DCUFM and Redbrick

af666x

So I've heard a few things about DCUFM having their hosting removed from redbrick, and some of the pettiness resulting from this (Facebook accounts and whatnot).

If you have a car, and it isn't taxed or insured (regardless of whether you're *getting it sorted*), it has no right to be on the road.

Not looking for an argument here, but just figured I'd put that out there for all those who say redbrick were being childish etc for removing the hosting.

Diarmaid07

It wasn't even their hosting that has been removed - their website is fully accessable on http://www.dcufm.com/ - it has just been the radio stream, which is unlicensed and therefore infringing on copyright.

You've made a very good analogy, one that hopefully people who are blaming RedBrick can begin to understand. I won't add much to this, as I know other people who will end up posting here who can and have made points much better than I could hope to.

MonaghanPenguin

af666x wrote: »

Not looking for an argument here, but just figured I'd put that out there for all those who say redbrick were being childish etc for removing the hosting.

While wanting to stay the hell out of this one, I think the childishness on Redbrick's part wasn't in removing the hosting, it was in replacing it with an announcement voiced by a former Station Manager known to have issues with the current team. Now, the reaction to that from DCUFM was equally childish so really neither have much of a moral high ground to take.

Diarmaid07

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

While wanting to stay the hell out of this one, I think the childishness on Redbrick's part wasn't in removing the hosting, it was in replacing it with an announcement voiced by a former Station Manager known to have issues with the current team. Now, the reaction to that from DCUFM was equally childish so really neither have much of a moral high ground to take.

I believe that a replacement stream should have been put in place for reasons I've voiced elsewhere, and I'll quote myself:

They were providing a service allowing people to know *why* DCUfm was inaccessable – ie, because the managment had not sorted out a license. If DCUfm had just dropped off the air with no explanation, would that honestly have been better?

Now, I don't know what backstory there is to whomever done the voiceover, nor anything about their relationship to the current team, but I feel that someone who had contact with DCUfm or even just experience with radio presentations would be better than an average joe plucked from the not-too-broad base that redbrick had avaliable to itself?

Cid-Highwind

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

While wanting to stay the hell out of this one, I think the childishness on Redbrick's part wasn't in removing the hosting, it was in replacing it with an announcement voiced by a former Station Manager known to have issues with the current team. Now, the reaction to that from DCUFM was equally childish so really neither have much of a moral high ground to take.

Yea, i'm not going to get into that one either. However, I will say that all of this could have been avoided were it not for gross mismanagement by whoever manages the station these days, as I posted elsewhere:

If you want someone to blame for ‘making presenters look like prats’ then you don’t need to look as far as RedBrick, just as far as the station management, as this whole situation stinks of bad management.

First off, it’s the responsibility of the station management to ensure that all the correct licensing is in place and current, and that paperwork of such is available to any service provider or other persons who need it. Since you don’t have an FM licence to worry about this should be pretty simple. Management failed to make themselves aware of the licensing requirements well enough in advance to ensure that it was renewed and kept up to date. Strike One.

Failing that, when the need for a licence renewal became apparent, this should have been processed as quickly as possible (it can’t possibly take this many weeks to pay a bill), and any paperwork needed to keep your service provider covered in the interim should have been secured. Strike two.

Even if all this failed, hope need not have been lost. As I understand it, you need an IMRO licence to broadcast music, anybody can record themselves talking onto the internet. If an agreement had been reached with RedBrick rather than resorting to name calling then at least some of the programming could have continued. Strike three.

Look for other hosting providers all you want, but it’ll cost you money, and when they find out you don’t have your licences in order and the paperwork to back that up, you’ll be paying for a service that’s been disabled.

If I was in MPS, or still a student, or even really cared that much, I’d be shouting for the managers resignation at least as loudly as I was ranting about RedBrick.

KenHy

How about someone explains what all this is about for those of us who haven't a clue, or otherwise some form of biased story putting blame on someone is probably going to result from this thread.

Diarmaid07

The following is a reply I made to the "F-CK REDBRICK" facebook page before it was deleted. It was in response to a similar question. It has been slightly changed from what I originally posted, just for clarification purposes. It also may be factually incorrect in places, which is why I say that it is completly of my own opinion.

Also, in the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to say I am current redbrick committee.

