Talk:The Conet Project

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Radio Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Copyright infringement[edit]

The copyright infringement issue is quite curious. Assuming they were actually uploaded by the "Conet project" owners themselves, these SoundCloud recordings have now been released as CC-BY, an extremely permissive and irrevocable license allowing re-use in just about any form, including commercial use, without payment of royalties

http://soundcloud.com/the-conet-project/sets/the-conet-project 67.174.39.160 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irdial operates under a "license" of Free Music Philosophy. How that would hold up in any given nation's court is not my area of expertise… --65.51.58.1 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't in puzzling they would sue Wilco for sampling portions of their discs (which they themselves simply recorded off a SW radio band) if they're champions of this policy? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the UK the courts accept a rather extreme interpretation of the sweat of the brow approach regarding intellectual property, although this approach was repelled at the European Court of Justice in 2012. SV1XV (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but why would it even get to the courts in the first place from a record company which, according to their own accounts, shouldn't have had a problem with it in the first place. It's like, major irony that the guys who champion free music are the one who sued when their stuff was sampled...and wasn't even their stuff. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irdial probably needed to throw the caveat in about reproduction for commercial use. Obviously, their intent is good; their understanding of the meaning of what constitutes copyright infringement, or even what a copyright assertion would mean given their stated principles, is unsophisticated at best.

I agree with the UK court's interpretation; the original recordings of these numbers stations were not exactly open-source. First, one had to assemble a fairly sophisticated hardware setup; and then finding, tracking, IDing and recording them was a matter that required a LOT of time, effort, and experience. These were not stations broadcasting on standard ITU established frequency allocations, nor were they either publishing or broadcasting on regular frequency channels. As defined by the ITU, the very use and existence of numbers stations, used by clandestine services of various countries, is illegal by definition and practice. Numbers stations would broadcast in random on any amateur radio band allocation, broadcast band allocations, marine band allocations, basically wherever and whenever they felt like it. I can't see any of this meeting any sensible interpretation of open source. Maybe if one of the clandestine services involved sue the Conet Project or Wilco...now that would set an interesting legal precedent, one way or the other ;) Warn0245 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth keeping?[edit]

I was looking for sources for the uncited statement in the lead section (The project's name comes from a mishearing of the Czech word konec, or "end", which marks the end of transmissions on the Czech numbers station) and couldn't find any to back this up, other than this article. It says "The word "Conet" is the sign-off signal on one station" but nothing about "conet" being a mishearing of the Czech word "konec". The claim in the lead seems plausible but isn't fully sourced anywhere (that I could find), but just saying that a station signed off by saying "conet" feels disingenuous when it's only mentioned in the one source. Should the whole sentence be deleted, considering it's just a small piece of information? Or just reword it to only say what's supported by a citation? IdealSalesman (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it when I changed the lead. Eventually I would like to add a background section or something like that where that information can go if there is a source for it, because I think it's worth including. IdealSalesman (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signalis?[edit]

The indie horror game SIGNALIS uses a sample of Three Note Oddity. Should I edit to include that? Sableisunable (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a solid reputable source, I don't see why not. I'd include it in the "Legacy and sampling" section. Superlucer (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly mention Signalis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sableisunable (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing formatting[edit]

Is there any reason that the tracks should be listed the way they are as opposed to the same way as tracks on a music album? Something like this template seems appropriate, but if there is a reason not to do it that way, that's totally fine. I am also completely fine with making the change itself, but wanted to check in first since it's a major adjustment to the page. Superlucer (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I hadn't heard anything to the contrary, I have gone ahead and changed it. I kept all information that was present, except for one internal link that had no relation to these recordings. Disc five originally had no lengths in case that is a concern Superlucer (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]