J
John_U
Guest
The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
-
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
K
KMRichards
Guest
> The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
>
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from instead?
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
>
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from instead?
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
> The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
>
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
This is going to be very interesting to see how this scenario will be played out in court. And from the way it was written in the documents, look for this one to be nasty as well.
As for KXOL's Hurban format chances are that even if they lose in court they probably won't change formats, but they'll probably have to find another transmitter to lease out, if any is available.
>
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
This is going to be very interesting to see how this scenario will be played out in court. And from the way it was written in the documents, look for this one to be nasty as well.
As for KXOL's Hurban format chances are that even if they lose in court they probably won't change formats, but they'll probably have to find another transmitter to lease out, if any is available.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> As for KXOL's Hurban format chances are that even if they
> lose in court they probably won't change formats, but
> they'll probably have to find another transmitter to lease
> out, if any is available.
Presuming you meant "tower site" rather than "transmitter", SBS would likely have to get a waiver from the FCC to go back to their original site if they didn't want to change formats during the process of locating a new site, doing the engineering studies, filing an application with the FCC to move, etc.
If I were them, I'd be praying for a miracle.
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
> lose in court they probably won't change formats, but
> they'll probably have to find another transmitter to lease
> out, if any is available.
Presuming you meant "tower site" rather than "transmitter", SBS would likely have to get a waiver from the FCC to go back to their original site if they didn't want to change formats during the process of locating a new site, doing the engineering studies, filing an application with the FCC to move, etc.
If I were them, I'd be praying for a miracle.
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
> > The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
> >
> > http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
>
>
> I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> instead?
I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45 days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said they won't flip.
> >
> > http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
>
>
> I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> instead?
I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45 days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said they won't flip.
J
John_U
Guest
> > The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
> >
> > http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
>
>
> I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> instead?
>
Sent you an off-line e-mail for the location. I can send you the PDF if you have difficulty.
> >
> > http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
>
>
> I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> instead?
>
Sent you an off-line e-mail for the location. I can send you the PDF if you have difficulty.
A
allisonmarie
Guest
> > > The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
> > >
> > >
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
> >
> >
> > I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> > directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> > instead?
>
> I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by
> jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45
> days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said
> they won't flip.
>
SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this move. Emmis is
standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate their station
facilities to????
> > >
> > >
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
> >
> >
> > I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> > directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> > instead?
>
> I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by
> jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45
> days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said
> they won't flip.
>
SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this move. Emmis is
standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate their station
facilities to????
K
KMRichards
Guest
> > > The lawsuit documents have been posted on the net at:
> > >
> > >
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
> >
> >
> > I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> > directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> > instead?
>
> I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by
> jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45
> days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said
> they won't flip.
The link John e-mailed me worked and I just reviewed the filing.
I think SBS is going to have the biggest problem explaining why they have denied that they changed format in light of the playlist crossovers.
Emmis appears to have made their case pretty well in the filing. They won't have to add much more at a trial.
I wonder when the injunctive relief request will be made ...
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
> > >
> > >
> http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/daily/emmis.pdf
> >
> >
> > I get a 403 (Forbidden) error trying to access the file
> > directly. Can you provide the page you got the link from
> > instead?
>
> I saw the link(13 pages). Emmis is asking for a trial by
> jury and wants SBS to vacate the transmitter site within 45
> days or rescind its format change. And already SBS has said
> they won't flip.
The link John e-mailed me worked and I just reviewed the filing.
I think SBS is going to have the biggest problem explaining why they have denied that they changed format in light of the playlist crossovers.
Emmis appears to have made their case pretty well in the filing. They won't have to add much more at a trial.
I wonder when the injunctive relief request will be made ...
<P ID="signature">______________
K.M. Richards
Part of the team of Radio-Info moderators
</P>
> >
> SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this
> move. Emmis is
> standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate
> their station
> facilities to????
Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
>
> SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this
> move. Emmis is
> standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate
> their station
> facilities to????
Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
> > >
> > SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this
> > move. Emmis is
> > standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate
> > their station
> > facilities to????
>
> Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
You could be right. Plus I don't see SBS bringing El Sol back from its siesta anytime in the near future, so it looks like they're going to stick with Latino 96.3 no matter the outcome.
> > SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with this
> > move. Emmis is
> > standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they locate
> > their station
> > facilities to????
>
> Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
You could be right. Plus I don't see SBS bringing El Sol back from its siesta anytime in the near future, so it looks like they're going to stick with Latino 96.3 no matter the outcome.
Personally I think that this will bring out for once and for all the legality of those clauses within contracts like this one. In the end, those clauses are not legally binding since to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and involves collusion by having one company dictate what format another company can have.
> > > >
> > > SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with
> this
> > > move. Emmis is
> > > standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they
> locate
> > > their station
> > > facilities to????
