Do not attach Coast to Coast episodes to your messages. EVERYONE READ THIS.

[onan]

So do you agree with me ?  We are trying to save the show and there is plenty we can do if we are on the same page.


Anagrammy

First I want to say, I appreciate your thoughts.

I have never been a fan of clear channel, never been a fan of premiere. I do not wish for them to continue, I never have. I liked Art Bell's program. When Art started to pull back I listened to all the glad handing and mutual admiration crap and thought this is gonna be a ship full of stink going full steam into a iceberg made of densely packed monkey puss (yeah I'm bitter).

So no, I have no desire to see clear channel provide anything.

[George Drooly]

Un-fucking-believable!

Maybe they can pay for a damn speech therapist for Snoory with all the money this'll save them from losing, pfft.

[Bosco]

Does anyone know if any of the other Coast fan sites got dinged?

Anagrammy

Well it looks as though they have.

Anomalies Audio Archive has posted this "Goodbye Coast to Coast people. All Coast related files go offline at the end of the month."

Come on people cancel those C2C streamlink subscriptions !!

[Agent : Orange]

Wow.  Well, mission accomplished - someone "out there" is actually seeing what the hardcore fans think!

I hope they got the "noory sucks" part, too.

[coastfan]

   

Well it looks as though they have.

Anomalies Audio Archive has posted this "Goodbye Coast to Coast people. All Coast related files go offline at the end of the month."

Come on people cancel those C2C streamlink subscriptions !!

I get the impression it could be that Don of Anomolous either was contacted by "Coast to Coast" people from Clear Channel, or is being cautious after they contaced MV, OR is already fed up with some asinine comments on the Anomalies site.

However, I think there seem to be other sources of Classic shows popping up.

I let my subscription lapse at least six months ago. Never really could get the hang of hearing Coast without the bumper music. Hey, I'm the kind of person who can walk into a supermarket, hear Gordon Lightfoot singing "Sundown" over the PA, and wait for him to finish the first chorus before reciting some Ross Mitchell to myself.

[Silent]

   
I get the impression it could be that Don of Anomolous either was contacted by "Coast to Coast" people from Clear Channel, or is being cautious after they contaced MV, OR is already fed up with some asinine comments on the Anomalies site.

The recent remarks by him don't mention being contacted.  The removal is his own choice and more related to the comments it seems.

[Lena]

lets show them and uhm.. listen to Alex Jones *FREE* Radio Show 
http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

[Agent : Orange]

lets show them and uhm.. listen to Alex Jones *FREE* Radio Show 
http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

Why? We're pushing for quality, not that crap

[marklancedance]

Agreed

[b_dubb]

lets show them and uhm.. listen to Alex Jones *FREE* Radio Show 
http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls

@ Lena ... full disclosure please ... do you work for Alex Jones?  related to him?  married?


your devotion/enthusiasm is pretty remarkable

[MV/Liberace!]

Hey, I'm the kind of person who can walk into a supermarket, hear Gordon Lightfoot singing "Sundown" over the PA, and wait for him to finish the first chorus before reciting some Ross Mitchell to myself.

HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

[MV/Liberace!]

@ Lena ... full disclosure please ... do you work for Alex Jones?  related to him?  married?


your devotion/enthusiasm is pretty remarkable

i have to agree.  what's your story, lena?

[Lena]

please don't try to become paranoid. I am just teasing you with ALEX JONES.

As for Streamlink - without "pirated" files of the show, i wouldn't even know that C2C existed.
I even considered registering once - but while it's a funny show, sometimes interesting, they just have too many total Bullshit Talkers as guests that do not get challenged at all by Noory. It would be more fun if he asked them questions that would drill into the ridiculousness of some of these claims,possibly without them realizing he's not taking them serious. I know he could do it.

[Agent : Orange]

It would be more fun if he asked them questions that would drill into the ridiculousness of some of these claims,possibly without them realizing he's not taking them serious.

You're right, thank a god we have ALEX JONES as a bastion of critical thinking and skepticism in this world

[Lena]

ALEX JONES tends to be sensationalistic and goes over the top usually (he loves the word "THOUSANDS") , haha.
Anyway, most of what he says is indeed documented, sometimes he puts a spin on stuff of course to promote his own believes, but anyone does that.
You just have to filter his stuff a bit, and it's pretty good.
Actually, for me he's even too soft, but he couldn't get any airtime on mainstream media if he would say it all.

By the way, Kneel, your sentence is highly illogical as a reply to that quote.

[Agent : Orange]

/facepalm

[999]

I'm sorry to hear this, but not surprised. I've heard that Clear Channel are a bunch of knuckle draggers.

