- September 19, 2018 at 6:22 pm #106431
- September 20, 2018 at 1:55 am #106432
Anticipating the Public Perception
Informing the public about the legality of what is being done at the Deconstruction Lab certainly can’t hurt and likely will help allay any doubts or misconceptions.
In paragraph six you have a typographic error: “Call signs are not issues to Part 15 broadcasters”.
It will interest you to know this FCC rule:
CHAPTER I–FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PART 73_RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
Sec. 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.
(1) Users of nonlicensed, low-power devices operating under part 15 of this chapter may use whatever identification is currently desired, so long as propriety is observed and no confusion results with a station for which the FCC issues a license.
Therefore we can give our legal part 15 stations “names” of any kind we choose.
At the same time there is no requirement ever to make on the air announcements explaining anything about one’s legal station, although that might also be another way of expressing your “right” to broadcast.
One last thing for now, I would swap the sections describing Illegal and Legal stations, putting the Legal part first.
- September 20, 2018 at 12:48 pm #106452
Article says FM under favorable conditions could get 1000 feet? In Canada yes but in the USA this is way over what would be realistic. I think Tim could varify that.
- September 20, 2018 at 2:53 pm #106456
Well, the hard part is purchasing a legal Part 15 FM transmitter in the first place. I’ve tested lots as some of you know. Most of what’s available is over the legal limit, most grossly over the limit.
But yes, 200-300 feet is typical at the legal level in the USA. You might get a bit more under perfect conditions, and with good line of site, etc. When someone says “with a sensitive receiver” that rules out just about any receiver any typical person will own. If you’re talking about a radio geek with a high end DX style receiver with a directional receiving antenna, then, sure, you can be hear further. But that’s not even realistic.
No one wants to admit or publish that FM Part 15 is only a couple hundred feet or so, as it bursts their bubble. And they don’t want to make people think they’re pirates if they can be heard for a couple blocks. It’s a harsh truth. But to quote Scotty “I cannot change the laws of physics”.
- September 20, 2018 at 3:09 pm #106459
Truth VS. the Law
Everything said by Mark, Tim and everybody is absolutely true, being very literal and practical about what the FM rule says and the laws of physics dictate, but there’s something further that we don’t know because we haven’t attended law school.
For years I dated a remarkable woman who did attend law school and told me surprising things that the public normally does not know. For one, she said that signs in parking garages that say “WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERTY LEFT IN YOUR CAR” are not true (in Missouri, at least).
She said that actually, at least under Missouri law, the garages ARE responsible for the contents of the car! But it’s LEGAL for them to post the false claim disavowing responsibility, simply because it’s not against the law to post an inaccurate message.
Therefore, assuming the same is true across the nation, posting a message saying that “OUR FM LEGALLY GOES 1,000-FEET” might be legal, even when honest compliance to 15.239 would not be expected to provide so much range.
It is unfortunate that this website has never attracted a person trained in FCC law and law in general.
- September 20, 2018 at 4:08 pm #106466
Carl raised a good point!
So would the writer of this article, able to make a claim of 1000ft with a FCC compliant FM transmitter legally be held responsible if someone gets into trouble and says yeah but this article says I could do this?
- September 20, 2018 at 4:10 pm #106468
“Therefore we can give our legal part 15 stations “names” of any kind we choose.”
“One last thing for now, I would swap the sections describing Illegal and Legal stations, putting the legal part first.”
While using an ID in the format of a licensed station has a certain cachet, we decided not to go that route and ID as “CDL” or the “Computer Deconstruction Lab” to avoid being accused of bootlegging the call sign.
Will swap the sections next time I’m on the server
- September 20, 2018 at 4:37 pm #106470
Mr. parts said this: “While using an ID in the format of a licensed station has a certain cachet…”
Read it again.
It says we CANNOT use a call sign that could be confused with a licensed station.
Be that as it may, the name “CDL” is perfectly fine.
- September 20, 2018 at 5:42 pm #106472
“(1) Users of nonlicensed, low-power devices operating under part 15 of this chapter may use whatever identification is currently desired, so long as propriety is observed and no confusion results with a station for which the FCC issues a license”
Going to have to disagree on this one. We did discuss this with an attorney that specializes in communications law while researching another issue.
While we could legally ID as Wxxx, the moment the call was issued for use, we now were in violation of 47 CFR 73.3550.
His advise was to stay away from any combination that might be confused with an existing (or former) US radio station call sign, even if the combination was currently vacant.