The following statement is completly unoffical, my own personal opinion and is no reflection of the opinion of any of the members of redbrick, the redbrick committee or Jesus, who is known to speak through me at times, normally regarding the severe lack of vodka in his immediate presence.

DCUFM failed to provide proof that they had paid the IMRO license fee for broadcasting online. They had a grace period up until December the 4th to broadcast online by which time the license fee had to be paid. I do not believe - bearing in mind that this is my opinion solely - that any information to the contrary(ie, that DCUFM had *paid* the licence fee) was given to those in charge of freely hosting DCUFMs stream as a favour - ie, redbrick. Therefore, under the perceived knowledge that DCUFM were broadcasting online illegally, the stream was shut down in order to comply with local regulations, and as to not get the SPC or any societies involved in a nice long legal struggle if someone decided to sue.

DCUFM argued to the contrary - that they *were* allowed broadcast online, without disclosing any proof of said statement. This profile [ie, the F-CK REDBRICK facebook page] was set up by either members of DCUFM or affiliated persons with an interest in its running, in order to organise an attemt to coupulate with one of redbricks servers, I assume.

lil_cain

KenHy wrote: »

How about someone explains what all this is about for those of us who haven't a clue, or otherwise some form of biased story putting blame on someone is probably going to result from this thread.

Redbrick used host DCU FM's stream (since they can't get a proper broadcasting license). DCU FM didn't renew their license to broadcast music from IMRO in time (or proof of the same to Redbrick). As such, Redbrick took them off the air, and replaced them with a thingy by last years station manager explaining the situation.

Landa2

I had a very long discussion about this one myself. and i have to agree with redbrick on this one. Now the way it was handled by both parties is childish for the reasons stated above but DCUFM let their licence expire, this does not affect them for they may be broadcasting from their studio but only to redbrickv who are the ones hosting the stream. If there had of been any repercussions from this unlicenced radio broadcast, Redbrick would have been the Society in the firing line not DCUFM as they are the ones broadcasting it to the outside world.

Through a conversation with a member of the DCUFM Staff i have been told that their licence is in the process of review and that a letter has been drafted by the licencing authority that states that they are allowed to broadcast. It is at this point that i refer to the OP's post. This letter is not a licence, it is a stop gap on the way to a licence, Redbrick are well within their rights to not allow this stream until the licence has been fully approved. Haveing a letter saying that we are looking at a licence application is not even close to having the licence.

DCUFM should have had the forsight to reapply for the licence before it expired and all of this bickering and controversy could have been avoided.

Pygmalion

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Hauk

Ban Redbrick.

Ban DCUFM.

Saves all this crap.

KenHy

This is the first that I've heard about this, but from what I understand.

a)Some form of Licence is necessary if you want to stream online

b)DCU FM do not have a valid Licence.

c)because of this redbrick removed the stream pending them getting a licence, without first notifying DCUFM committee.

-That appears to me to be a childish thing to do, it's not hard to contact committee members for various societies, and some notice could easily have been given. If DCU FM have hot some form of interim permission than that should have sorted all this out before the problem ever arose.

If they did not have a licence/interim permission, than they cant complain much about been taken down, but still common courtesy should have been given and a phone call could have been made.

Setting up a facebook group was also childish. Maybe everyone involved should try and sort this among themselves instead of washing their dirty linen online, clearly there's fault attributable to both parties here, so it will do no good to continue fighting online as both sides will have a valid point, but nothing will be sorted.

I have noting to do with either society in case anyone is intrested.

af666x

Good point there RE: Courtesy, but back to my original analogy - the Gardai can confiscate your car on the spot for no tax/insurance. They don't have to be courteous and give you notice.

Likewise, they wouldn't have to give redbrick notice of any legal action for an illegal broadcast. Most likely it was pulled asap to prevent them being left in the firing line.

Landa2

Personally if the stream was hosted on any server with my name on it and i found out it was unlicenced.. my priorities would be the following

1. Get it down ASAP or i may incur massive fines
2. Eat Lunch
3. Inform DCUFM

I would not be in any rush to inform DCUFM as they were in no rush to inform me that their licence had expired

or was about to for that matter

Katniss everMean

"Disclaimer: this is my opinion and my opinion only, not of redbrick committee (Hi I am kat I be webmaster of DCU Networking Society!)"

