• 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

FCC Issues Pirate Warnings To Sixteen NY/NJ Property Owners

BJSteigner said:
Most of them ignore this.
Click to expand...
This is a brand new procedure. There is no evidence property owners will do anything other than evicting the pirate people. You can't say that they "ignore this" as that has not happened yet, even once.

The property owners can't ignore this or they will have a lien filed against the property where the pirate operated. This is an action against the owner of the building or land where illegal transmission originated, not the pirate.

Land owners are not going to sacrifice a whole building to protect a pirate, they will evict the pirate people, present documents to the FCC and ask for a reduction of the fine or removal of the lien.
 
BJSteigner said:
Do we see a localism "war cry"???
Click to expand...
Listeners in general look for "good" vs. "bad" radio entertainment. If it is good and not local they really don't care. "Localism" is a construct of people who don't "get it" about listeners.

Name one "local" late-night TV talk show that beat Carson or Leno. Right! You couldn't.
 
Barry said:
Seems to me that if more people had HD radios, the HD subchannels would be great for the types of ethnic programming broadcast by most pirate stations. Does anyone know approximately how much it would cost to lease an HD subchannel in New York?
Click to expand...
London had a pirate problem for decades, and still does have a few FM pirates, but both the pirates and the authorities got tired of the cat'n'mouse game and moves were made to legalize them via various means. Some of the larger ex-pirates (e.g. Rinse FM) now have local FM licenses, and others (e.g. Centreforce) have gone onto DAB, while some more have gone streaming-only. They all seem to survive just fine and they provide a valuable service to young people, Black communities and other minority groups. As legal stations, they can offer more opportunities in terms of training, and have a greater commercial potential.

Anyone still "pirating" in a landscape where multiple legal avenues to broadcast exist is doing so because they are broadcasting content that wouldn't pass the regulator - either racist or discriminatory or obscene. I reported a pirate a few years ago that was spouting out violent homophobic nonsense, for instance.
 
DavidEduardo said:
This is a brand new procedure. There is no evidence property owners will do anything other than evicting the pirate people. You can't say that they "ignore this" as that has not happened yet, even once.
Click to expand...
Right. Because it's a new law, I think there's a high probability that one or more of the apparently liable landlords files a lawsuit against the FCC or the state of New York claiming that the whole process is unlawful.

The analogy is to any other list of crimes that can be committed on a premises. Is the landlord liable if someone is maintaining a brothel or synthesizing LSD on the property?

Whether they can win or not, I don't know.
 
DavidEduardo said:
This is a brand new procedure. There is no evidence property owners will do anything other than evicting the pirate people. You can't say that they "ignore this" as that has not happened yet, even once.

The property owners can't ignore this or they will have a lien filed against the property where the pirate operated. This is an action against the owner of the building or land where illegal transmission originated, not the pirate.

Land owners are not going to sacrifice a whole building to protect a pirate, they will evict the pirate people, present documents to the FCC and ask for a reduction of the fine or removal of the lien.
Click to expand...
I question the legality of having a lien placed on the property. Under that line of reasoning, I'm a landlord and someone who rents from me is committing a crime. Therefore, I'm legally liable? Where I can see this being reasonable is that it would be expected that a landlord should be able to notice broadcasting equipment placed on their property. Beyond that, I see potential lawsuits over liens.
 
Least said:
I question the legality of having a lien placed on the property. Under that line of reasoning, I'm a landlord and someone who rents from me is committing a crime. Therefore, I'm legally liable? Where I can see this being reasonable is that it would be expected that a landlord should be able to notice broadcasting equipment placed on their property. Beyond that, I see potential lawsuits over liens.
Click to expand...
There is a difference here in that the landlord has consented directly or through negligence to the installation of a mast, antenna and common area cables on the building. As you say, this would be noticed and either consented to or not approved. The consent, tacit or otherwise, makes the landlord party to the illegal act.
 
DavidEduardo said:
There is a difference here in that the landlord has consented directly or through negligence to the installation of a mast, antenna and common area cables on the building. As you say, this would be noticed and either consented to or not approved. The consent, tacit or otherwise, makes the landlord party to the illegal act.
Click to expand...
Then I understand. I was thinking such was the logic, but wasn't sure if that was accurate.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom