The Act mentions that broadcasters must pay for rebroadcast for all protected works, but it is up to the licensing agency to set down the conditions.

I work in radio and this issue is coming up more and more these days. It's getting to the point where people really have to get refresher skills on copyright and media law every six months.

What worries me is that there are more and more Internet broadcasters that haven't bothered to check out the facts before they go on air, and rely on the slim chance that they'll get caught.

Volunteers' CDs? (none / 0) (#29)
by jpmrst on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 10:04:41 PM EST

Does this mean that at a volunteer-deejay radio station, it's improper for a deejay to bring in and play a personal CD which is not owned by the station?

Eat more sushi.


[ Parent ]
Good question (none / 0) (#30)
by Shimmer on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 10:15:21 PM EST

Wish I knew the answer.  Certainly no one objected to this in pre-Internet time.  Nowadays, though, I'm not so sure.

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

actually, I don't think it's ever been clarified (none / 0) (#41)
by blisspix on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 02:47:39 AM EST

However, the cost of chasing up this sort of thing would exceed the cost recovery for licensing bodies. It's a similar situation to reporting of music played. Most stations only have to report what is played one week of the month, because the data processing costs are so high. The week's data is used as an average.

Given that volunteers are 'employed' for a specific purpose (in this case, broadcasting), and are usually paid members of community/public radio organisations, it could be assumed that the ownership of works extends to works licensed/owned by each individual volunteer.

Where it gets really tricky however, is how this affects volunteers compensation (of which there is usually none for CDs) vs out-of-pocket expenses if a licensing body chose to take the view that CDs must be owned by the station. Not to mention asset registers and such. And that's a headache I don't think they'd bother dealing with.

More and more stations these days seem to be going down the station supplies all music path. Kinda sad.

[ Parent ]

promo copies (none / 0) (#58)
by jpmrst on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 11:18:35 PM EST

More and more stations these days seem to be going down the station supplies all music path.

Come to think of it, if I remember correctly from working at a college radio station, some of the bigger record companies put stickers on the promotional copies of records and CDs they send out claiming that ownership remains with the record company, that they are to be returned on demand, etc.


Eat more sushi.


[ Parent ]
good point (none / 0) (#63)
by blisspix on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 07:12:03 PM EST

They still do that, but they don't tend to do the big stamp with ownership details anymore. All they do now is just send out a normal, retail cd with a sticker saying "not for retail sale" (at least where I am, anyway).

Promo copies have been drying up in the last few years, and major labels are investigating ways to only make promos available via digital download though station's on air broadcast systems. This is bad for public/college radio which obviously can't afford the expense of software that costs several thousand, and has monthly leasing charges.

[ Parent ]

Situation from my experience (none / 0) (#44)
by Kruador on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 07:39:47 AM EST

I used to work (on a volunteer basis) in my University's Students' Guild's Entertainments department (Aston, UK). I seem to recall (though I wasn't heavily involved in this side) that we paid a performance fee based on the size of the organisation to the appropriate organisation.

I'm not sure who the appropriate organisation was - I think it would have been the PPL [http://www.ppluk.com/]. This organisation also collects revenues for radio broadcasting. You can play any material for the same fee, as long as the license owner is a member of PPL.

--
Kruador


[ Parent ]

re:poll (2.00 / 1) (#22)
by guyjin on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 08:19:38 PM EST

Answered 'no' because, if the RIAA gets its way, the entire .mp* format would be banned.
-- 散弾銃でおうがいして ください
re:poll (none / 0) (#23)
by Xcyther on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 08:40:05 PM EST

you cant ban a file format. thats like saying you potholders are illegal because some people use them to cover security cameras.

_________________________________________
"Insydious" -- It's not as bad as you think

[ Parent ]
Re: poll (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Ubiq on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 09:14:55 PM EST

Well, nobody said the RIAA was reasonable, did they.

[ Parent ]
If not by copyright, then by patent (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by pin0cchio on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 11:02:00 PM EST

you cant ban a file format.

The RIAA can't. RIAA labels can't. But Thomson Multimedia can. Just ask anybody who has ever faced Unisys Corporation.


lj65
[ Parent ]
still.. (none / 0) (#68)
by Xcyther on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 08:48:43 PM EST

a) the gifs were never banned, there was just talk about it. b) say there was a law that said you cant use gifs without a license. how is that going to be enforced? there is no feasable way to enforce something like this..

