ad: MLSons-1

Two YouTube Hams Interview Each Other Over HF - The way it should be.

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KB7TBT, Jun 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
  1. W7CJD

    W7CJD Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have purchased books that are a complete waste of money.

    On the other hand, I have wasted minutes of my life looking at stupid YouTube videos.

    Hmm ..minutes v $$$

    That said, there are excellent books.

    Let's have a QRZ thread: excellent books.
     
  2. WN2C

    WN2C Ham Member QRZ Page

    Like I said Chip, if it was posted in the ham radio forum it wouldn't be news.
     
  3. N5KMJ

    N5KMJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I know everyone likes to get all up in arms over nothing, but check the main page. It's posted as an interview, not as news. Even if it was, Kevin wasn't the one who posted it.
     
    N2UN, ND6M, AG5DB and 1 other person like this.
  4. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Are you asking if it was posted in the wrong Forum...

    Well, yes!

    But the poster AND the moderators have the option of moving it.

    Ultimately it is the poster's responsibility to vet it as news.

    If the video blog had some pertinent story--new-- of interest to hams, that certainly would have been 'amateur radio news'. They've had it in the past, many times. This isn't it.
     
    WJ1MK likes this.
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    This was taken 3 minutes ago.

    "Amateur Radio News"

    Newszzzz.jpg
     
  6. N1NA

    N1NA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I enjoyed the chat, Dave and Kevin, thank you.
    Some of the comments in the feedback, remind me of my having to study Shakespeare in school, and "Much to do about nothing" really comes to mind.
    73, Chuck
     
    W7GG, N2UN, W3AEM and 4 others like this.
  7. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    The authors submission is a news item because and I quote, " for the first time ever conducted an over the air interview ."

    Any submitted article involving any recent historical event is considered news.

    Incidentally this thread topic isn't about what may, or may not constitute the definition of a news article.

    That sort of ongoing discussion only derails the thread away from it's originally intended subject matter and is considered off topic. Please stay on topic and this matter is now closed.

    Thank you.







     
    N1NA, KB7TBT, ND6M and 1 other person like this.
  8. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    First time ever for..what? Them interviewing each other?

    This is a Part 97 issue as you pose it.

    Are those podcasts sponsored? Is there pecuniary interest associated with these video podcasts via that sponsorship? Were the Part 97 interviews conducted for the sake of these sponsored video podcasts?

    These are the relevant questions in that case.

    Its not a gray zone. Similar instances arose over many,many years such as with the Salvation Army, and the Eye Bank Net.

    I am sorry if you disagree. The point is there is an obligation to be aware of the prior history of this issue. If you come up to speed on the issue, then I am sure we would ALL benefit from any additional facts and knowledge proffered.

    I do not have an opinion on pecuniary matters in Part 97. I am not here to convince nor advocate, just inform.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    WJ1MK, KA2FIR and WN1MB like this.
  9. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I apologize, but I am not interested in participating in this discussion.

    Thanks.
     
    W1YW likes this.
  10. WN1MB

    WN1MB Ham Member QRZ Page

    You've disappointed Shakespeare: it's Much Ado About Nothing.
     
    WJ1MK and K2PJC like this.
  11. KA2FIR

    KA2FIR Ham Member QRZ Page

  12. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Its likely that most Youtubers do not seek nor get a 'pay for view' royalty. The bigger issue is whether they are sponsored. If you do a sponsored (someone compensates you) video and you intentionally undertake an on the air activity to be used for that video, then your intent for the Part 97 communication was pecuniary.

    Its not an easy issue to deal with. For example, if I donate to a dxpedition, is their intent pecuniary? Or am I paying for travel? (I have run into this issue as I do donate to many dxpeditions). When WB2ITX wants to get on the air from W1AW--AS CEO of ARRL-- and its announced ahead of time, is his intent pecuniary?

    I am not SUPPORTING these interpretations. I am INFORMING you of them.

    If you want to play broadcaster on youtube, without a sponsor and without youtube royalty, then clearly there is not a problem if you want to establish a contact to use on your video.


    Hope that helps.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    WJ1MK and WN1MB like this.
  13. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Pecuniary issue aside ...

    If two hams talking to each other on the radio is considered a news-worthy "historic event" ... then amateur radio may be in more trouble than we thought.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019
    K0UO and WN1MB like this.
  14. KA2FIR

    KA2FIR Ham Member QRZ Page

    WN1MB likes this.
  15. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Nothing to do with Youtube. Has to do with the bloggers' video. Do they announce a sponsor(s) in the video podcast? Was the OTA Part 97 interview done intentionally as content for a sponsored program for which they are affiliated?

    For some reason I do recall a major equipment manufacture being a sponsor in the past. I could be wrong on this, and am happy to be corrected if the fact is different from that recollection.

    There's nothing wrong with their video blog. Lots of people like it. Many find it helpful. Very nice! But there are the two issues we explore(d) here:

    1) Is the topic of the OP "amateur radio news"? A: NO
    2) Was there a possible pecuniary violation of Part 97 ? A: that's up to the FCC to consider and explore, which they do almost only if a complaint is lodged. I am here to inform, BTW, not 'rat' (to use the apparent word of choice on this thread).

    The best takeaway is to vet your OP and ask if it meets the criteria of "news'. In addition, awareness and understanding of the pecuniary issue in Part 97 benefits us all.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    WN1MB likes this.

Share This Page

ad: wmr-1