Stop Contacting BMI....

This probably could have been worded nicer and should have been sent to the board SYSOP for consideration.

WDCX AM1610 Part 15
John
Owner-Operator-Chief Engineer-Program Manager

it was meant to come across just the way it is. If they come for me i will be contacting EFF.

I'm sick that these coked up enforcers have extended their extortion raquet to little backyard hobbiests who nine out of ten times don't have the extra finances to pat to extortionists.

They are bothering my friend now and he only has less than $1000.00/month to live on in NJ. He is retired and does not make any money or sell advertising from his station.

To me now. this is war.

I have had it with these people and the general litigious attitude in this country.

Thank You,

Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Universal Life Ministries
http://www.ulc.org

Moderator Hunterdonfree
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunterdonfree

Rev. Robert,

I understand your frustration and anger about this and your point in your first post is duly noted.

We all would like to keep the tone of this board civil as I am sure do you. Sometimes harsh words distract attention from what one is trying to say, so it might help to take a deep breath and post your thoughts calmly.

Neil

In my opinion, not paying to use intellectual property because of financial hardship is like shoplifting because of hunger. It's certainly a
compelling argument, but there might be better ways to address the issue.

Are the tactics frustrating? Yes.

It seems to me, however, a bit like complaining about a dog bite while trespassing in a fenced yard.

I'm very excited about underdog's free music project.

Like a food bank for the hungry, it's a way to get our music needs met without shoplifting. I guarantee there will be bunches of good tunes on underdog's free music page.

I've asked for and received permission to play lots of free music since 1995 and 60% of everything I've ever received has been eminently playable.

About a third of those titles have ended up in my CD or mp3 player personal hot rotation - there's good stuff out there, try it you'll like it.

Experimental broadcasting for a better tomorrow!

Do you not understand the lunacy behind this. Part 15 was made for personal use, not commercial ventures. what they are doing amounts to fineing a kid for playing radio on his Mr. microphone. Rich Frys own calculations show short the range is on these stations. therefore it makes sense to not charge somebody who is running a station as a hobby. if the station was attached to a business or non profit and generated revenue for such a business, then by all means charge them. there needs to be a distinction between personal and commercial use. you can't just blanket charge these type of stations, especially since in the eyes of the law these are not stations. These are little modulators we play radio on. They started this royalties BS because people kept calling them and asking about licenses. Hence my statement STOP CALLING BMI!!!!

I'm getting ready to formulate a letter to the FCC, to my Congressman, and to the E.F.F and the Media.

They have started a war in my book. I have already got an FCC agent fired, BMI is about to get a battle they don't want.

Thank You,

Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Universal Life Ministries
http://www.ulc.org

Moderator Hunterdonfree
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunterdonfree

I certainly understand the Rev. Chrysafis's irritation, and I feel he is raising some excellent points. If "part 15" as a category goes on the list of.. (well I don't know what to call it, since it's not businesses in most cases so lets say "entities") entities expected to pay royalties for transmitting music that organizations like BMI/ASCAP/RIAA/etc collect from normal licensed broadcasters, than what will stop them from trying to collect from any child with a "Wild Planet DJ" toy or anyone using an FM modulator to listen to their cd player over the car radio?

Now some may think I'm talking nonsense here and that there is a clear distinction between that and some part15 stations.. But where is that clear distinction and who do you think will define it? Do not expect that every organization on the planet will use what you personally may consider common sense.

According to Rich's calculations, a strictly legal part15 AM station would have a range to a "good car radio" of perhaps a mile or maybe a bit more in an area very free of interference and a very good car radio. Before we get into a debate on ground vs groundwire in yet *another* thread on this forum, I'll just point out that the church case indicates that the ground wire is not always apparently considered entirely inconsequential and as such stations with a "long ground wire" are not what I am talking about here (and hope that is sufficient). What was not mentioned much is those formulas assume a clear field, not one full of buildings, power lines, cars, people, trees and other things that absorb or block radio waves.

My point is not to start a debate on range or the legalities, but to point out that by the most strict possible legal definition, the range is certainly not large. Especially when one considers that the range to the average clock radio or table radio will be far less. So it is simply not the same as licensed, non-profit, or even LPFM stations.

Ok, well.. Businesses like stores, cafes and bars have to pay to have music playing. Well, yes they do! That is a long-standing and well established precendent because they are playing music as part of the function of their business to entice or entertain customers. They are making money by using the music and as such the royalty laws are definitely considered to apply. But even if you use the same little stereo that the cafe uses, or buy a used jukebox and play them in your home, it does *not* apply. If you play a CD on your boombox in your yard while having a cookout, you do not pay a royalty even if your neighbors hear it.

