DCUFM and Redbrick

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?

af666x

Sorry - I don't think this was a subtle enough analogy...

af666x wrote: »

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.

I probably should have said this:

af666x wrote: »

If you have a car (RADIO STATION),
and it isn't taxed or insured (OR YOU DON'T HAVE A CURRENT UP TO DATE BROADCASTING LICENSE)
(regardless of whether you're *getting it sorted*),
it has no right to be on the road (INTERNET).

Now people can harp on back and forth about the grey areas of motivation for using that specific message, or whether IRMO said DCUfm could broadcast without a license - it's all irrelevant.

No license means no right to broadcast. End of the argument. I'm still amazed how people are trying to play an etiquette blame game against redbrick.

monument

af666x wrote: »

No license means no right to broadcast. End of the argument. I'm still amazed how people are trying to play an etiquette blame game against redbrick.

Under what exact law?

Hungerford

monument wrote: »

Under what exact law?

Sections 38 to 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000.

The standard punishments are a maximum fine equivalent of £1,500 or a prison term of up to 12 months on summary conviction and a maximum of £100,000 or five years in the slammer on indictment.

af666x

monument wrote: »

Under what exact law?

Unlicensed broadcasting is covered by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926 and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.

Also, (as would have been the case redbrick could have faced):
Permitting an unlicensed (pirate) station to operate from your property, being a DJ on a pirate station or appearing as a guest on a pirate station are all offences under Broadcast & Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.

lil_cain

monument wrote: »

Under what exact law?

Copyright and related acts of 2000. (It's on the IMRO page. Under 'FAQ'. Would looking it up really have been so hard?)

lil_cain

af666x wrote: »

Unlicensed broadcasting is covered by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1926 and the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.

Also, (as would have been the case redbrick could have faced):
Permitting an unlicensed (pirate) station to operate from your property, being a DJ on a pirate station or appearing as a guest on a pirate station are all offences under Broadcast & Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988.

That's only for real broadcasting, not internet broadcasting.

It's worth pointing out that the issue here isn't broadcasting per se. It's broadcasting any music covered by IMRO (which is most of it)

af666x

lil_cain wrote: »

That's only for real broadcasting, not internet broadcasting.

It's worth pointing out that the issue here isn't broadcasting per se. It's broadcasting any music covered by IMRO (which is most of it)

My apologies. I'll let you handle the legal side of things from here on in

Landa2

monument wrote: »

Under what exact law?

Just a quick analogy on this one.. if i was driving a car without a licence and was stopped by the guards what might happen do you think?

"Ah sure your in the process of applying for your licence, continue on"

...

Generally not having a licence to do something means you cant do it.. (Legally)

monument

The copyright act would only be breached if they did not have permission from the copyright holder.

As the IMRO acts for the copyright holders a letter from them givening permission is fine.

In any case, regarding copyright law -- At the very least a court order would need be made before anybody loses any right broadcasting or other.

monument

Landa2 wrote: »

Just a quick analogy on this one.. if i was driving a car without a licence and was stopped by the guards what might happen do you think?

"Ah sure your in the process of applying for your licence, continue on"

...

Generally not having a licence to do something means you cant do it.. (Legally)

Nope. You seem to be confusing a legal licence with a deal which is called a licence.

In any case, there are examples where licences are needed but letters or notes of some sort are alowed as a stop gap mesure. For example people drive cars without a full licence.