Overall I think this whole situation could have been dealt with far better, redbrick should have told DCUfm you have been turn off, they should have got redbrick proof, its not redbrick's job to run after DCUfm and run after IMRO.

Societies in the past have been punished for not working in agreement with licenses, Filmsoc where sued, and redbrick itself was shut down years ago for a period of time. Redbrick was just looking after itself, it NEEDS to have good relations with ISS or else redbrick won't exist. If redbrick is taken offline not only does it effect redbrick, but also every other society and club which have an account with them. There are 156 club and society accounts, most use both the web hosting and mailing lists.

rabble rabble robot, needs tea...

Pygmalion

KenHy wrote: »

a)Some form of Licence is necessary if you want to stream online

b)DCU FM do not have a valid Licence.

c)because of this redbrick removed the stream pending them getting a licence, without first notifying DCUFM committee.

-That appears to me to be a childish thing to do, it's not hard to contact committee members for various societies, and some notice could easily have been given.

If approached about the matter, Redbrick can now honestly say that they removed the stream as soon as they found out it that it may be operating without a license.
Leaving the stream up even when they knew it may be operating without a license leaves them at least partially responsible for any laws broken, and I imagine removing any legal threats ASAP is more important than telling DCUFM to renew a license that Redbrick have nothing to do with.

From what I've heard they did put up a message explaining why the stream was gone, so it's not like they just removed it and said no more, it was very clear why the stream was removed and what DCUFM could do to fix it.

irlande

In fairness, redbrick gave a considerable amount of notice that the stream would be taken offline.

AFAIK it was over a months notice when the license was reaching expiry, DCU FM just never renewed it after notice was given. Subsequent notice was also given about a week prior to the expiration and the day before.

Although redbrick may have acted childishly with regards the replacement stream, they gave full and adequate notice.

KenHy

That still doesn't mean that they could not have contacted DCU FM instantly, of course it's understandable that Redbrick will look after themselves first, but it's not like the process of asking DCU FM what the story was would have taken days. It probably would have taken minutes.

The same point would of course work the other way around re. DCU FM making redbrick aware of the situation, however 2 wrongs don't make a right.

This all seems a bit childish and it's damaging to both societies, who generally do great work. I'm sure this could be sorted out in a less public way.

Edit- Just saw Irlande's post now, if that's the case obviously what I said was is void.

Ste.phen

irlande for chair of both societies!

Daysha

Likewise, these are just my own views on the matter and not the official DCUfm stance.

I spend about 6-7 hours a week working in DCUfm, whether it be presenting shows or working in pre-production. I don't do it because I have to, I do it because I enjoy it and it gives me fantastic experience at something I hope will be beneficial to me in the future. Likewise there is a fantastic core group of individuals there who dedicate so much of their own free time to get the station in the best shape possible, whether it be in producing, presenting, administration, anything.

Me and the rest of the people I work with had put a huge amount of pre-recording work into our shows for weeks 11/12, stretching back to prior to reading week, because we all knew we'd be so busy with assignments and stuff that the more we had prepared in advance, the less pressure we would be under. All that work has now gone to waste. Similarly I know of other shows that went into huge efforts in pre-recording their week 12 show, having special guests on and everything, and again this has gone to waste.

I don't know anyone in Redbrick or who's associated with it, so I know I've only been getting the one side of the story since this whole fracas started last Monday week. But that said, the way they have gone about things the last 8-9 days or so has proved to me they vastly underestimated the amount of time and effort students commit to the station every week.

Honestly though, not having the decency to give us prior warning of the steams closure was one thing, but adding the voiceover to the stream (again, without prior warning) was another.

Of course in a perfect world the license would have been renewed sooner, I'm not going to shy away from that, but whoever took the decision to remove the stream needs to understand the repercussions of what he did (I'm not going to get into the whole "IMRO had given us permission to continue without a license" thing because I honestly don't know all the facts there). I know its redbricks stream but it's because of that stream that so many people in FM want to make the best show they can for their friends, family and whoever likes to tune in.

As unfortunate as the whole mess is, considering the trojan amount of work done by everyone involved with the running of the station since September, I think most of us feel rightly aggrieved at the lack of respect shown by Redbrick in the way they've handled this.

irlande

Daysha wrote: »

Honestly though, not having the decency to give us prior warning of the steams closure was one thing, but adding the voiceover to the stream (again, without prior warning) was another.