[b_dubb]

@ Lena ... I think Kneel was being sarcastic.  That doesn't always translate well in plain text

[Lena]

/facepalm

obviously you didn't correctly compute my reply. It's really sad when you /facebalm me because of your misunderstanding. If you were a computer, you'd crash now or produce an exception.

[anagrammy]

please don't try to become paranoid. I am just teasing you with ALEX JONES.

As for Streamlink - without "pirated" files of the show, i wouldn't even know that C2C existed.
I even considered registering once - but while it's a funny show, sometimes interesting, they just have too many total Bullshit Talkers as guests that do not get challenged at all by Noory. It would be more fun if he asked them questions that would drill into the ridiculousness of some of these claims,possibly without them realizing he's not taking them serious. I know he could do it.

No, he can't, Lena and there are plenty of posts here making that very point.  Art did. Noory patronizes them.  The former makes for good radio.  The latter stimulates the radio off button.

Anagrammy

[EvB]

Please cancel your Streamlink accounts, everyone.  Please.  It's the only weapon we have to punish them for their stupidity.  I've never explicitly asked anyone to do this until now.  I hope all of you will.

Assholes.   I'd cancel due to this if i had not already cancelled.

[MV/Liberace!]

Assholes.   I'd cancel due to this if i had not already cancelled.

any chance you'd be willing to sign up again so that you could cancel?


j/k.

[anagrammy]

MichaelV - I'm feeling angry that we are not allowed to post programs which were aired FOR FREE for the purpose of critique, criticism and parody.  I hope you will retitle this thread Copyright Infringement and let's have some discussion. 

For the purpose of discussion, Wikileaks was served by a notice of copyright infringement by the Mormon Church--recently--for publishing their Handbook, which is only allowed to be viewed by a penis.   They ignored it, and also ignored the one from Scientology and absolutely nothing happened.  Some years ago, the Mormon Church sued Sandra and Gerald Tanner for publishing their Handbook on the internet and they lost.

Soooooo.... after all that ballyhoo about Americans standing up for their rights, why did you roll over for this?  Isn't this our chance to stand up for free speech.  We could pitch in for legal fees if you think you need representation to do nothing....?  You are Noory Free Radio in the United States--the world needs a fully functioning mocking CoastGab.  It's a free speech issue!

Please read the below and reconsider.


Anagrammy

(PS. I'm a paralegal and I know some of the posters are lawyers, so maybe we could help?)

FAIR USE UNDER UNITED STATES LAW

The legal concept of "Test copyright" was first ratified by the Kingdom of Great Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts created a doctrine of "fair abridgment" in Gyles v Wilcox, which eventually evolved into the modern concept of "fair use," that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Purpose and character

The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
When Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie," Mattel lost its claims of copyright and trademark infringement against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents.[2] But when Jeff Koons tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph "Puppies" in his sculpture "String of Puppies" with the same parody defense, he lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but of society at large, which was deemed insufficiently justificatory.[3]
However, since this case, courts have begun to emphasize the first fair use factorâ€"assessing whether the alleged infringement has transformative use as described by the Hon. Judge Pierre N. Leval.[4] More recently, Koons was involved in a similar case with commercial photographer Andrea Blanch,[5] regarding his use of her photograph for a painting, whereby he appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. In this case, Koons won; the case sets a favorable precedent for appropriation art where the use is deemed transformative.
The subfactor mentioned in the legislation above, "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes," has recently been deemphasized in some Circuits "since many, if not most, secondary uses seek at least some measure of commercial gain from their use."[6] More important is whether the use fulfills any of the "preamble purposes" also mentioned in the legislation above, as these have been interpreted as paradigmatically "transformative." Although Judge Pierre Leval has distinguished the first factor as "the soul of fair use," it alone is not determinative

Practical effect of fair use defense

The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear. All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though he may sell his review commercially. But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.
Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works."
The April 2000 opinion ruled concerning the four factors of fair use that 1) "defendants' use of plaintiffs' articles is minimally, if at all, transformative," 2) the factual content of the articles copied "weighs in favor of finding of fair use of the news articles by defendants in this case," though it didn't "provide strong support" 3) concerning the amount and substantiality prong, "the wholesale copying of plaintiffs' articles weighs against the finding of fair use," and 4) the plaintiffs showed that they were trying to exploit the market for viewing their articles online and defendants didn't rebut their showing by proving an absence of usurpation harm to plaintiffs. Ultimately the court found "that the defendants may not assert a fair use defense to plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim."