> >
> > Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
>
> You could be right. Plus I don't see SBS bringing El Sol
> back from its siesta anytime in the near future, so it looks
> like they're going to stick with Latino 96.3 no matter the
> outcome.
>
> > > >
> > > SBS has really gone and shot itself in the foot with
> this
> > > move. Emmis is
> > > standing on solid legal ground. Now where can they
> locate
> > > their station
> > > facilities to????
> >
> > Back to the old KFSG / 1150 AM site.
>
> You could be right. Plus I don't see SBS bringing El Sol
> back from its siesta anytime in the near future, so it looks
> like they're going to stick with Latino 96.3 no matter the
> outcome.
>
K
KMRichards
Guest
I'm sorry, but when you make a statement like:
> to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
> involves collusion by having one company dictate what format
> another company can have.
I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never seen anything come out of either agency that makes this kind of statement.
The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads me to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and anti-trust issues.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
> involves collusion by having one company dictate what format
> another company can have.
I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never seen anything come out of either agency that makes this kind of statement.
The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads me to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and anti-trust issues.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Personally I think that this will bring out for once and for
> all the legality of those clauses within contracts like this
> one. In the end, those clauses are not legally binding since
> to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
> involves collusion by having one company dictate what format
> another company can have.
>
SBS wasn't forced at gunpoint to sign the agreement: look at the
agreement (links in various posts on this page)...it couldn't be
more cut and dry...and clear. SBS should just mail Emmis the
money, and move back to the old site.<P ID="signature">______________
you're not a lawyer, are you?</P>
> all the legality of those clauses within contracts like this
> one. In the end, those clauses are not legally binding since
> to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
> involves collusion by having one company dictate what format
> another company can have.
>
SBS wasn't forced at gunpoint to sign the agreement: look at the
agreement (links in various posts on this page)...it couldn't be
more cut and dry...and clear. SBS should just mail Emmis the
money, and move back to the old site.<P ID="signature">______________
you're not a lawyer, are you?</P>
R
RobertMoore
Guest
Emmis/SBS: Both sides fire back.
Rick Cummings, President of Emmis Radio:
"We are disappointed that SBS blatantly disregarded its obligations, and we are confident that the court will require SBS to live up to its agreement."
A spokesperson for KXOL parent SBS responds to that statement:
"The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the right to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and cannot broadcast."
Both quotes from Billboard Radio Monitor(June 3rd, 2005)
Rick Cummings, President of Emmis Radio:
"We are disappointed that SBS blatantly disregarded its obligations, and we are confident that the court will require SBS to live up to its agreement."
A spokesperson for KXOL parent SBS responds to that statement:
"The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the right to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and cannot broadcast."
Both quotes from Billboard Radio Monitor(June 3rd, 2005)
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Emmis/SBS: Both sides fire back.
What this says to me:
> "The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has
> tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO
> Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the right
> to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and cannot
> broadcast."
"We agreed in writing to give Emmis advance warning of a format change as part of our contract to use their tower on Flint Peak, but decided instead to claim that they do not have the right to enforce that provision."
What I think Emmis should say in response:
"So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
What this says to me:
> "The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has
> tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO
> Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the right
> to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and cannot
> broadcast."
"We agreed in writing to give Emmis advance warning of a format change as part of our contract to use their tower on Flint Peak, but decided instead to claim that they do not have the right to enforce that provision."
What I think Emmis should say in response:
"So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
B
bullwinkle
Guest
> I'm sorry, but when you make a statement like:
>
> > to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
>
> > involves collusion by having one company dictate what
> format
> > another company can have.
>
> I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never
> seen anything come out of either agency that makes this kind
> of statement.
>
> The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads me
> to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and
> DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and
> anti-trust issues.
>
Maybe so.
How about two of the FCC's favorite words,"Public Interest", just
so happen to also be used by the courts in determining the validity
of "restraint of trade" clauses.
Going out on a limb, I say SBS will win this one.
>
> > to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive and
>
> > involves collusion by having one company dictate what
> format
> > another company can have.
>
> I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never
> seen anything come out of either agency that makes this kind
> of statement.
>
> The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads me
> to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and
> DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and
> anti-trust issues.
>
Maybe so.
How about two of the FCC's favorite words,"Public Interest", just
so happen to also be used by the courts in determining the validity
of "restraint of trade" clauses.
Going out on a limb, I say SBS will win this one.
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
Re: Emmis/SBS: Both sides fire back.
> What this says to me:
>
> > "The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has
> > tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO
> > Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the
> right
> > to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and
> cannot
> > broadcast."
>
> "We agreed in writing to give Emmis advance warning of a
> format change as part of our contract to use their tower on
> Flint Peak, but decided instead to claim that they do not
> have the right to enforce that provision."
>
> What I think Emmis should say in response:
>
> "So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
>
Emmis does not want them to move off their tower. They want them to live up to the terms of the contract. That is the only way to prevent SBS from continuing in the format.
> What this says to me:
>
> > "The only comment at this time is [that]Raul Alarcon has
> > tremendous admiration and respect for Emmis chairman/CEO
> > Jeff Smulyan. Notwithstanding, no broadcaster has the
> right
> > to dictate to any other broadcaster what they can and
> cannot
> > broadcast."
>
> "We agreed in writing to give Emmis advance warning of a
> format change as part of our contract to use their tower on
> Flint Peak, but decided instead to claim that they do not
> have the right to enforce that provision."
>
> What I think Emmis should say in response:
>
> "So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
>
Emmis does not want them to move off their tower. They want them to live up to the terms of the contract. That is the only way to prevent SBS from continuing in the format.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Emmis/SBS: Both sides fire back.
> > What I think Emmis should say in response:
> >
> > "So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
> >
>
> Emmis does not want them to move off their tower. They want
> them to live up to the terms of the contract. That is the
> only way to prevent SBS from continuing in the format.
I thought that by now, Glenn, you'd know when I'm being sarcastic.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > What I think Emmis should say in response:
> >
> > "So, when are you moving off of our tower?"
> >
>
> Emmis does not want them to move off their tower. They want
> them to live up to the terms of the contract. That is the
> only way to prevent SBS from continuing in the format.
I thought that by now, Glenn, you'd know when I'm being sarcastic.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
> > I'm sorry, but when you make a statement like:
> >
> > > to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive
> and
> >
> > > involves collusion by having one company dictate what
> > format
> > > another company can have.
> >
> > I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never
>
> > seen anything come out of either agency that makes this
> kind
> > of statement.
> >
> > The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads
> me
> > to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and
> > DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and
> > anti-trust issues.
> >
>
> Maybe so.
>
> How about two of the FCC's favorite words,"Public Interest",
> just
> so happen to also be used by the courts in determining the
> validity
> of "restraint of trade" clauses.
> Going out on a limb, I say SBS will win this one.
>
This is a LANDLORD vs. TENANT lawsuit, a lessor vs. lessee.
What is the difference between this and a shopping center where there are clauses against certain tenants competing with each other? SAME THING. And it is all 100% legal.
In Los Angeles, Macy's has even inserted a clause in many of their contracts with malls to keep Dillard's out. And it's legal, too. My sister does mall leasng so I know this well.
Emmis will prevail.
> >
> > > to many in the DOJ and FCC feel it is anti-competitive
> and
> >
> > > involves collusion by having one company dictate what
> > format
> > > another company can have.
> >
> > I need to ask you where you have read this as I have never
>
> > seen anything come out of either agency that makes this
> kind
> > of statement.
> >
> > The FCC stays out of format change wars, which also leads
> me
> > to be skeptical about the validity of your statement, and
> > DOJ is mostly concerned with ownership concentration and
> > anti-trust issues.
> >
>
> Maybe so.
>
> How about two of the FCC's favorite words,"Public Interest",
> just
> so happen to also be used by the courts in determining the
> validity
> of "restraint of trade" clauses.
> Going out on a limb, I say SBS will win this one.
>
This is a LANDLORD vs. TENANT lawsuit, a lessor vs. lessee.
What is the difference between this and a shopping center where there are clauses against certain tenants competing with each other? SAME THING. And it is all 100% legal.
In Los Angeles, Macy's has even inserted a clause in many of their contracts with malls to keep Dillard's out. And it's legal, too. My sister does mall leasng so I know this well.
Emmis will prevail.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> > Going out on a limb, I say SBS will win this one.
> >
>
> This is a LANDLORD vs. TENANT lawsuit, a lessor vs. lessee.
>
> What is the difference between this and a shopping center
> where there are clauses against certain tenants competing
> with each other? SAME THING. And it is all 100% legal.
>
> In Los Angeles, Macy's has even inserted a clause in many of
> their contracts with malls to keep Dillard's out. And it's
> legal, too. My sister does mall leasng so I know this well.
>
> Emmis will prevail.
Here, Glenn, let me hand you a saw to cut through that limb bullwinkle is sitting on ...
(It is <u>so</u> scary when Glenn and I agree on something ...)
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> >
>
> This is a LANDLORD vs. TENANT lawsuit, a lessor vs. lessee.
>
> What is the difference between this and a shopping center
> where there are clauses against certain tenants competing
> with each other? SAME THING. And it is all 100% legal.
>
> In Los Angeles, Macy's has even inserted a clause in many of
> their contracts with malls to keep Dillard's out. And it's
> legal, too. My sister does mall leasng so I know this well.
>
> Emmis will prevail.
Here, Glenn, let me hand you a saw to cut through that limb bullwinkle is sitting on ...
(It is <u>so</u> scary when Glenn and I agree on something ...)
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
- Status