I agree completely that the voiceover could have and should have been done in a more professional manner. However, I really take an issue with the 'decency to give prior warning'. I have seen the correspondence between redbrick admins and the radio management which are a pretty clear indication that the stream was going to be stopped.

I also think, in my personal opinion of course, that is sort of unfair of you in the way you specify the work that goes into DCU FM. Nobody doubts for a single second the dedication and commitment involved as the same amount is involved in running any society (or club, apparentally!). Redbrick admins work non-stop and are available 24/7 in the event of a server crash to deal with stuff and likewise its entirely understandable that because of the hard and equal work they put in, they'd pull the stream to cover their backs.

It really seems that DCU FM management dropped the ball on this and didnt renew the license on time. Its a simple fix: get a license, redbrick rehost. Problem solved.

Its understandable that tensions and tempers would be high, but in all my time in DCU i've never seen such inappropriate reactions to anything society related. Its a shame that what is realistically such a small error has become so blown out of proportion.

My opinion, anyway.

Landa2

Before people get the wrong idea on this i am in no way involved with the running of redbrick or any of the decisions that have been made on this.

I do Acknowlege the amazing ammount of work done by DCUFM this year and all that they have put into getting the station up to the standard that it is at. But you spoke of the trojan ammount of work that was put in over the last few weeks to get things pre-recorded for weeks 11 and 12, i have to say i am at a loss as to why after recieving word from redbrick that the licence was due to expire that a little of this drive wasnt put into getting the licence renewed thus making sure that all this work wasnt going to be in vain..

Also i must add DCUFM did get told their licence was expiring, what did DCUFM expect to happen when it did..

Daysha

I agree with you for the most part irlande, nor am I dismissing the work effort that goes into being a Redbrick committee member either. The reason I gave examples of the work that goes into the station was because if the roles were reversed I am sure there would be others that would handle the situation a lot more delicately.

Consider a hypothetical situation where another society had the power to basically do untold damage to a certain amount of work that Redbrick do (which is basically what happened here, without a stream there is no DCUfm). Even if that society felt they were within their rights to do such damage to Redbrick, I would still expect them to approach it with a certain amount of decency. A decency that has certainly been lacking in the past week.

Green Hand Guy

Daysha wrote: »

Consider a hypothetical situation where another society had the power to basically do untold damage to a certain amount of work that Redbrick do (which is basically what happened here, without a stream there is no DCUfm). Even if that society felt they were within their rights to do such damage to Redbrick, I would still expect them to approach it with a certain amount of decency. A decency that has certainly been lacking in the past week.

This isn't about decency, it's about legality. As Angelkat said earlier, societies have gotten in serious legal trouble before for licensing issues. DCUFM were made aware their license was expiring, they were made aware they would be taken off the air. They didn't renew the license on time, so they were taken down to avoid legal complications.

What sort of decency, short of breaking the law, are you looking for?

Landa2

Its not a society but 2 organizations do have that power. Both ISS and Heanet can at any time pull the plug on redbrick which effectivly pulls the plug on everyone else.. As previosly stated an unlicenced radio station is a good reason to do this which would not only effect redbrick but every other club, society, user on its system..

phantom_lord

Daysha wrote: »

Likewise, these are just my own views on the matter and not the official DCUfm stance.

I spend about 6-7 hours a week working in DCUfm, whether it be presenting shows or working in pre-production. I don't do it because I have to, I do it because I enjoy it and it gives me fantastic experience at something I hope will be beneficial to me in the future. Likewise there is a fantastic core group of individuals there who dedicate so much of their own free time to get the station in the best shape possible, whether it be in producing, presenting, administration, anything.

Me and the rest of the people I work with had put a huge amount of pre-recording work into our shows for weeks 11/12, stretching back to prior to reading week, because we all knew we'd be so busy with assignments and stuff that the more we had prepared in advance, the less pressure we would be under. All that work has now gone to waste. Similarly I know of other shows that went into huge efforts in pre-recording their week 12 show, having special guests on and everything, and again this has gone to waste.

I don't know anyone in Redbrick or who's associated with it, so I know I've only been getting the one side of the story since this whole fracas started last Monday week. But that said, the way they have gone about things the last 8-9 days or so has proved to me they vastly underestimated the amount of time and effort students commit to the station every week.