Based on his advise, we went with CDL or Computer Deconstruction Lab to steer clear of the issue entirely.
- September 21, 2018 at 5:57 am #106474
Agreement All Around
I now understand what you are saying Mr. parts and do agree with your attorney’s advice.
It brings to light the possible risk being taken by some of our part 15 stations that use 4-letter FCC “like” combinations.
Thinking back, I recall several times thinking that because a certain set of call letters were not currently in use they would be fair to use, but that wasn’t the best approach as we now realize.
- September 22, 2018 at 4:00 am #106478
Well, here’s my take, FWIW.
My station became KEBS Radio 5 years ago. There were not then, nor are there now any licensed AM, FM or TV stations in the USA with those call letters. Yes, it’s possible that someone may request and receive those legal call letters from the FCC.
However, I’ve been involved in two commercial stations selecting new call letters in my career, and in each case the stations do quite a bit of research before landing on a choice. And as far as I’m concerned they would have a right to choose those call letters if they desire. However, since my station is run as a business, the name and letters KEBS Radio are registered as actual, legal business names. A year and a half ago we also opened our record store KEBS Records which is also registered as a legal business name. Further each is registered as an LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation. Both have federal and state tax IDs and employer IDs. And I also own several domain names including the letters KEBS.
So, as far as the FCC is concerned they can certainly have those call letters. But the FCC has no jurisdiction over business names or domain registrations. So they’d be pretty busy trying to avoid confusion on other legal fronts as well as negotiating with me to secure the domain names they may want to use.
As for me, the station can simply go by it’s original name “Iron Range Country” if that became necessary and the record store has no legal connection to the radio station and it’s name would live on forever.
Maybe I’m just a trouble maker. But that’s the way it is here.
- September 22, 2018 at 6:07 am #106484
Not sure what portion is appropiate to post under the form rules, but here’s the thumbnail:
Rather then a post on the forum or an email, one of the forum members issued a DMCA takedown complaint re the page to my ISP.
My hosting company basically is threatining to nuke the entire site in 24 hours because of the DMCA notice .
So rather than loose the entire site, I took down the pirate radio page.
- September 22, 2018 at 9:21 am #106487
I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to, here. I see on another site that you say that you are blocked from posting on Part15.org. That is not the case, as far as I can see (as a moderator).
Unfortunately, the way that DMCA takedowns work, anyone can issue a notice and it’s up to you to prove that you aren’t violating a copyright. The issuer could literally be anyone, and unless you have definite proof it’s a member at this site, I wouldn’t accuse anyone here of anything, since this Forum is open for reading.
- September 22, 2018 at 9:33 am #106489
By the way, I think I’d look into changing hosting companies as well, if they’re prepared to take down your entire web site due to what might be a frivolous DMCA takedown claim of one particular page.
- September 22, 2018 at 10:21 am #106494
Question from Me
sparepart I also would like to learn what is happening and who is behind it.
On what grounds was a DMCA takedown placed against your website?
What is the identity of the complainer?
How did the complaint relate to your posting a definition of “pirate radio”?
You can also contact me by email if you prefer
It might be something I can report on The Blare Blog.
- September 22, 2018 at 10:36 am #106499
- September 22, 2018 at 10:48 am #106503
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), an ISP does not have to provide the identity of the individual that initiated the takedown notice.
The ISP is legally obligated to take down ONLY the identified material that purportedly violates copyright. They’re also supposed to do due diligence on the validity of the complaint, but most don’t. You can file a DMCA counter notice if you believe that the original notice is in error, or frivolous, and in fact, you own all the material being questioned.
A DMC takedown notice is one of the few instances where it is assumed that you are guilty unless proven innocent. Both it and the associated counter notice are serious legal challenges, and should not be entered into lightly. That’s why, if there’s an issue, you usually contact someone first and ask them to remove disputed material.
- September 22, 2018 at 10:56 am #106506
Speaking of Mistakes
While on this thread I happened to take a tour of the website at compdecon.org and spotted a link error that you’ll want to repair.
At the far right of the main menu bar “InfoAge” has a .prg where it should have a .org.
- September 22, 2018 at 1:23 pm #106511
I can promise you with 100% certainty that the “Radio Sheriff” is also the “Internet Sheriff” and your pirate radio page looked strikingly similar to a sheet he made up about a year ago. Of course, you’re probably not allowed to see his page where he lists the difference between pirate and Part 15 radio as it’s probably stashed on his site only viewable by the chosen. But I must admit that it did look and read very similar to his page, and I can promise you that as sure as there’s an “X” in Christmas, he’s the one who sent the takedown notice, as he has a two page small print rules sheet about reading his website and how he will hunt down and destroy anyone who uses or posts anything that is on his site.
So the question is, did he find it here, and then go too your site, or did he stumble on it on your site himself?
But to be honest, your pirate page seemed like a pretty close copy of his pirate vs part 15 page.
And yes, he’s the kind of guy who would never contact you first. He’d take the full blown legal approach.
And yes, many ISP’s panic in these situations and not wanting to risk anything bad happening to them, will immediately pull a website.
- September 22, 2018 at 3:17 pm #106521
So here the pop-up from the part15.org website:
- September 22, 2018 at 3:40 pm #106523
I got this pop up a couple of times too!
Once I filled in the thing and it let my post through. one other time I was actually logged out and when I logged in again it was fine.
Didn’t care about it any more.
Can someone fill me in….what is a DMCA notice?
Not as savvy about this computer language lol!
- September 22, 2018 at 3:48 pm #106525
Guess I need to live in the real world – Where I come from, a polite comment goes a long way.
- September 22, 2018 at 3:49 pm #106527
That could be from a number of issues. I’ve noticed several site lockouts today from various IP’s.
I’ve gotten it in the past – I just turned off my VPN and had no further issues.
It could be that you entered your password wrong several times and the site locked you out temporarily.
You obviously were able to post again, so the lockout was just temporary.
Rest assured, this was just a coincidence, and had nothing to do with your DMCA takedown notice.
- September 22, 2018 at 3:50 pm #106529
- September 22, 2018 at 3:51 pm #106531
- September 22, 2018 at 4:08 pm #106533
DMCA – Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It’s one of the more draconian laws in the U.S. Someone who feels that their copyrighted work has been duplicated without permission can issue what is known as a takedown notice, and an ISP is legally obligated to remove the material from a website. It also happens quite frequently on Usenet, and the Usenet provider is obligated to remove the content from their news servers.
It’s only applicable within the U.S., but some ISP’s in other countries honor (for whatever reason) DMCA takedown notices.
If you, as the receiver of a takedown notice, feels that it was issued in error and was wrong, or frivolous (and there are a lot of those), you can issue a DMCA Counter Notice, essentially claiming copyright yourself (i.e., the material originated from you). At that point, the issue could go to court.
Generally, in most cases, the individual or company that felt its copyright violated would contact the suspected violator with the problem, and there would be an opportunity to remove the material without legal intervention. But there are a lot of unreasonable people ‘out there’, with various motivations other than to protect their intellectual property, and a lot of the time they get away with the hammer approach, even if they’re in the wrong. Copyright is pretty specific, and unless you directly copy something, ‘similar’ isn’t good enough.
Unfortunately this law requires the accused to prove innocence after the fact, and to most people it isn’t worth the hassle or the money to object.
If it does turn out to be the Radio Sheriff, I would not find it surprising.
A few posts down he defends this practice (amongst others). However, I find it rather sad that someone who claims to want to build up the hobby would take such great delight in helping to tear it down.
- September 22, 2018 at 4:08 pm #106535
Thanks Carl…..quite complicated!
So how does Spareparts fit in all this? What happened to cause this copyright infringement just posting on this forum?
Good to know for my own information.
- September 22, 2018 at 4:14 pm #106537
Basically, I was preemptively indicating that the Part 15 station I helped build at a non-profit was not a pirate and completely legitimate.
Decided to seek the advise of our peers on putting the best foot forward , and in the process, ran afoul of another supposed proponent of Part 15 broadcasting.
- September 22, 2018 at 4:17 pm #106540
By the way got that pop up again!
- September 22, 2018 at 4:28 pm #106543
“While on this thread I happened to take a tour of the website at compdecon.org and spotted a link error that you’ll want to repair.
At the far right of the main menu bar “InfoAge” has a .prg where it should have a .org.”
Thank you for the compliment and for catching that! Much appreciated.
- September 22, 2018 at 4:40 pm #106545
Mark, the issue really has nothing to do with this Forum, other than the individual who issued the DMCA Takedown Notice may have seen this thread, and followed the links to the website.
Too bad they didn’t give spareparts the courtesy of contacting him directly first, which would have been easy to do.
- September 22, 2018 at 6:13 pm #106547
First off, I would like to thank both the part15.org and ALPB admin team in allowing the thread(s) to continue. Hopefully others can make use of the information.
On that, I have been pondering the whole situation and came to the following conclusions:
- Part 15 broadcasting needs a description of what we do that can be placed under GPL or one of the other share-alike licenses. If it’s GPL or S/A, we can avoid the issue that I tripped over
- The same information can be linked from Wikipedia.
- With the recent push in the media to conflate part 15 broadcasters and Pirates, a proactive approach is in our best interests.
What’s the groups take on how to best market Part 15 broadcasting?
- September 22, 2018 at 7:24 pm #106552
I think the trick is to keep things simple and straightforward.
I had a standard spoken blurb at the top of every hour, which basically stated that my radio station operated under regulations for unlicensed broadcasting from Industry Canada and the CRTC (the two regulatory bodies here in Canada, you can substitute the FCC for the U.S.). I then gave out contact information for those that had questions and comments. I put those simple statements on my website (when I had one) as well.
No one can possibly make a copyright complaint about that, at least without making fools of themselves. It gives all the information that a casual listener or passer by would want. If desired, you could also add a link to the FCC Part 15 rules for those who want further information (perhaps on a Links page). You could also add a link to Part15.org if you wanted (hint hint).
Sometimes I think a lot of the time we (in this hobby) get caught up in the technical details (including sound quality), and forget that radio is all about listening to great programming (which is what the potential listeners want).
- September 22, 2018 at 8:06 pm #106555
I have the same disclaimer saying this station follows all BETS-1 and CRTC rules for unlicensed broadcasting using an approved transmitter. Any comments can be emailed to………….. and I did it in speech to text with an official sounding voice and made 60 or so copies so it comes up at random in the mix, along with the other ID’s and jingles.
I like the idea of giving reference to this forum.
Going back to the original theme of this thread I use the call letters WMRK(sounded good) and checked and there is no station in Canada with those letters and in all the USA there’s one, a small station in Alabama but I didn’t think that would matter to me here.
- September 23, 2018 at 4:11 am #106559
Total posts : 188
Regarding explaining license free broadcasting to the public, Jon Paul Janze authored and I edited a short blurb about this. Click on “About Us” at the top of this page and scroll down to view this. We tried to avoid specific details about rules and technology with the thought that the explanation might encourage someone with no knowledge of the subject to learn more here rather than scare them away by making license free broadcasting look too difficult.
Maybe this could be improved and used to promote the activity on other venues. (I suppose Jon Paul would need to give permission for this.)
- September 23, 2018 at 4:27 am #106562
Two and a half years ago when the FCC announced stepped up pirate enforcement I created two items that I posted to my website, and also a form letter, and all these items were sent to FCC offices, real estate offices, politicians offices, etc from myself on behalf of legal Part 15 Radio. This was in March of 2016.
I have a pdf of one of those items still posted at:
And if anyone would like to link to it, copy and paste it, print and mail it, or whatever you’d like to do with it, feel free to do so. It is dated by over 2 years now, and doesn’t reference Canada at all, but it worked for me.
I have several other working versions of it from back then, and also have my own “Part 15 vs Pirate Radio” flyer that I typed up, apparently at the same time the other Part 15 webmaster was creating his. So much so that I was accused of copying his even though mine was completed before he posted his. They are not copies of each other. Mine was also mailed to those listed above. I spent about $50 in postage back then sending my packets to those I felt would have the most impact. Whether or not it helped, I don’t know.
- September 23, 2018 at 6:01 am #106565
Tim’s treatise keeps things nice and simple as well. I like the single sentence approach, but to each their own.
The problem with fact sheets comparing Part 15 operation with Pirate Operation that can be found elsewhere is that the ‘fact’ sheets are usually over-generalizations that are often wrong.
For example, picking several at random, one ‘fact’ sheet states that pirate broadcasts often contain offensive language. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Often you can find that same offensive language on licensed stations, never mind Part 15 ones. Language, particularly today, is not a pirate indicator.
And another ‘fact’ states that pirate broadcasts often contain poor, over-processed audio. Again, that really has nothing to do with pirates, per say. I can tune across the radio dial and find many licensed stations with really, really bad audio, particular on AM. Many Part 15 broadcasters have poor audio, sometimes because of program material, sometimes because of poor funding. So again, audio is not a pirate indicator.
The ONLY, and I repeat, only, criteria for determining whether an unlicensed broadcaster is legal or not is adherence to the FCC Part 15 rules (in the U.S.) or BETS/RSS210 (Canada). Any other claim is just posturing.