[b_dubb]

interesting point Ana ... however ... if i had a legal department at some media company breathing down my neck about filesharing bs, i'd have removed the files from the server as requested.  i believe the filesharing paradigm implicates the person sharing the file as the evildoer while the downloader get's a free pass

[anagrammy]

Of course the main point is that posting programs here is for the purpose of critique or commentary, not to make them available to the public and depriving Clear Channel of revenue.  There is a substantial amount of criticism involved, which argues that Clear Channel's intention is to suppress free speech.  That is not copyright infringement.  The Mormon Church doesn't sell their handbook so they can't argue that their revenue is impacted.

Also, entire programs area commonly available all over the internet in file sharing libraries, unlike here.

To me, we complain about Clear Channel's failure to disclose info about Art when they constantly run shows decrying failure to disclose by the government.  By the same token, Coastgab argues that our rights are being taken away because we won't--what?-- protest in the rain?  object even a tiny little bit? 

There is a stand which could be taken and I am just sorry that Mike doesn't feel he--and apparently the majority of Americans--have the interest to fight for free speech.  I see this whole thing going in a sorry direction with litigation strangling free speech.  Look how it's made politically correct speech so necessary that we can't even TALK to each other about race OR religion without painfully parsing our language into a bland paste of obsequious generalities. 

Where do we draw the line?  Or are we going to play Halo instead?

Anagrammy

[MV/Liberace!]

anagrammy... i both understand and share your convictions on this issue.  believe me, i do.  however, there are a few problems:


1) my website is hosted by someone other than me.  if i refuse to take down the material, premiere radio is simply going to move up the food chain and threaten my hosting company.  do you think for one moment my hosting company is going to fight for me?  a customer who pays them $10 per month?  hell no.  they are going to pull the plug on my server LONG before any of that comes to pass.  it's not in their legal or financial interests to do anything other than that.  if my server were to be shut down, the lack of functionality on CoastGab would go far beyond simply not being able to post c2c shows.


2) many moons ago when i used to ask for donations to help defray the costs of the stream, very few people ever donated a cent despite the fact that there were thousands of people listening each day.  if this is indicative of the kind of financial backing i could expect from supporters in an expensive legal battle with premiere radio networks, i'll pass.  furthermore, to depend on donations to some sort of legal fund would be to assume that a majority support my position against premiere.  i don't know that to be true.  also, if there are attorneys using this site who are so eager to represent me, where are they?  why have they not come forward?  i think the answer is clear:  nobody really gives a shit about this, and if they don't, why should i?  i have real life problems/concerns/responsibilities/obligations to attend to.  furthermore, i'm not so sure premiere is legally incorrect in demanding the shows be taken down.  it might make them assholes, and for that i do not forgive them... but i'm not so sure they're incorrect legally.

[Silent]

Free speech has nothing to do with taking someone else's property and distributing it as you wish.  Premiere owns these shows and are the only ones who legally can decide how they are made available.  I don't see the harm in it but that doesn't make it legal nor an infringment of your rights when it's taken away.  From a legal point of view it's no different than downloading music, movies, or software.  If MV or anyone else were dumb enough to challenge this in a court they would just end up with fines and legal fees to pay.

Also, your point on Wikileaks is a bad comparison.  Copyright laws in Sweden are much different and they can pretty much do what they want there.  I'm betting these churches were trying to apply US laws to non-US people or entities.  That doesn't work.  Now if MV were willing to move to Sweden or eastern Europe somewhere, become a citizen, move all of the site to a hosting server there, he then could tell Premiere to shove off.  You, the uploader, as a US citizen (presuming) are still breaking the US copyright laws and can be held liable however.

[DoYouThinkItWasAngels]

I happen to know a thing or two about fair use and the internet. There's no way these files can qualify.

[Silent]

Furthermore, asking someone else to put themselves on the line like that because it's a battle YOU want to see fought is selfish.  If you want to put your finances and freedoms (fines and or jail time) on the line to fight for something you believe in then you're braver than the average citizen.  To try to convince someone else to do this for you while you watch from the sidelines and risk nothing...all because we can't post Art Bell shows...the words elude me.  If you believe in it that much then go do it yourself, i'll just say that.

[onan]

Furthermore, asking someone else to put themselves on the line like that because it's a battle YOU want to see fought is selfish.  If you want to put your finances and freedoms (fines and or jail time) on the line to fight for something you believe in then you're braver than the average citizen.  To try to convince someone else to do this for you while you watch from the sidelines and risk nothing...all because we can't post Art Bell shows...the words elude me.  If you believe in it that much then go do it yourself, i'll just say that.

Well said.