Honestly though, not having the decency to give us prior warning of the steams closure was one thing, but adding the voiceover to the stream (again, without prior warning) was another.

Of course in a perfect world the license would have been renewed sooner, I'm not going to shy away from that, but whoever took the decision to remove the stream needs to understand the repercussions of what he did (I'm not going to get into the whole "IMRO had given us permission to continue without a license" thing because I honestly don't know all the facts there). I know its redbricks stream but it's because of that stream that so many people in FM want to make the best show they can for their friends, family and whoever likes to tune in.

As unfortunate as the whole mess is, considering the trojan amount of work done by everyone involved with the running of the station since September, I think most of us feel rightly aggrieved at the lack of respect shown by Redbrick in the way they've handled this.

I'm confused. DCUFM had a radio station streaming via redbrick, the licence expired, and so redbrick pulled the stream? Why is your beef with redbrick? Surely you should be complaining to whomever allowed the licence to lapse?

Daysha

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

This isn't about decency, it's about legality. As Angelkat said earlier, societies have gotten in serious legal trouble before for licensing issues. DCUFM were made aware their license was expiring, they were made aware they would be taken off the air. They didn't renew the license on time, so they were taken down to avoid legal complications.

What sort of decency, short of breaking the law, are you looking for?

Look, I don't want to say much as I haven't seen the official paperwork, but as far as legality is concerned, I was made aware that at no point were DCUfm in a position to illegally broadcast online while the application was in the process of renewal. The renewal application has since been completed by IMRO, yet here we are. If someone wants to correct me on any of that please go ahead.

As regards to decency, I don't think you need to look much further than the audio loop that was playing for a number of days following the stream closure. Regardless of legality, that part of the mess was unnecessary and completed uncalled for.

Edit: Just to reiterate again these are just my perceptions on what has happened and nothing more. I didn't want to post in here in the first place but given the first few posts I just wanted to give the view from the other side of spectrum rather than let this turn into one big DCUfm bashfest. Again if people have some official facts with proof to back it up let's here them, but I've said all I needed to say.

robby^5

Daysha wrote: »

Consider a hypothetical situation where another society had the power to basically do untold damage to a certain amount of work that Redbrick do (which is basically what happened here, without a stream there is no DCUfm). Even if that society felt they were within their rights to do such damage to Redbrick, I would still expect them to approach it with a certain amount of decency. A decency that has certainly been lacking in the past week.

You're talking about this as "damage" makes it seem like you think Redbrick did this to spite you or something, simply because of how they handled it.

It wasn't that they felt they were within their rights to pull the station, they were within their rights to pull it.

The only people with the power to do untold damage to the work DCU FM did were DCU FM management, it's entirely their fault you're not broadcasting right now and that your work has been wasted.

Hauk

Sure aren't we all enjoying the peace of a quiet hub now? Much better.

irlande

robby^5 wrote: »

The only people with the power to do untold damage to the work DCU FM did were DCU FM management, it's entirely their fault you're not broadcasting right now and that your work has been wasted.

It is impressive though, you have to admit.

That they can make such a balls of it themselves and pass the blame entirely onto a third party (redbrick) and have no reprocussions brought on themselves by their own members.

Again, completely personal opinion though.

Hungerford

Daysha wrote: »

But that said, the way they have gone about things the last 8-9 days or so has proved to me they vastly underestimated the amount of time and effort students commit to the station every week.

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't hold through - DCUfm was broadcasting illegally without a licence and Redbrick had to pull it to avoid getting itself into legal trouble as the station's host.

Daysha wrote: »

Of course in a perfect world the license would have been renewed sooner, I'm not going to shy away from that, but whoever took the decision to remove the stream needs to understand the repercussions of what he did

I'm certain that they do: they were protecting their members from legal action from IMRO because DCUfm messed up its licencing. I'm sorry but streaming without a licence is illegal. End of story.

I have been involved in both societies in the past and I have no sympathy whatsoever with MPS. Redbrick did what was right. Full stop.

Choc123

Landa2 wrote: »

Personally if the stream was hosted on any server with my name on it and i found out it was unlicenced.. my priorities would be the following

1. Get it down ASAP or i may incur massive fines
2. Eat Lunch
3. Inform DCUFM

I would not be in any rush to inform DCUFM as they were in no rush to inform me that their licence had expired

or was about to for that matter

Please tell me you're not in the SPC or SU with an attitude like that. Prioritising lunch over informing the college radio station that their stream has been disabled.
Shame on you.

I think the attitudes on this thread are despicable and I will say straight away that I am not involved in DCUfm and never have been.

Asking the former station manager to leave a voiceover that clearly is a dig at the new team is an absolute disgrace and warrants an explanation.

From listening to DCUfm this year it has improved drastically. All you have to do is look at the calibre of guests they have on and see the amount of students they are accomodating on a daily basis.

I'm sure there is a valid reason for the license to have expired, how do we know it did actually expire and it wasn't a mistake at the other end?

The point I'm making is it is wrong to accuse the station management of being lazy by not renewing a license when we don't know what exactly happened.

I think it's wrong in the first place that DCUfm is using the redbrick stream. They should probably think about getting clear of redbrick completely after all this.

Attol

Choc123 wrote: »

I'm sure there is a valid reason for the license to have expired, how do we know it did actually expire and it wasn't a mistake at the other end?

The point I'm making is it is wrong to accuse the station management of being lazy by not renewing a license when we don't know what exactly happened.

I think it's wrong in the first place that DCUfm is using the redbrick stream. They should probably think about getting clear of redbrick completely after all this.

How do we know that it had expired? Emails from IMRO. They themselves gave DCUFM a grace period until the 4th of December. After the 4th of December they were officially not licensed. DCUFM were informed well before the expiry date that their license was about to expire. It was DCUFM's responsibility to look after their own license.

RedBrick get absolutely nothing for hosting this. Not even a thank you. DCUFM was getting free hosting from RedBrick. If they go elsewhere they will still need to have their licensing in order.

Green Hand Guy

Choc123 wrote: »

Asking the former station manager to leave a voiceover thay clearly is a dig at the new team is an absolute disgrace and warrants an explanation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just the message they had to use last year when DCUFM lied about needing a license?

I hardly see how that's a dig at the new team.

Anyway, while I personally know there's some animosity between the old and new people at DCU FM, I only know that because I have friends in the society. How would anyone in redbrick even know about something like that? Sounds like you're reading far more into it than there is.

Choc123 wrote: »

From listening to DCUfm this year it has improved drastically. All you have to do is look at the calibre of guests they have on and see the amount of students they are accomodating on a daily basis.

As has been said many times in this thread, this has nothing to do with the quality of DCU fm or anything else. It's strictly a legal issue.

Also, I have to complain about how immaturely some members of the DCU FM team have been handling this. Firstly there was the F-CK REDBRICK group on facebook, then I received this mail this morning from DCU FM's ****:

"unfortunately the block redrick has implemented on the dcufm steam means that the show is looking like it won't be happening this side of christmas. we will hopefully get a chance to do it next year if redbrick have decided to stop being a big bunch of scrooges and lift the block but for now, it's not happening.
sorry for the artists who contributed songs for us to use. we will give them air time in the future don't worry.
yours,
****"

I hardly think calling redbrick scrooges and blaming them for all this mess is appropriate given the situation. I would expect, if DCU FM are as professional as they claim to be, that the people involved in these childish attacks should be dealt with appropriately.

Choc123

I don't believe the person you have named is a member of the management team of DCUfm and I think yoo have stepped out of line by reprinting that comment.

Green Hand Guy

Choc123 wrote: »

I don't believe the person you have named is a member of the management team of DCUfm and I think yoo have stepped out of line by reprinting that comment.

The comment was mailed out to anyone on facebook who was invited to the UNSIGNED ARTISTS CHRISTMAS EXTRAVAGANZA event (a global facebook event), which makes it a public comment. Whether or not the person in question is on the management team he is a staff member of DCU FM and it was sent out in relation to a DCU FM event.