- September 23, 2018 at 6:30 am #106570
Reality is Out There Waiting To Be Found
It is ugly and disturbing that someone like the “hobby master” claims to own the rights to public information, but, as Artisan points out, the DMCA makes it easy to do that.
At KDX I have long taken the approach that so long as what I transmit sounds like a “normal” radio station, the public doesn’t have any tendency to wonder what it is or where it’s coming from. Radio comes as aural information and most people are not very aural in their sensibility.
Websites are bigger targets because they appear as visual stimulus toward which people are more “awake” and responsive.
Negative destructive type persons do more to drive the web than anyone else, which puts decent people on their guard.
This posting will be simulcast on The Blare Blog.
- September 23, 2018 at 6:50 am #106577
Linking to a file claimed under a DMCA is supposedly equally as bad.
Example would be putting the content on a server in a county that does not follow the local equivalent of the DMCA, and linking to it from your US website
And, yes, We are looking into changing ISP’s
- September 23, 2018 at 7:00 am #106585
How to tell the difference:
The Federal Communications commission has an on-line database at https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/am-query for AM stations, and https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/fm-query for FM stations. If the station is listed there, they are legitimate
Stations legally operating under Part 15 rules have a very limited range due to antenna and power restrictions. The odds if they are not using a verified call sign and /or you can hear the station at a substantial distance from where they claim to be, it’s a pirate or unlicensed broadcaster.
Partially sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_North_America#Land-based_unlicensed_broadcasts
Licensing for wikimedia content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
Original Content : https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
- September 23, 2018 at 7:12 am #106587
No one actually owns the rights to public information. However, they can own the rights to how they choose to interpret, and relate that information.
As I said, reading the original article as posted at the top of this thread, it read like I was reading the page HB had on their website. Now, it was posted as being a “copy paste” does this mean that you literally copied and pasted it from the HB site? if so, that actually is a pretty clear copyright violation. And he was within his rights to do something about it. Even if it was only mostly a copy and you changed a word or two, he still had a legitimate beef. I don’t believe he went about tending to that complaint in a very nice manner, but he was entitled to. Few things pain me more than defending the webmaster at HB, but he’s right. He didn’t have to be a dick about it, but that’s his way and he’s entitled to be that way if he chooses as well.
Anyone is welcome to explain the differences between a pirate and part 15 in their own words.
Also, note that an ISP and a server or website provider are two different things. An ISP provides you a connection to the internet, and may also provide you web hosting space. But you can choose from thousands of web hosting providers while keeping the same ISP. Most of the larger outfits deal with a copyright notice violation in a rather swift way, and most will not notify you ahead of time. It’s more like Wham, you’re gone, and then here’s your notice why. They don’t want the risk of being sued for letting you violate copyright.
A year or so ago I created a graphic promoting radio in general:
It circulated through several radio forum groups, Facebook groups, etc. It’s certainly not Part 15 specific and we used it mostly to promote my employers stations. However HB’s webmaster picked it up and posted it in his forum. When I pointed out it was my creation he removed it mighty fast. Not because I asked him to, because I didn’t, but because he’d probably cut off his legs before acknowledging that I did something he was in favor of.
BTW, feel free to use and circulate the above. Just don’t try to claim credit for it, LOL.
- September 23, 2018 at 7:21 am #106589
Growing out of this discussion about ownership of information I happened to refer to Part15.org as the “Low Power Forum of Record“, which instantly became “intellectual property”. The time was 9:44 AM CDT Sunday, September 23, 2018,; the place was The Blare Blog.
At this time and upon this occasion I hereby transfer ownership of the expression “Low Power Forum of Record” to Part15.org, its owner and members, to use or not use for a period of two-thousand years.
Use of “Low Power Forum of Record” by outside parties is forbidden and can result in a DMCA take down notice.
As you were.
- September 23, 2018 at 7:32 am #106591
Total posts : 496
Carl, you are a generous scholar and philanthropist. We accept your kind offer and from this point henceforth part15.org site shall be referred to as the “Low Power Forum of Record”, and to the gallows will all who deny this edict.
- September 23, 2018 at 9:05 am #106593
In typical Radio Sheriff fashion, Bill DeFelice attempts to explain why he did what he did in a recent post over at Hobbybroadcaster. I guess he does care what is said about him on other Forums :-). He’s insulting (throwing around the word ‘illiterate’, both against CDL and members here), aggressive, and plain wrong in spots.
Bill claims that he attempted to contact the owners of the website, and that there is no contact info on that website. Wrong. There’s a clearly marked Facebook link at the bottom of the page, through which you can send a message to the CDL. He obviously didn’t try very hard.
