-
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
Boston Radio Ratings November 2021
- Thread starter freqlost
- Start date
I updated my post. Remember that when Beasly took over, they owned WBOS. So having WBOS and the HD WBCN made no sense. Still, personalities on their stations that worked for WBCN play bits produced on WBCN. If Audacy owned WBCN, these personalities wouldn't have access to these bits.
Maybe WBOS could do a format like 90's and more, or 90's and Beyond instead? But the 90's music would not be pigeon holed to just one genre, such as Alternative Rock, but mix it up as it looked and was shown on the Hot 100, or Radio Airplay Charts instead.
FWIW, and I am sure that it is not likely to happen at this point, is somebody doing a true 80's, MTV straight forward mainstream hits, that were popular among teens and young adults back then. Basically the format Magic 106.7 has with "Back To The 80's Saturday Night" with Joe Cortese.
I believe the thinking from what I read at the time was that the 104.1 frequency got into Downtown Boston buildings much better, and 98 5 had much better suburban coverage instead. I can attest that 98.5 signal did not get into buildings very well, as I used to listen when I was working in the city. That is the best answer which I can give you anyway.
Last Feb the WBCN calls went to what is now a sports station on 770 in FL. CBS had parked them on an expanded band (1660) in Charlotte NC with formats like talk and Southern rock.
At some point Beasley got the station and WBCN calls in a trade
with what was then CBSRadio**. That 1660 is
now silent.
Audacy's calls for WAAF and WODS are now on
AM stations in Wilkes-Barre.
**--"On October 2, 2014, CBS Radio announced that it would trade 14 radio stations located in Tampa, Florida, Charlotte, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to the Beasley Broadcast Group in exchange for 5 stations located in Miami and Philadelphia."--Wikipedia
At some point Beasley got the station and WBCN calls in a trade
with what was then CBSRadio**. That 1660 is
now silent.
Audacy's calls for WAAF and WODS are now on
AM stations in Wilkes-Barre.
**--"On October 2, 2014, CBS Radio announced that it would trade 14 radio stations located in Tampa, Florida, Charlotte, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to the Beasley Broadcast Group in exchange for 5 stations located in Miami and Philadelphia."--Wikipedia
I agree with that logic, but I think that 90s and beyond would be better than only 90s. I don't think I was clear in my original statement. I was trying to make two points, one being that a single decade seemed to not make a big splash when companies have done all 80s, and that to you'd be asking people to come from all over to listen songs they can hear from their preferred genre on other stations. I think the appeal of Jack-like stations is that although they're toe deep, they have a wide range. I think focusing on a single decade limits that range.
The following is not a reply to racoonradio, and serves as me citing his statement:
Yes, that's what happened to the calls. The debate I was having is what happened to the intellectual property, such as the station archive. My argument in the debate is that it was swapped to 98.5 and they switched the format to Sports Talk simultaneously. They didn't house the station's archives with Mix, they housed it with The Sports Hub, although Mix does run off the old WBCN license.
My side of the debate is that when Beasley took ownership of The Sports Hub, they also took ownership of WBCN's intellectual property (archives). The evidence I point to is both T&R's rare use of their old WBCN bits (Westborough Basptist Church) on their Beasley owned Sports Hub show, and Hardy's Beasley owned WBOS show intro being his exact show intro from his old WBCN show, with the artists as they recorded their "your listening to" lines on WBCN. There is only one change to that, as the last artist states "104.1 WBCN," so it was changed to a different band saying "Rock 92.9."
As racoonradio points out, Beasley has control of the calls. If I am correct in my debate, and Beasley owns the WBCN history, then Audacy has no say if Beasley (foolishly) went for a move to bring back the calls and station history on 92.9. The only bargaining chip audacy has is for the wbcn.com web domain, which redirects to the old Entercom web page. Audacy owns WAAF, but traded away WBCN when they traded The Sports Hub for Magic.