Attol

The way he used "we" to refer to DCUFM and the fact that he is a presenter on DCUFM shows that he is clearly affiliated with them.

notanarc

"unfortunately the block redrick has implemented on the dcufm steam means that the show is looking like it won't be happening this side of christmas. we will hopefully get a chance to do it next year if redbrick have decided to stop being a big bunch of scrooges and lift the block but for now, it's not happening.
sorry for the artists who contributed songs for us to use. we will give them air time in the future don't worry.
yours,
E"

I hardly think calling redbrick scrooges and blaming them for all this mess is appropriate given the situation. I would expect, if DCU FM are as professional as they claim to be, that the people involved in these childish attacks should be dealt with appropriately.

hey ok so i know this is probably gonna get a load of bad feedback but, hey that's what these forums are for right? voicing your opinion on the matter? anywho i was gonna say was, what is so upsetting about being called a scrooge? compared to some of the words he could have used to describe members of redbrick, scrooge seems to me a light hearted jab at them, in tune with the season thats in it, for not lifting the block even though, from what i gather, dcufm had received permission to continue broadcasting while their licence was being processed from IMRO. i'm pritty sure he's not part of the management team of dcufm (i'm involved with the station myself so i know most of the management) which presumably means he is as much in the dark about all the details of what is happening as most members of dcufm.

to quote from his message again

we will hopefully get a chance to do it next year if redbrick have decided to stop being a big bunch of scrooges and lift the block but for now, it's not happening

this merely states the truth(albeit in a slightly childish manner) ; dcufms stream has been removed by redbrick, his show can no longer air, therefore his event isn't going to happen.

also,

Attol: The way he used "we" to refer to DCUFM and the fact that he is a presenter on DCUFM shows that he is clearly affiliated with them.

the "we", i presume, refers to him and the crew associated with his show and not the whole of dcufm. just saying.

it also seems kinda unfair to name someone on a thread where members of dcufm seem to have been so cautious not to mention the name of the person who recorded the loop that replaced the stream.

that's my opinion anywho.

Attol

notanarc wrote: »

anywho i was gonna say was, what is so upsetting about being called a scrooge? compared to some of the words he could have used to describe members of redbrick, scrooge seems to me a light hearted jab at them, in tune with the season thats in it, for not lifting the block even though, from what i gather, dcufm had received permission to continue broadcasting while their licence was being processed from IMRO.

Had DCUFM at any point shown Redbrick *any* proof that IMRO had said they could broadcast then the "block" would have been lifted.

thusspakeblixa

Why does every problem that anyone has get taken to boards?

Do people want to eventually have to put up with the mindless crap that gets posted?

notanarc

Attol wrote: »

Had DCUFM at any point shown Redbrick *any* proof that IMRO had said they could broadcast then the "block" would have been lifted.

i'm only telling you what i had heard from other members of dcufm. i don't have any proof that it happened or to the contrary so naturally in this situation, it is instinct to believe those who have helped give you a chance at having a career booster to have in a port folio for future job opportunities.
unfortunately the fact that e has been named here, no matter how minor his mistake was (childishly calling redbrick scrooges), tarnishes his reputation. i know this is veering slightly from the topic but isn't the point of these forums so that people can voice their opinions without the fear that their names will be branded as a childish attacker and they most definitely don't deserve to be threatened in the manner that green hand guy has done.

at least that is something you should be able to agree with, no matter how much e might have offended you (if you are associated with redbrick) and the other members of redbrick, he deserves as much anonymity as the former station manager who recorded the loop that replaced dcufm.

i'm changing his name to e in my posts in the hope that all previous posters will do the same for his sake, personal feelings aside.

Green Hand Guy

notanarc wrote: »

which presumably means he is as much in the dark about all the details of what is happening as most members of dcufm.

Which is the heart of the problem. Redbrick have been very upfront in explaining why the stream has been taken down and as far as I can see have set very reasonable conditions for putting it back up (DCUFM produce some evidence that IMRO have given them permission to continue broadcasting)

The DCUFM team though, seem to have not explained this to anyone. Hence random MPS members starting anti-redbrick hate groups on facebook and the staff of the radio station spreading rumours of redbrick doing this maliciously and sending around emails accusing them of being scrooges. I even saw one person's blog implying that the former station manager conspired with redbrick to get DCUFM taken down (which is, of course, a complete lie)

*EDIT* The person in question has sent an apology for the remark in the mail and so I consider that issue at least dropped. I'll remove his name from previous posts as he requested in the apology.

notanarc

Green Hand Guy wrote: »

{E} should be made send a public apology mail to everyone who received the last one. But that's just my opinion as an outsider.

i just got a message there about an hour ago where he apologized but has also requested you to remove his name from this site to protect his right to anonymity.


glad you got the message

So, a summary:

• DCUfm's licence to broadcast online expires.
• RedBrick request a renewal, as they are allowing DCUfm to broadcast via their servers.
• DCUfm don't renew their licence or provide any proof that they are allowed to broadcast online.
• RedBrick cut the stream.
• DCUfm wet themselves with anger at the very thought of RedBrick trying to avoid getting sued or shut down.

