Just out of curiosity, I asked my Nielsen contact. The reports are covered by copyright.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Ratings information per demographic?
- Thread starter Tomgsinger
- Start date
Just out of curiosity, I asked my Nielsen contact. The reports are covered by copyright.
What are the stations most burdened by 55+ listeners? Just curious because I would think WBZ(AM) and the two sports talkers would carry quite a bit of old-fart "baggage," especially since interest in baseball, the main topic of conversation on both sports stations much of the year, is highest among older males. If these stations do attract a substantial number of older listeners, why do they bill so well? Because men in 25-54 also listen heavily and have pretty much abandoned music formats?
As you can see, the top billing stations, are the stations with the highest expense/operating costs...which can affect profit.
Since Gr Media now has only music formatted stations, which they run pretty lean, (Compared to BZ, EEI and BZ-FM), I understand Hot, WROR and Magic are billing beyond expectations.
Country seems to be in a rebuild mode.....and WBOS has been a perpetual quandary for that group.
Last edited:
In a copyright lawsuit, the first thing the plaintiff has to prove is that the subject of the lawsuit is protected by copyright. The burden is not on the defendant to show something is not copyrightable. I gave two examples of defendants arguing in a court of law that ratings do not have copyright protection because they are facts. Everyone else just makes bare claims that the the ratings are copyrighted, throwing around terms they don't understand or just repeating that Nielsen says they are copyrighted.
Just out of curiosity, I ask you, what else was he going to say?
Again, you are lecturing us based on your background of....?
We should take your word for it because.....?
In the several recent suits regarding unlicensed use of Arbitron / Nielsen data, the first thing on the agenda was to demonstrate that the material was copyrighted as a unique intellectual property product of proprietary and/or patented technology.
Nielsen/ Arbitron won those lawsuits.
And the defendants lost.
All the syndicated consumer research I know of is copyrighted. It's produced using a statistical sample developed by the research company involved, and processed using procedures that create estimates that the marketplace considers to be reasonable, but not facts.
I've never heard higher-level radio management professing that ratings are "facts". We know they are estimates, and we know the limitations.
Care to provide links to cases in which Nielsen won on the issue of copyright? And I mean won as in a judgment or a court finding that ratings are protected by copyright. Not a settlement because, as I have stated before, there are other legal theories to go after companies using ratings data.
No, I believed they settled, which is different from losing. Find a judgment or finding in which it was held that ratings are protected by copyright.
And just keep begging the question. People who produce facts claim a copyright, therefore their facts are copyrighted.
OK lets assume settlement, and as part of the settlement the users of the data who were not subscribers had to pay up AND give up the source of the data.
At that point the ratings service can go back after the source of the leak for breach of contract, as the use of the data supplied, copyrighted or not, is spelled out in the contract between Nielsen and the subscriber specifically that it is not to be shared with non subscribers.
At that point the ratings service can go back after the source of the leak for breach of contract, as the use of the data supplied, copyrighted or not, is spelled out in the contract between Nielsen and the subscriber specifically that it is not to be shared with non subscribers.
Nielsen does not produce "facts". It produces estimates. That term is used extensively, from within the data to the station contract itself.
Nielsen can state that these are estimates a thousand times in every contract it enters into. It doesn't make them subject to copyright. It's not up to tthe company to determine.
I'm going to guess Eduardo has more experience in this area than you do...unless, of course, you have some qualification(s) you would like to share with us that will give what you say some authority.
...and where exactly does your law degree come from?
A book, which is an original work, is relatively simple to copyright.
A newspaper which "tells the facts" but through the writing of journalists who make the telling of the story original can easily copyright its publication.
A ratings service that produces totally original work by means of proprietary systems and patented technology can similarly copyright their product, and they do.
Here is the notice for users of the Nielsen Audio website (keeping in mind that the site is where subscribers go to download ratings data and to access other copyrighted services like Tapscan, PD Advantage, PPM Analysis Tool, etc.)
Restrictions on Use
All the Web products and services, information, materials, data, images, graphics, sounds and other components on the Nielsen Site (the "Contents") are copyrighted and owned or controlled by Nielsen unless otherwise noted. Any unauthorized use of the Contents on the Nielsen Site may violate copyright, trademark and other laws and intellectual property rights of Nielsen or third parties. Unauthorized use may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offense. Contents from the Nielsen Site may not be modified, copied or distributed, republished, uploaded, posted, decompiled, or transmitted in any way, without the prior written consent of Nielsen. The Contents on the Nielsen Site are provided for lawful purposes only.
I will reply further at another time, but for now, all I ask is that people stop referring to what Nielsen says about the copyright status of its data. It doesn't matter. As I have repeatedly stated, Nielsen's claims about copyright are irrelevant to any legal finding that it's data is, in fact, copyrightable.
The data is copyright. There are sources that "we" (the collective "we" of those involved in the administrative aspects of the industry) that are used to check the status of service marks, trademarks and copyright material. Of recent, many broadcasters have ramped up their in-house copyright training due to the flurry of copyright judgements and settlements coming from usage of copyright photos and their use on station websites. We have tools either directly accessible or via a specialist or outside service that allow us to avoid violations. Arbitron data is registered and covered by a copyright.
Creative works are able to be copyrighted at the moment of their conception per the 1976 copyright act. Ratings estimates fall under that definition of "creative work" as, unlike a news story which can be immediately public domain (even though a story about that news can be copyright), they are the product of a technical and creative process. This point is enhanced by comparisons of various ratings services which generally show unlike results even when covering the same market at the same time.
repeatedly
And, as people have repeatedly asked in return, do you have anything to back up what you are saying?
Do you have any expertise in the area of copyright law?
So far, your response has been: "because I say so".
And, as people have repeatedly asked in return, do you have anything to back up what you are saying?
Do you have any expertise in the area of copyright law?
So far, your response has been: "because I say so".
- Status