_________________________________________
"Insydious" -- It's not as bad as you think

[ Parent ]
Example (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by tekue on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 07:09:29 AM EST

It's more like banning hemp because some people use it for joy. Never could happen.
--
A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. -Milton Friedman
[ Parent ]
no (none / 0) (#39)
by Joh3n on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:32:29 AM EST

Hell, even Hillary Rosen has an iPod.
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came.
-terpy
[ Parent ]
Illegal (2.50 / 2) (#25)
by j1mmy on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 08:49:11 PM EST

Without an owned copy of the original CD's, these people are breaking all sorts of copyright laws. An interesting parallel (and my favorite) is di.fm. They let independent artists submit their own work online for consideration, which may make it into the rotation. They've found some good talent this way.

The heck with personal copies (none / 0) (#26)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 09:14:51 PM EST

Last time I checked music and video cam with one license for personal use and a different one for public performance. You can't rent a video and then sell tickets to a show of it, for example. I don't think even personal copies of LPs would solve their problem.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Disagree (none / 0) (#28)
by Shimmer on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 09:19:18 PM EST

In the olden days, I believe that a DJ could go down to the record store, buy an LP, bring it back to the station, and immediately play it on the air.  She didn't need separate licenses.

Is this no longer true?

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

Commercial licensing. (none / 0) (#32)
by j1mmy on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:04:33 PM EST

I think you do have to actually license it for commercial performance, and most radio stations are for-profit. I don't know what a non-profit would have to do.

[ Parent ]
Nope. (none / 0) (#46)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:46 AM EST

Nope, it was never true. DJs do occasionally do that, and then they get into trouble. (Assuming the record company wants to make a fuss) That's why the "singles" for a hot album trickle out onto the radio over a number of months even though the whole album is for sale. The record company controls the broadcast licenses for each track, to ensure that the record stays in the public's mind for as long as possible, rather than having the whole album turn up on the radion at once.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Not in Canada (none / 0) (#40)
by yamla on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:38:28 AM EST

In Canada, it is completely legal to borrow a friend's CD, make a copy of it, keep the copy, and return the CD.  In fact, it would be legal to lend out the original CD (that you are borrowing, remember?) to a friend of yours who could then rip to MP3 and return it.

You cannot lend out your copy (or the MP3s) and you cannot broadcast iirc, but you do NOT need to own the original CDs.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you have missed something here (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Skeptick45 on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:48:00 PM EST

Bill Goldsmith is at the forefront of internet radio negotiations regarding RIAA. Unlikely he'd be doing something grossly illegal. A quick google on "Bill Goldsmith RIAA" will give you a long list of articles and news. I'm wondering though - on what basis do you state that RadioParadise doesn't own a single piece of music? Since Bill is a DJ at KPIG, it's likely he owns quite a bit of music, not to mention the promos he receives.

[ Parent ]
You may be right (none / 0) (#49)
by Shimmer on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 03:08:03 PM EST

I suppose I shouldn't have said that RP owns none of the music played.  However, it's quite clear that the model is based on user uploads.

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

The MPAA is just a symptom (4.00 / 2) (#35)
by thom2 on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 11:47:37 PM EST

The problem is the state of modern music. Think about it: all musicians are just in it to get laid or become famous or make a lot of money. It follows that they would resort to any kind of obtrusive efforts to protect their "art" and make as much money as possible for themselves.

People need to learn to play their own instruments and make their own music. With the technology available today, there is no limit to the kinds of sound creations that may be acheived by any individual, if they just excercise their creative muscles a little. instead, people are too lazy, they just sit back and expect to be entertained for free. I say you get out what you put in.

Yes. (none / 0) (#43)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 04:42:43 AM EST

Forward to the past, I guess.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

I think you mean the RIAA, not the MPAA (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Shimmer on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 08:28:56 AM EST

http://www.riaa.org

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]
All musicians? (none / 0) (#61)
by anylulu on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 01:43:30 PM EST

Most musicians I know are 1)poor, 2)not famous, and 3)get laid in proportion to their hygiene habits.
-- peace, love and anylulu http://www.anylulu.com
[ Parent ]
yeah, so be sure to blab about it on a famous blog (4.00 / 2) (#50)
by turmeric on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 05:31:22 PM EST

that way the MPAA will never find it

Security through obscurity, anyone? (n/t) (none / 0) (#66)
by Shimmer on Thu Feb 13, 2003 at 04:03:31 PM EST



Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]
Response from Radio Paradise (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by RadioParadise on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 05:37:59 PM EST

Too bad Shimmer and some of the other posters here didn't do their homework before posting. 1. Radio Paradise has indeed acquired a small percentage (maybe 5%) of our library through uploaded suggestions from listeners. However, the vast majority of our library was either purchased or, much more often, given to us by the record companies for airplay. 2. The terms of our agreement with the copyright holders (RIAA) absolves us from the fees imposed by the DMCA for internal copying of music files, and from the necessity to own physical copies of the songs. 3. AM/FM stations are not subject to performance royalties of any sort & are under no obligation to ever buy any music. In fact, very few of them ever do. Record companies supply radio stations with CDs for free - increasingly they do that with Internet stations such as ours as well. Radio stations of all kinds (AM, FM, Internet, etc.) *do* pay copyright fees to songwriters (through ASCAP & BMI). That's an entirely different subject. Those regulations have nothing to say about "music ownership". 4. The answer to your poll question would be "yes". We actually pay a significantly higher percentage of our income in copyright fees & royalties than an FM station does. 5. Aren't there some corporate evil-doers of some kind who might be more appropriate targets fro your griping & sniping?

Response from Radio Paradise (4.83 / 6) (#52)
by RadioParadise on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 05:39:15 PM EST

Too bad Shimmer and some of the other posters here didn't do their homework before posting.

1. Radio Paradise has indeed acquired a small percentage (maybe 5%) of our library through uploaded suggestions from listeners. However, the vast majority of our library was either purchased or, much more often, given to us by the record companies for airplay.

2. The terms of our agreement with the copyright holders (RIAA) absolves us from the fees imposed by the DMCA for internal copying of music files, and from the necessity to own physical copies of the songs.

3. AM/FM stations are not subject to performance royalties of any sort & are under no obligation to ever buy any music. In fact, very few of them ever do. Record companies supply radio stations with CDs for free - increasingly they do that with Internet stations such as ours as well.

Radio stations of all kinds (AM, FM, Internet, etc.) *do* pay copyright fees to songwriters (through ASCAP & BMI). That's an entirely different subject. Those regulations have nothing to say about "music ownership".

4. The answer to your poll question would be "yes". We actually pay a significantly higher percentage of our income in copyright fees & royalties than an FM station does.

5. Aren't there some corporate evil-doers of some kind who might be more appropriate targets fro your griping & sniping?

Not griping and sniping (3.33 / 3) (#53)
by Shimmer on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 06:10:59 PM EST

Just genuinely curious about the legality of your approach (and my role in it!).  I love RP, contribute, and listen nearly every day.

Sorry about getting the percentage wrong.  I probably shouldn't have said that all your music is from uploads.  Regardless of the percentage, though, these uploads are pretty clearly an important part of the way that RP works.

It's quite clear that you are not just getting "suggestions" via upload.  In fact, you played one my "suggestions" today -- I find it highly unlikely that you have the CD I ripped it from.

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

Clarification & More General Ranting (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by RadioParadise on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 08:00:38 PM EST

By "suggested additions to the playlist" I mean mp3 files for us to review for airplay. If we do add something to the library (which we do with only a smal percentage of the suggested songs) we do indeed use the MP3 file sent by the listener (unless there's something wrong with it).

Seems like you've bought pretty thoroughly into the whole concept that "ownership" of digital audio files is something that can & must remain under the complete control of the copyright owner.

If you're interested in re-examining that whole belief system, Peter Coffee's column in the Feb 3 issue of eWeek is an excellent place to start. He does an excellent job of explaining how far the application of patent & copyright law has come from the original vision of the framers of the Constitution - "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". That's the exact language in the Constitution.

The use of copyrights & patents to <u>stifle</u> the progress of my particular business (radio) is the polar opposite of their intent - and it really pisses me off.

Nonetheless, we're stuck with crappy, misguided legislation like the DMCA - bought & paid for by the entertainment industry in their attempt to stuff the technological genie of the Internet back in it's profitable little bottle. So we pay their fees & work within the letter of their laws, while we wait for their inevitable failure.