Ok, if a part15 station is being run as a business or a business was using part 15 gear to transmit music to little radios on the tables at something like a sidewalk cafe, then of course royalties would apply, but under the rules *already* in place for such situations.

But, some may say.. Internet stations have to pay royalties even if they are just a hobby. Again we have a clear distinction/difference.. Internet "streamcasting" produces a recoverable hi-fidelity copy of each song on every machine that listens to the stream. Anybody can "rip the stream" and get a good quality copy of the song easilly. Now, proud as some of us may be about the *relative* quality of sound we manage to put out of our tiny transmitters, there is no way it could be called "CD quality sound" that someone would *want* to record, and even if they did, it would take intentionally setting up recording equipment to do so. Just due to the technical points of radio on the BCB, with the 15khz cutoff used on FM and the relatively low fidelity (not to mention things like static and other electrical noise) on AM, there is no way it compares to the sound quality of something like a high bitrate streamcast. Streamcasting automatically generates high quality copies on the listener's machine in the cache, and is easy to rip high quality, so a rule was made specifically for it. 20 yrs ago, something that generated a CD quality copy for every listener would have been called "bootleg copies", not "streamcasting". So the same logic as charging people who streamcast cannot be applied for part15.

So I would basically agree with the Rev that in my opinion we are talking about a very different situation with part15 stations and that in most cases the royalty fees *shouldn't* apply. But they will certainly end up applying if people running typical strictly legal non-business part15 stations keep asking for it.

Personally, my solution is that I do not play material that is under ASCAP/BMI/RIAA/etc jurisdiction. There are many bands, musicans, and etc out there that have nothing to do with these organizations and are glad of some airplay even on as small a scale as a part15 station. There is plenty of music out there that is outside the jurisdiction of the assorted collection agencies, that is in public domain or permitted by creative commons license or where the artist/composer/band would be glad of the idea of more people hearing it. So find some you like and get it out so it can be heard by a few people.

But so far as to whether most strictly legal non-business part15 hobby stations *should* pay royalties? I would think most would have a hard time demonstrating a listenership large enough to be beyond "fair use" if they want to play the CDs they paid money for at the store or tracks they paid money to download off Ipod or whatever. Part of what was paid *is* to cover those fees, and fair use is allowed to any private iindividual that purchased them (provided they aren't a business using it to entertain customers).

Ok, now maybe if you have a part15 station with a demonstratable listener base that is collecting advertising revenues.. Ok, that's maybe different, but it doesn't actually seem to be *typical* of part 15 stations from what I've seen here over the months. I'd say that would more likely fall under something like the "jukebox" fees that bars, cafes and etc pay. But it wouldn't be because they are part15 that it needs to be paid, if they were doing the same thing with speakers it'd still fall under the rules for businesses.

But some stations here have said that they wished they had even a single listener. Rules for "part 15" at places like BMI or ASCAP are also likely to apply to even shildren playing with toys. Does anyone really feel it's appropriate for some kid who gets something like a "Wild Planet DJ" toy for xmas to have to pay out hundreds of dollars if they play a tape in it and the kid next door can pick it up on the radio? It could fall under the same rules very easilly if people keep insisting on contacting these organizations and *asking* to pay. If you ask them if you should send them money, it's almost guaranteed that they'll say "Yes!" That's kind of a "no-brainer" I would think.

Remember that while you may think of "part15" in a certain way, there is no saying that these assorted organizations are as well informed on the topic as you are or that they will use common sense in drawing distinctions between a station run as a business with a range of a mile or so and a kid with a toy or someone with a "Whole house FM" unit who likes to be able to hear the music they paid for out in their yard while gardening or the little FM modulator someone uses to listen to music on their CD player through their car radio.

I would have to agree with the Rev that encouraging them to start charging royalties for anything with "part 15" somewhere on it is just asking for trouble, and that's very likely what repeated inquiries about what a part 15 station should pay may do. If you're one of the few that are making a commercial go of part 15 and are playing music that is under their jurisdiction, then certainly contact them and see what your legal obligations are. But please explain your business aspect and demonstratable listener base rather than just calling yourself "a part15 station"..