This all brings me back to my original statement to Retro, which was a reply to one suggestion that he made. WBOS could take a page from one of Beasley's two other legacy active rock stations. My reply was that as others point out, the only successful active rock stations at this time are legacy stations, which WBOS is not. Although I think it wouldn't work, the chance they have is to resurrect WBCN in some fashion. Either a full resurrection of the calls and station history as "92.9 WBCN," or (more logically) revamp WBOS as "92.9 WBOS" or still "Rock 92.9" but play on the WBCN nostalgia. They already have Adam 12 and Hardy, which could (foolishly) point to WBCN's last few years. The only problem with the latter is that WBOS isn't a legacy rock station. It's legacy calls and frequency but has swapped formats many times over the years. WBCN was a legacy rock formatted station, with people as young as their mid-30s (not only in their 60s), with the ownership of the calls and archives, it can be done.
In closing, my side of the debate was that it can be done, not "it should be done." Retro suggested a format flip to which I questioned "flip to what?" He provided two suggestions, with one being active rock like on Beasley's other active rock stations. My reply brought us down this rabbit hole. I'm still on the record that while people are looking at WBOS as the problem, I feel they are ignoring that WBWL is actually performing lower than WBOS (if we are only to look at the public Nielson numbers).
Last edited:
They did? Who said that?
Again, simple logic. What was WBCN was moved to the license on 98.5, and the format flipped to Sports Talk. Meanwhile, Mix moved to the license of 104.1. Mix's 98.5 archives still belong to Mix, Beasley doesn't own the Mix 98.5 archives. WBCN didn't flip to Mix. It flipped to The Sports Hub. It traded frequencies and licenses with Mix.
Then add that under Beasley's ownership, T&R's Sports Hub show and Hardy's WBOS show air items that were produced when they were on WBCN. If Audacy owned the intellectual property of WBCN, they wouldn't be able to air such items.
Nobody had to say anything, the evidence points to Beasly owning the intellectual (archival) property of WBCN. Where we don't have any open stayemnt that my claim is such, we also don't have any claim that WBCN's archives were not included when Audacy traded the sports format and license on 98.5 for Magic.
I've seen several ownership transfers where "archives," such as they are, were donated to an educational institution, rather than included in the sale to another broadcaster. Sometimes this happens before the actual sale is finalized, and is not included in the contract. I don't recall seeing any "archival" rights in the sale of CBS Radio to Audacy. So it's possible that any archives were either retained by CBS, or donated to a non-profit.
But I've also seen examples where employees of a heritage radio operation simply "took" their archives with them when they left, and did with them what they wanted. Considering this recent WBCN movie, it's possible they are in custody of some archives, not the radio company.
When Mindich sold WFNX, he did not sell the intellectual property.
Do you really think mega radio station owner X is going to go after someone using small bits of work product from a station they used to work for?
What are the damages?
Hey Taylor Swift is re recording her whole back catalog to screw the people who screwed her out of the opportunity to own the music she created.... and the radio companies, including I Hrt have scrubbed any old songs off the playlist as soon as a new version drops.... the people who own her back catalog are pretty much holding a pink elephant at this point.... they sure as hell are not selling CD's, nor are they getting revenue from radio spins or online play if the stuff they own is scrubbed by the big radio companies that would rather deal with Taylor and what she can do for them than the other guys. She has that much star power...
Styx had to re-record Lady in 1995 because they could not get permission to use it on a greatest hits CD
Who knows what was in DJ Y's contract as far as owning rights to the materials he created?
Do you really think mega radio station owner X is going to go after someone using small bits of work product from a station they used to work for?
What are the damages?
Hey Taylor Swift is re recording her whole back catalog to screw the people who screwed her out of the opportunity to own the music she created.... and the radio companies, including I Hrt have scrubbed any old songs off the playlist as soon as a new version drops.... the people who own her back catalog are pretty much holding a pink elephant at this point.... they sure as hell are not selling CD's, nor are they getting revenue from radio spins or online play if the stuff they own is scrubbed by the big radio companies that would rather deal with Taylor and what she can do for them than the other guys. She has that much star power...
