Re: Why stations all have the same names.
You make very good and valid points. I guess I'm reacting to the impression I was getting that somehow others here feel that Internet stations are "less" important than terrestrial stations when it comes to intellectual rights and properties.
The SAME NAME problem in broadcasting is really the product of people in this business who can't come up with an original idea or name, so they copy someone else.
IF Asparagus FM in the nation's heartland wants to stream on the Internet, then their area of commerce just became, not just nationwide, but worldwide and they should be able to protect that name from being used elsewhere. Even though 99.9 percent of their income as a company is within a forty mile radius, Asparagus FM shouldn't have to fight a bigger company who decides they want to use that "name" on their station in the Asparagus capital of the world. It's already taken.
Maybe if the station that wants to use a name "asks" the company already using the name through prior usage there wouldn't be discussions like this. Sometimes, deals can be made. Here's a concept. If you want to use a name in your market but it's being used by someone streaming on the Internet, a deal can be made that the station wanting to use that name DOES NOT stream on the Internet. Just a thought.
If some company or individual wants to work at it,(meaning be creative)they can come up with an original "name" for their station or format.
In the case of
www.Steve.FM. If there was a little forethought on the part of the folks who made the decision to call their station Steve FM in Columbia, SC, they could have done a simple google search (and probably did) and see that Steve FM was being used. A call to the owner of Steve FM from a representative of CC asking to use the name but not stream on the Internet might have been enough for the "little" Internet station to say "sure go ahead."
In using the phrase, "playing whatever we want" the folks at WLTY were just lazy and are ripping off a trademarked phrase that someone else has made successful.
Maybe the problem is not Clear Channel, the corporation, but those local level station managers who don't at least ask Corporate to do a name search. CC has a whole department dedicated to "intellectual property".
The names for stations and formats are limitless. The only limit to finding a great name is taking the time to "THINK" about it, then investigate for potential trademark problems.
Laziness on the part of the local decision makers is NOT an excuse for using trademarked terms like "playing whatever we want". The true problem is that the people who come up with an original idea are followed by people who can't come up with an original idea or phrase.
Please note. I don't think the Jack format is necessarily an inventive or creative format, but the end result of too many fragmented formats and too few listener's in each.
CC must be pulling their hair out in San Antonio over decisions made on the local level that make the whole company look inept in this matter.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I get my hackles up when a company as huge as CC can't respect the intellectual property of other's. They'll sure protect their's if they think someone has crossed their "intellectual" line.
> > As someone who's spent over thirty years in broadcasting,
> > not all in MAJOR markets, I feel it's anyone's right to
> > establish a name or format and work hard to build an
> > audience. I get the impression that some on this board
> > believe an Internet streaming "station" doesn't have the
> > same rights as a terrestrial station that is commercial.
> Do
> > you really believe that because someone with foresight and
>
> > the ability to start an Internet stream is less a
> > "businessman" than a corporation (like CC) who ignores the
>
> > "law" if it suits them?
>
> This isn't the issue at all. Anyone can stream, but most
> protected names are those of radio stations that also
> stream. Streaming places once local stations in interstate
> commerce as their programming is equally available anywhere
> in the US.
>
> Prior to streaming stations, a station name could be
> registered in one state, and someoen else could use it in
> another state, provided the actual RF signals did not
> overlap. Now, one small station or one small streamer can
> control a name in the entire USA if they choose to register
> it and have the monehy to orotect their intellectual
> property or mark.
>
> At issue is the fact that there are not an infinite number
> of names that are "good" promotionally. When one station or
> streaming station can preclude the use of a name anywhere
> else in the US and its territories, it makes companies more
> protective of what they have and, at the same time, it makes
> them use the protected and safe names they own all over the
> nation.
>
> > It doesn't take a genius to do a
> > search in the trademark registry or google the Internet to
>
> > find out if someone is using a name, phrase, or "mark" for
>
> > their Internet station or any business.
>
> No, it does not take a genius. It takes an attorney with a
> legal assistant who can search every registered brand, mark
> and copyright in every state and jurisdiction, as well as
> nationally. Most staitons do not buy the databases to do
> this themselves.
>
> > Take a look and see
> > all the names that Clear Channel has "trademarked". They
> > can do it en masse' cause they want to make sure NO ONE
> > treads on their turf. You can bet your ass that if a
> little
> > Internet station used KISS, they'd be served with a cease
> > and desist as soon as CC heard about it.
>
> Yes, they would. Because this is one of the few names of
> value they own free and clear everywhere except where they
> negotiated exclusions based on prior usage, such as NY. they
> protect the name because, if they do not, someoen else will
> use it and invalidate the mark, opening a floodgate of
> Kisses and, even, suits against CCU for usage of someoen
> elses mark.
>
> > The little one man Internet station has as much potential
> > for an audience as any commercial terrestrial station.
> True,
> > the chances for success are limited by the amount of money
>
> > in the pocketbook, but Hooray for the little guy that has
> > the balls to stand up for his/her rights in this matter.
> > I'll get off my soapbox. If it's original, and you have
> > prior usage,it SHOULD be yours. period.
>
> Of course, if you have prior usage, it should be yours. But
> the fact is, many cases of prior usage are limited and
> local... like a station that streams just to get office
> penetration... but the name is protected far outside the
> area where the staiton engages in commerce, excluding all
> others from using the name.
> >
>