Daniel

Thank you Daniel 🙂

That is the point i'm trying to make. I just needed to blow my top though, because it seems they have no bottom end when it comes to trying to bleed every dollar they can from the public. I started having visions of 80 y/o grandparents and 12 y/o girls, and corpses being served with court papers. it finally came to head with this latest content industry bs and sent me into orbit. i feel better having vented my frustration and getting my point across 🙂

Thank You,

Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Universal Life Ministries
http://www.ulc.org

Moderator Hunterdonfree
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunterdonfree

These guys are the reason for all this nonsense. They don't really understand all the details, so they they pull the sheet over everything - that's what they're trained to do. As an example: a while ago cigarette manufacturers in the UK came out with "safe" cigarettes (I guess they had removed some of the more dangerous elements within the smoke). These cigarettes mysteriously disappeared one day and were no longer offered for sale. It was found out later that the lawyers had advised the tobacco company that if you are selling "safe" cigarettes, then you will certainly get lawsuits from smokers of the "unsafe" ones.

Similarly, the lawyers here for the music are taking the same kind of "steel trapdoor" approach. It would serve them right that they lose future music talent which does not sign up with them. In fact, it may turn out that those musicians who allow their material to be freely played over any media, might become really well known because their material (if good) will spread like a virus. After all, music is information and they did say that the information age will change everything. I agree, we should promote material that is not licensed and give some new talent a chance and to heck with the corporate lawyers.

Gerry

Rev. Robert,

I thought a bit about this and maybe the FCC is not the agency to contact. It seems that this would fall under the Commerce Dept., and for all I know the FCC may be under this Dept.

But since I don't know, I suggest you call your Congressional Representative's office and talk to their staff and ask them for guidance. At the least, they can help you determine who or what agency would be best for you to gain information or make your case to.

My wife and I have done this when we found ourselves mired in a mass of information and didn't know how to proceed in dealing with the govt. My wife has had many professional and personal dealings with the government. Our exchanges with our State and Congressional Representatives' staffs have been positive (less so with regulatory boards).

Don't call them with the idea of getting the Rep. to agree with you and introduce legislation, rather call to get contact information for the appropriate agencies. Also, try to work with one staffer by asking if you can call them again so if you follow up with more calls they will know the history. We have found that sometimes a particular staff member specializes in a particular area. Later, if you have a good, well researched statement, present it to your Rep. or the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee or to the governing agency.

I am not giving any legal advice, just suggestions based on our dealings with the government.

Neil
.

I also thought that the FCC might be under the Commerce Department. After all, what other department would they be under? I checked the FCC web site to be sure. The answer was not perfectly clear.

I always assumed that the FCC was part of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Now I think it might be part of the legislative branch. They are not part of any executive department, and they are responsible to Congress. The Commissioners are appointed by the President to five year terms, and are confirmed by the Senate. No more than three of the five Commissioners can be in one party.

The Federal Communications Commission is a separate and independent agency of the executive branch of the United States government. The 5 commissioners serve at the "pleasure" (read appointment) of the President and the US Senate. The President does have the power to remove or "fire" a commissioner. A quote from the FCC web site:

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."

All independent agencies of the federal government are responsible to Congress. And like any other federal agency, it's executive officers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The statutes, the FCC operates under, are the decisions of the Congress and ultimately, the President. The various bureaus of the commission propose to the commissions administrative rules and regulations based on technological research, a sense of Congress (statute), direct petition of the citizenry (PRM) and "convenience and necessity" of the regulatory process.

The Chairman of the FCC is considered to be a cabinet level appointment by the President. The FCC, however, cannot make federal law. That is to say, federal statutes. They do, however, make administrative law which can be enforced by federal law enforcement, to include the FBI and US Marshals. The FCC is also a member agency of the Department of Homeland Security, just as many other independent federal agencies are.

The FCC has nothing to do with music performance licensing or royalties. Those federal functions are now under the Library of Congress. I hope this information is helpful and settles some of the mystery behind the FCC's actions.

Marshall Johnson, Sr.
President & General Manger
Rhema Radio - The Word In Worship
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Thanks to Marshall you now have more good information. It appears that the focus should be on the Library of Congress and not the FCC.

Call your Congressional Representative's office and run the situation by the staff and perhaps they will provide more guidance and information. Do some preparaton first, such as be ready to explain part 15 in terms of what the typical hobbyist can do under the rules. You might offer to write an information paper for them since they probably don't know anything at all about part 15 operations and what people are doing with it. If you provide them with this background information and what you would propose perhaps they will take it to the Library of Congress on your behalf. If not, at least I would expect that they would give you a contact name there so you can talk to them.

One letter or phone call may not get anyware, but if you give them good information and work with a staffer you might get things changed to your liking.

Hope this helps and gives you some encouragement.

Neil