Posted on 02/02/2006 10:13:10 AM PST by BurbankKarl
It's the irony of someone who has battled the FCC and violated their rules with impunity and even called for it to be disbanded to immediately run to it and ask that they enforce their rules to stop the piracy of his show.
I find Stern to be somebody who is stuck acting like a high school kid entertaining other high school kids. Which is A-OK with me. I've seen him on "E!" and he basically does the same thing over and over.
I just find it amusing that a guy that wants to be beyond the edge is getting scabbed by other people who are beyond the edge too and are willing to rip Sirius and Stern off. With that said anyone that steals Sterns show is a thief. Even though from my view what they are stealing is valueless.
Stern has the same rights as anyone else. But is is funny that he now has to go to the people that he has spit at in the past to ask them to help him. Frankly, I see this as Sterns poblem since he wanted to be outside the governments grasp. Let him go after the thieves on his own dime.
It's possible to separate the fact that harm is coming to Stern, which is due him for the harm he causes to society, from the illegal means by which the harm is coming.
Not really. Stern battled the FCC over its assumed role as a censor, not over any of the things the commission was originally established to regulate, like bandwith assignation, commercial piracy, etc.
Schadenfreude, and pass the strawberries!
Thanks for the laugh. You don't expect anyone to fall for that, do you? Pirated CDs and internet file sharing weren't a problem when the FCC was set up.
From the Communications Act of 1934 (typos per original):
GENERAL POWERS OF COMMISSION
SEC. 303. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall-
(a) Classify radio stations;
(b) Prescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any class;
(c) Assign bands of frequencies to the various classes of stations, and assign frequencies for each individual station and determine
the power which each station shall use and the time during which it may operate;
(d) Determine the location of classes of stations or individual stations;
(e) Regulate the kind of apparatus to be used with respect to its external effects and the purity and sharpness of the emissions from each station and from the apparatus therein;
(f) Make such regulations not inconsistent with law as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to carry out the provisions of this Act: Provided, however, That changes in the frequencies, authorized power, or in the times of operation of any station, shall not be made without the consent of the station licensee unless, after a public hearing, the Commission shall determine that such changes will promote public convenience or interest or will serve public necessity, or the provisions of this Act will be more fully complied with;
(g) Study new uses for radio, provide for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest;
(h) Have authority to establish areas or zones to be served by any station;
(i) Have authority to make special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain broadcasting;
(j) Have authority to make general rules and regulations requiring stations to keep such records of programs, transmissions of energy, communications, or signals as it may deem desirable;
(k) Have authority to exclude from the requirements of any regulations in- whole or in part any radio station upon railroad rolling stock, or to modify such regulations in its discretion;
(1) Have authority to prescribe the qualifications of station operators, to classify them according to the duties to be performed, to fix the forms of such licenses, and to issue them to such citizens of the Jnited States as the Commission finds qualified;
((m) Have authority to suspend the license of any operator for a period not exceeding two years upon proof sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the licensee (1) has violated any provision of any Act or treaty binding on the United States which the Commission is authorized by this Act to administer or any regulation made by the Commission under any such Act or treaty; or (2) has failed to carry out the lawful orders of the master of the vessel on which he is employed; or (3) has willfully damaged or permitted radio apparatus to be damaged; or (4) has transmitted superfluous radio communications or signals or radio communications containing profane or obscene words or language; or (5) has willfully or maliciously interfered with any other radio communications or signals;
(n) Have authority to inspect all transmitting apparatus to asceftain whether in construction and operation it conforms to the requirements of this Act, the rules and regulations of the Commission, and the license under which it is constructed or operated;
(o) Have authority to designate call letters of all stations;
(p) Have authority to cause to be published such call letters and such other announcements and data as in the judgment of the Commission may be required for the efficient operation of radio stations subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and for the proper enforcement of this Act;
(q) Have authority to require the painting and/or illumination of radio towers if and when in its judgment such towers constitute, or there is a reasonable possibility that they may constitute, a menace to air navigation.
Strong words coming from someone posting to a comment threat that has "stolen" an article from the LA Times and whose very existence is to copy (or "steal" in your words) content from various places to comment on. How is posting audio from Stern on the Internet different from reposting written articles into Free Republic? Is the person who recopied the LA Times article for this thread a "thief"?
What court determined any one of Stern's broadcasts legally obscene?
1 man's garbage is another's treasure!!!
Do you mean they're still playing Christmas music?
It's a sad day when dishonest scum-bags defraud an obscene scum-bag.
They switched to this format three days into 2006, and after hoping that it was temporary for almost a month, it finally pushed me over the edge. ;)
Strong words? If you want to read some strog words the issues regarding this site and the LA Times is a matter of record. There is no complete reposting of any LA Times article above. So, your example is somewhat moot because it's not accurate.
With that said the LA Times publishes the entire content openly, without entry being required and without charge on their web site. But ya still can't post the entire article here. Not from those folks.
The LA Times content itself is news (well, supposedly) and derived from events that the LA Times itself does not program or produce unlike Sterns show. The one article is not the entire paper either. So, unlike the people recording and distributing Stern's entire show excerpting/linking this "one" LA Times article is nothing like copying the entire newspaper here.
Tell ya what, become a Rush 24/7 subscriber, record his shows and anything else from Rush's site and put them on your own web site for people to listen to. You seem to think that's not stealing so I bet he won't care. Send me the link when you are done along with a stop watch so I can time how long the site is up and running.
LOL
Did you post that to the wrong person, or are you trying to change the subject. We were discussing the original statutory purposes of the FCC.
I made no mention of the $495,000 in fines assessed against Clear Channel for the program which aired in April, 2003. I haven't read that order, so I have no knowledge of what the findings were. I had thought that the fines were for indecency, not obscenity. If you have a link to the order itself, I'll be happy to look at it.
My friend has XM and he swears that every once in a while he'll hear Stern's broadcast cutting in and out on his XM receiver.
Stern has always railed against the FCC because it has adopted a censorship role. If, as you posted, they have the statutory power to prohibit obscene material from the airwaves:
(4) has transmitted superfluous radio communications or signals or radio communications containing profane or obscene words or language;
so be it---they are bound to prevent obscene material from being broadcast over the airwaves.
What court has ever determined any one of Stern's broadcasts to meet the legal definition of obscenity? If the FCC acts in a prohibitary manner absent such a finding, the FCC is acting as a censor, and is therefore exceeding its statutory powers.
Go put up your strawmen somewhere else. You won't, and can't defend the statement upon which I called you, and you aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.
Don't bother to address me when you want to debate with yourself.
Don't bother to address me when you want to debate with yourself.
Clamoring for a gold star from the teacher, my friend? Bully for you, but nothing you posted indicates the FCC was given censorship powers . . . merely that it was in their power to prevent obscenity from being broadcasted on the airwaves.
Stern's problem with the FCC has always been the degree to which the Commission has become the arbiter of what should and what shouldn't be broadcasted on the radio. If none of Stern's broadcasts were judged legally obscene by a court of law, nothing in what you posted suggests the FCC has the power to prevent him from broadcasting the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.