Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Is this legal or not?

Isn't the test something like: does the person who claims his rights were violated have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? For things done in a public setting, the answer is generally no. However, Part 95 of the FCC rules says you are not allowed to record radio transmissions. Doesn't that solve it? That wouldn't prevent someone who heard you from speaking about what you said or did - only from recording it.

It seems to me that state laws on one party vs. two party consent to record would take a back seat because of "federal pre-emption," the rule that anything federal trumps anything state that conflicts with it.

Just my thoughts. The lawyers should chime in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
rabbiporkchop said:
Found info about "rebroadcasting".
Saw no mention of recording.
View attachment 20805
Click to expand...
Good find.

That kind of goes with what I said earlier.

As long as you got permission or consent, you could re-broadcast on air or post audio on Youtube.

You can record anything just as law enforcement can record your audio, it just can't be legally re-broadcasted ( Radio, TV, Internet, etc. ) or used against you in a court of law if no warrant was issued.

If you re-broadcast any audio without consent, then it could come back on you if the person being recorded has issues with it.

Best bet is to let someone know beforehand that you are recording then your good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
You cannot record and them rebroadcast over the air waves.
If you are using a standard available to the public radio transceiver and do not have to modify it in any way to receive a signal that is broadcast you are good to go.
It is then a public domain property.
Recording received transmissions and placing them on YouTube is not illegal unless you modify what was said to change the meaning or adding obscenities and disclose the person's name and location to cause harm to their reputation.
If you do that then you are on the hook for other legal remedies, but that would be very hard to prove by the injured party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
They use the term "broadcasting", which is not what CB and ham radio operators do. We "transmit"; we "communicate". We don't "broadcast".

Some say that calling CQ, since it is a "general call to any station" IS broadcasting. It's not as much broadcasting as ARRL does in their Official Bulletins and code practice and qualification runs
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeapFrog
DainBramage said:
Both part 95 & 97 have a LEGAL definition of what is, and what is not "broadcasting", it is not subject to "semantics".
Click to expand...
Part 97 says this.

Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either direct or relayed.

Even though we are licensed Hams, aren't we still the general public?

This is basically what I defined previously.

I was referring to semantics towards Beetle's post to what he interprets broadcasting as.
 
Check Title 47, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 73. If hams and CBers (and GMRS, FRS, etc) were authorized to "broadcast", we'd have to meet a lot of extra requirements - and spend a lot of extra money.

Broadcasting, as the FCC has consistently described it, involves a constant, one-way transmission. No pauses for other stations to reply. They identify regularly, every ten minutes or so, and usually at the top and bottom of each hour also.

No, we hams are NOT the "general public". We're governed by Part 97 of the FCC rules. The general public is everyone who's NOT under Part 97.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeapFrog
Has anyone looked into the case law, yet?

It's important to the original question. Case law is the set precedent. If there is case law in existence, pertaining to the specific codes in question, what was the context?

If there is no case law, then these laws have not, yet, been tried. And, if that's the case, what prosecutor want to be the first to try the case, in this context?

The prosecution points to one thing that says, "No, you can't do that", while the defense points to code that implies, "Yes, you can". It's a little contradictory.

It would be a whole lot of trouble, for damages that amount to little more than "He doesn't like my radio, and recorded me to mock my radio, and now my feelings are hurt."

My take on it, based on time that I have spent observing court proceedings in general, and based on the personalities of attorneys that I know, is that I doubt that this would go far in court, unless there is established case law that sets a precedent in favor of the prosecution.

As I said before, I am not a lawyer and should not be mistaken as such, and it is possible that my take on it is wrong.
Case law, though. That's the next step in this exercise, is to look into the case law. That is, for all intents and purposes, legal code interpreted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop
Not true. At least In my state of NJ. it's 100% legal to record one without their consent. That unauthorized recording can be used against you in a court of law (in this state.)
I don't know the laws in the state the op is from but law's on recording can vary from State to state.
As far as recording someone without their permission and then transmitting it over YouTube or wherever I'm not one hundred percent sure but I would assume that if someone's voice and or picture / video was recorded in a public space no luck for the one who's recorded. I'm fairly positive that particular clip can be used to share without the person permission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabbiporkchop and LeapFrog

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom
      Back