Styx had to re-record Lady in 1995 because they could not get permission to use it on a greatest hits CD
Who knows what was in DJ Y's contract as far as owning rights to the materials he created?
Last edited:
It depends on what DJ Y does with those materials. If he uses them to make money at a competitor, then he gets a call from the company lawyer. If he just keeps the materials in his spare bedroom or donates them to a college, no harm no foul. The WBCN movie documents events that happened 50 years ago. That may be long enough that it doesn't matter.
As far as Taylor Swift, she owns the songs, not the recordings. Her publishing deal was with a different company, and she retains those rights through the life of the copyright. There are non-compete rules with her former record label, but apparently she has worked them out.
we can get into a discussion of use of copyrighted materials ( if it was even copyrighted ) in the making of documentaries
"Finally, we can turn to historical sequences – an extremely relevant section for those interested in telling stories using archival footage. Historical documentary as a medium has great social and educational value in sharing and bringing to light information on our collective past for future generations. There are many historical stories which would be impossible to represent on screen without the selective use of words spoken, music played, or images captured at the time."
"Finally, we can turn to historical sequences – an extremely relevant section for those interested in telling stories using archival footage. Historical documentary as a medium has great social and educational value in sharing and bringing to light information on our collective past for future generations. There are many historical stories which would be impossible to represent on screen without the selective use of words spoken, music played, or images captured at the time."
Exactly...there is fair use. Which is why companies and individuals donate materials to non-profits. It takes financial gain out of the equation. A lot of archival materials from the early days of broadcasting are at several university archies. That may have also happened to several stations in Boston. There's also some material at the National Archives in DC.
But to say that a DJ "owns" live performances done during his show might be a stretch.
Sorry, not true. What might seem like 'simple logic' to a layman, isn't so simple in terms of the law.
You don't automatically inherit "intellectual property" of a station when you buy their stick.
The WBCN license is the WWBX license. Same FCC facility ID number. The calls changed from WBCN to WBMX and then to WWBX.
The WBMX 98.5 license is the WBZ-FM license. Same facility ID number. The calls changed from WBMX to WBZ-FM.
Without reading the sale contract for WBZ-FM in full, there is no way for any of us to say what was or was not included as intellectual property. I am not a lawyer but I think it's a stretch to think that the sale would have conveyed any of the IP assets of the old WBCN, since that license stayed with CBS as WBMX 104.1.
The WBMX 98.5 license is the WBZ-FM license. Same facility ID number. The calls changed from WBMX to WBZ-FM.
Without reading the sale contract for WBZ-FM in full, there is no way for any of us to say what was or was not included as intellectual property. I am not a lawyer but I think it's a stretch to think that the sale would have conveyed any of the IP assets of the old WBCN, since that license stayed with CBS as WBMX 104.1.
That I hadn't thought of. Excellent point. I just know that if Audacy owned the station's (intellectual property, archive, assest, or whatever it would be called) I couldn't see Hardy's show intro being used in the manner in which it is. I said it at an annoyingly repeated pace, his intro with the "you're listening" lines from Flea from Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Bono from U2, etc were all recorded for WBCN. I just couldn't see him using that same intro on WBOS and Audacy allowing it, if they owned it. I wouldn't have that observation if it was the same music bed with new statements from different musicians.
If they moved said property to a new frequency and license, then sold or traded said license to a new owner, yes you would inherent that intellectual property. That's this situation. Say Audacy traded WEEI instead, I wouldn't have the same thought if we were discussing the assets of Mike-FM. But what was Mix 98.5 and what was "WBCN" (as in the archived air checks, bits, etc) switched licenses and frequencies under CBS's ownership. Simultaneously, "WBCN" became The Sports Hub. The Sports Hub was traded to Beasley.
Now, Big A explained another alternative, but if Audacy owned "WBCN" as in the items produced for the station, then wouldn't they have gone after DJs employed by Beasley for using said items on their Beasley owned shows.
I am interpreting people as assuming that I'm referring to the WBCN broadcast license. If so, that's not what I have been saying. I'm referring to "WBCN" as in the format and productions, not the WBCN license.
- Status