Bill claims that the page was flagged by a plagiarism service. The fact that he employs such a service for a mere hobbyist website is staggering in and of itself, and demonstrates the pedestal upon which he places himself and his opinions.
He claims that the page was, word for word, a copy of his pirate vs part 15 fact sheet. Whether that is true or not we can’t tell, as it is no longer up, but I don’t believe that that was the case.
One of the problems with these plagiarism services is that they can’t distinguish between strict copies (which violate copyright) and fair use. They identify similarities, and they are quite often incorrect. Copying bits and pieces of a web page could be seen as copyright violation – it could also be seen as fair use.
CDL is also a member over at Hobbybroadcaster (although inactive). They are obviously not in ‘competition’ with Bill or his website, but just attempting to put up a Part 15 operation. There’s no reason to just blindly assume that they deliberately ripped Bill and Hobbybroadcaster off, and if Bill had made even a fraction of the effort that it took to create the DMCA takedown to contact them (I found the contact info in seconds), this all could have been resolved relatively cleanly and peacefully.
It couldn’t be that spareparts is now posting here and the ALPB that governed Bill’s decision to aggressively go after them, could it?
Based on my analysis of Bill’s page, I believe that CDL is fortunate not to use any part of it, even if they did make an unintentional mistake and break copyright. As I indicated in a previous post, the comparison in that page between part 15 and pirate broadcasting is littered with generalities which may or may not be true, and the same criticisms applied to pirate operations can often be applied to licensed stations. The page shows a blind hatred of pirates, nothing more.
I agree with others in this thread that we need a generic, copyright free, license free (etc. etc.) blurb that Part 15 broadcasters can use.
Bill is so deathly afraid of others stealing ‘his’ ideas (as if we’d want to) that it’s clouding his judgement and this paranoia is negatively affecting both his website and the hobby in general.
When all is said and done, we should be helping, not hurting, each other.
- September 23, 2018 at 11:57 am #106596
(Again, I find myself defending HB.)
I do not consider a link to a Facebook page as a good way to contact someone. A LOT of people are not Facebook members, and I know a lot of people who HATE Facebook and will not participate in it.
Forcing someone to join Facebook in order to make contact is not what I consider an easy, or feasible way to provide contact information. An option, yes, the definitive way to contact, no. You could go the complicated way and install a contact form on the website as HB does – an excellent way to keep your actual contact information private, or provide an email address. Even if you make up one specifically for web contacts and have it then forward to your regular email.
For the record store we provide a Facebook page, e-mail address and a phone number. For the Part 15 station we provide e-mail and phone.
You guys really need to stop putting me in the position to defend HB. LOL.
- September 23, 2018 at 12:08 pm #106598
Tim, the point was that it was claimed there was NO contact information on the website. The inference of course being that they were hiding while they were deliberately ripping him off.
There was. It may not have been the best, but it was there.
Postscript. I do not use Facebook. I followed the Facebook link, and was easily able to get a contact phone number from their Facebook page (in the About section). It took another couple of seconds. I sincerely doubt that there was any effort to contact them – they’re certainly ‘out there’ in plain sight.
- September 23, 2018 at 12:14 pm #106602
Part15.org Mental Health Certificate
We show splendid mental health by fairly and deliberatively speaking for all sides in fair and just criticism of another party who chooses not to be here.
As we have said before by way of an outright invitation Hobby Bill would be as welcome here as everyone else, but he has taken the choice of being stand-offish which is one’s option.
Therefore Tim serves a valuable role by defending the absentee.
- September 23, 2018 at 1:20 pm #106605
I’m not going to say much more then this:
- Bill has my e-mail address and in fact directly emailed me a formal DMCA complaint that my web hosting/email provider (ISP) stamped at 7:54 AM. Took me a while to find it, but in all fairness, it’s there.
- My web hosting/email provider (ISP) emailed the DMCA notice to me, and it’s time stamp was 7:16 AM.
Without seeing the time stamps on the systems that actually sent the email, I’m not going out on a limb and state which email was sent first.
I replied to my ISP at 9:48 AM, and the content was gone at 10:00 AM.
I’m hoping to put this issue to bed and working with anyone that want to contribute, and continue to market content delivery by Part 15 radio to our listeners.
- September 23, 2018 at 2:41 pm #106608
As requested, the issue is officially put to bed, at least in this thread.
The topic ‘So hows this cut & paste explaining what Low Power broadcasting is?’ is closed to new replies.