I see DCUfm's point. Serious bad form on RedBrick's part. Surely CSD, HEAnet, the judge and the prosecuting solicitors would understand that RedBrick should have kept the stream up because doing otherwise is childish.

I'm not on the RedBrick committee, but this is lol.

gizmo

Folks, I'm temporarily locking this thread so the information in it can be absorbed and we can avoid any rash replies from either side. It'll be open again in the morning but in the meantime if you want some information I suggest going directly to either committee and not basing your opinion off hearsay and rumor as neither of these will be tolerated around here.

EDIT: Thread re-opened, please pay attention to the points above however.

Landa2

Origionally posted by Choc123

Originally Posted by Landa2
Personally if the stream was hosted on any server with my name on it and i found out it was unlicenced.. my priorities would be the following

1. Get it down ASAP or i may incur massive fines
2. Eat Lunch
3. Inform DCUFM

I would not be in any rush to inform DCUFM as they were in no rush to inform me that their licence had expired

or was about to for that matter

Please tell me you're not in the SPC or SU with an attitude like that. Prioritising lunch over informing the college radio station that their stream has been disabled.
Shame on you.

In a response to this, Ive said it earlier in this thread.. DCUFM were told by Redbrick that their licence was due to expire, when it did they were in no rush to either inform redbrick that yes in fact their licence had expired or that they were in the process of getting a new licence. What exactly did they expect to happen when the expirey date came?

On the fact that i would prioritise lunch over informing DCUFM that their radio station was no longer bradcasting on the internet, please read the above 3 lines again. DCUFM Knew there licence was due to expire, they were given pleanty of notice of this. Whereas eating my lunch might have been a little strong, and i do apologise if it came across that way, i am a DCU Student, it was week 11. I have a lot of work to be doing, however the threat of possible legal action is a strong motivator. After making sure i cant get fined, i would return to whatever i was doing, wheather it be assignments or in fact lunch seeing as time is very precious these days, i would then contact DCUFM when i had time as the conversation would not take just a few minutes as you should be able to see from this thread alone.

Getting back on topic..

DCUFM were told their licence was due to expire, from Redbricks perspective they did nothing to remedy this. The deadline was reached. Redbrick pulled the DCUFM Stream and replaced it with a recording that they had from the last licencing issue DCUFM had.

From what i understand this replacement stream has for some reason become one of the issues. Would DCUFM prefer that they were just cut with no explaination? I understand there might be some animosity between this years managment and last years. but im sure if DCUFM had of asked could they replace recording with one from the current management before they started burning the bridges there would have been no problem.

Im my own personal opinion. DCUFM and Redbrick should walk their seperate ways now. if i was in the DCUFM group i would seek hosting elsewhere. if i was on redbrick, assuming dcufm would allow it i would help set them up elsewhere and show them how to manage the system themselves, but i would not continue to host the stream on redbricks servers.

Personally i host all my personal stuff on redbrick, it is a great place to do so, they have a great support stucture and they keep massive ammounts of backups. It is a great place for clubs, socs and general students to do this.. But this faracas has proved that it is not an ideal hosting solution for everyone. Trying not to be biased here but it does all come down to the legality of the data they are hosting. DCUFM's stream was deemed illegal as of December the 4th. This was a threat not only to redbrick but also to me and to everyone else as users of their hosting. I would not be happy if DCUFM's stream was allowed to continue streaming illegally as it posed a major threat to the data i was hosting on Redbricks servers, i would not be suprised if this was every other user, club or society's point of view on this as well..

Thats my personal connection to this..

OK GUYZ, REMEMBER, NO JOKEZ.

T33D-OFF

Honestly, who cares? The millions of loyal listeners???

There is something to be said for the entertainment value of the situation.

thusspakeblixa

T33D-OFF wrote: »

Honestly, who cares? The millions of loyal listeners???

Or the people that do actually put a lot of work in to programmes for the station? (myself being one of them)

thusspakeblixa

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Or the people that do actually put a lot of work in to programmes for the station? (myself being one of them)

Enough to renew your licence in time and let RedBrick know after they requested it?