The RIAA, et al would dearly love to time-shift us all back to the day when the only way to get a decent-quality copy of a piece of music (or whatever - obviously this goes far beyond just music) was to walk into a store, or mail-order, an overpriced piece of plastic. Preferably one of the same 30 or 40 pieces of plastic that everybody else is buying (ever so much more profitable that way).

Well, it ain't gonna happen. Make criminals out of an entire youthful generation of music fans? Oh yeah, <u>that'll</u> be great for profits. They say that they "can't compete with free music" - so they need the threat of mass arrests, the infiltration & sabotage of computers & networks, and other tough measures in order to make sure they don't have to.

Coffee is almost always a free commodity in offices, and dirt-cheap at home. Does that stop Starbucks from making a buck? Tap water in 99% of the US is perfectly drinkable - does that stop Evian, Crystal Geyser, etc. from selling plain old water at quite a profit?

The record industry could easily compete with free file trading if the chose to. They could relegate it to a backwater where those interested in obscure "non-commercial" music could swap files to thier hearts content. They could offer fast, easy, reasonably-priced access to nice clean copies of their files, with lots of added-value material and extra features. They could continue to sell their shiny plastic boxes, too, particularly if they were more reasonable priced.

However, they chose not to do any of that. They've chosen instead to try to lock in their market share via legislation. I predict that it will work about exactly as well as the government's efforts to stop drug abuse by "declaring war on it". In other words, a pathetic failure.

Sorry for the rant, but it bugs me when I hear intelligent, articulate people buy into the bullshit logic behind laws like the DMCA.

-bg

[ Parent ]

I just want to know if we are breaking the law (none / 0) (#65)
by Shimmer on Thu Feb 13, 2003 at 03:52:59 PM EST

Seems like you've bought pretty thoroughly into the whole concept that "ownership" of digital audio files is something that can & must remain under the complete control of the copyright owner.

Not really. What gave you that impression?  I simply wanted to know if what you're doing is legal or not. Isn't that a reasonable thing to ask? The question of whether it should be legal is completely separate.

It has since occurred to me that perhaps what you are doing (broadcasting my MP3s) is legal, but that I am violating the law by uploading MP3's to you in the first place. Frankly, I am not very comfortable with that possiblity.

If RP is indeed operating 100% legally, then I think you would be happy with (and even encourage) discussion of your modus operandi. Yes?

-- Brian

Wizard needs food badly.
[ Parent ]

w00t! (none / 0) (#54)
by dirvish on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 07:45:48 PM EST

Way to represent for Nor Cal! See you on the Skyway.

Technical Certification Blog, Anti Spam Blog
[ Parent ]
You know what they say... (none / 0) (#56)
by Bob Abooey on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 09:39:01 PM EST

No PR is bad PR :)


-------
the internet the way God intened it to be.
[ Parent ]
KEXP (4.00 / 2) (#59)
by bsletten on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 11:28:01 PM EST

If you like an excellent variety of really good music, I *HIGHLY* recommend KEXP out of Seattle. They are by far the best Internet radio station I've ever heard. They also have near-real-time playlists, stream archives from the past two weeks, and the ability to e-mail in requests.

They made me love music again. John in the Morning is a particularly good show to check out.

If you do dig them, they function like a public radio station and gratefully accept donations.



ah, kexp.. (none / 0) (#67)
by insta on Fri Feb 14, 2003 at 01:03:55 AM EST

I'm lucky enough to get the station where I live (slightly south of Seattle).
they function like a public radio station
They ARE a public radio station! That's why you hear actual music on the station.

[ Parent ]
Allways wondered (none / 0) (#62)
by haplopeart on Wed Feb 12, 2003 at 02:58:47 PM EST

What is the legal status of a shoutcast feed that pumps out lots of music, but however charges for nothing, runs no adverts, basically provides all that music for free to the end users?
Bill "Haplo Peart" Dunn
Administrator Epithna.com
http://www.epithna.com

Completely Illegal. (none / 0) (#69)
by vectro on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 02:46:45 AM EST

Unless you have the permission of the copyright owner, or your actions fall under fair use (note that being noncommercial doesn't count), you may not legally distribute copyrighted works. End of discussion.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
One of the many things.... (none / 0) (#70)
by haplopeart on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 01:32:12 PM EST

...that seriously suck about the world....
Bill "Haplo Peart" Dunn
Administrator Epithna.com
http://www.epithna.com

[ Parent ]
Radio Paradise | 70 comments (52 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!