Im looking to find some conversations between engineers and dispatchers and detectors so I can put the in my MSTS game. I looked for some sound files on line but nothing that is recent. Im looking for UP, BNSF , NS and CSX. But mostly UP and BNSF. Are there any websites that I can use to get the sounds ( online scanners)? Thanks Colin
how about http://www.railroadradio.net/
I don’t think anyone is legally going to give you what you are looking for.
What do you mean by that, is it illegal to use the sounds for personal use in a game?
The last time I checked there was no property rights issues around conversations over a radio scanner—if there was any issue this would have been scrambled via spread spectrum technology. As well, if this is over the internet—unless site specifically says that the transmissions cannot be used under ANY circumstance then it should not be an issue----
The Communications Act of 1934 (IIRC) says that you cannot use intercepted radio communications for personal gain.
Unless you’re planning on selling what you glean from the air, there shouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve always heard that provision in the context of a tow-truck operator. He can’t listen to the police and use the information thus gained to respond unbidden to an accident scene in order to get the tow.
There could also be the matter of using the voices without permission.
If you simply want to expand or just change the voices on your game, I’d suggest listening in on your selected railroad, learning how they handle the situations you want to change, and simply record them yourself (or have someone else record them from the script you put together). Then there’s no issue at all.
Again. The conversations are not yours as they are private conversations belonging to the owner/operator of the radio transmissions not to be intercepted for public consumption or use. It is not a matter of copyright as with commercial broadcasts but as a matter of privacy and security of the owners. Anyone’s rebrooadcasting of such transmissions or otherwise using information obtained from such transmssions for financial gain are not allowed. If you should do so you will incur legal if not criminal problems for yourself at the least. More importantly to me, and the rest of this community, is that your use for financial gain would publicize railfan’s listening to such conversations and thus have it encrypted or otherwise scrambled so that we all would lose the privilege of listening. So please don’t.
If you’re only going to do it for your own personal use and not sell the product, who will ever know? Except when you tell everyone via a forum such as this.
Colin didn’t mention anything about comercial use. Unless you (Colin) are exploiting the transmissions for profit, don’t even worry about it. If the conversations are so private they will encrypt the signal, and they wouldn’t be made available for all to hear over the internet.
Again, any regulation I’ve seen, including the one mentioned by tree68, only mentioned it in regards----Personal Gain–ie-for profit. There are no issues elsewise otherwise the radio.net stuff would have never even have occurred. The paranoia around copyright has created a lot of confusion here----
It is not paranoia about copyright here. Copyright has nothing to do with it. It is illegal to intercept and use private conversations and use the information for personal gain. Nor can you record and use the conversations. Our listening to police radio and railroad communitcaitons is technically illegal and an invasion of thier privacy. Our practices are winked at, yes. Anyone caught listening can be harrassed at least, and maybe charged with invasion of privacy at worst. It is not a game. If I walked into a room and heard my voice in a private conversation that had taken place anytime in the past, not only would I be upset, but would also consider legal action of some kind. I am sure that under today’s Homeland Security paranoia there would be a lot of law enforcers ready toact. So why think of using such conversations? Not province of copyright but province of privacy. I just suggest one be careful if he wants to do something like this.
OK-- since this is a violation of privacy then one should tell that to all the radio.net groups that their broadcasting this through the internet is itself a violation of that privacy? Come now, we knew for decades now that anything that went over what was perceived at one time as the public airwaves was indeed public. It was only an issue if and only if you used information for personal gain. People who use Amateur radio(ARRL and the like) have hardly complained about shortwave radio listeners listening in on private matters—what are private matters stayed off the air. If someone was doing taping of the numbers stations that were/are still broadcasting—would they be ‘invading their privacy’?
He was only talking about his OWN use, not something else here. I would suggest that there is a kind of paranoia over what constitutes privacy in this case-
…Now where did I put that popcorn machine…
So, if I was listening to the scanner and hear that, let’s say UP6935, is coming into town. Wouldn’t that be considered “personal gain”? Then you go out and video tape it and it drops a few axles, and you got it on tape. Sell it to the local TV station. Would that be considered “profiting” from listening to a 2-way conversation that you heard on the scanner? I wouldn’t have even known about it if it wasn’t for the fact that “I stole the unsecured conversation that was broadcasted over the airwaves that a perfectly legal scanner could pick up and used it for my personal gain and profit”. How would I be charged even if I admitted to the fact that I “heard it over the scanner”?
As for the tow truck operations. It is illegal for them, in Wisconsin (unless that changed) to have scanners in the tow-trucks. In Appleton, there is a list of towing companies that get called out in order when they are needed. It is illegal to have a scanner in your personal vehicle in Minnesota (got a warning in 1998 and again, if that changed).
For the voices, my neices did something with Windows and wrote a bunch of stuff and the computer read it back. I have no idea how they did it but if somebody out there knows can show you. It’s pretty neat.
Paul
AAH!-but then again, personal gain is for monetary gain. If I got an accident on my cellphone–or better yet a shootout in a mall—the police can use that for evidence, if I don’t take it to a TV station first. There is a station in the Toronto area that advertises that it will use your input (ie-vids). Whose personal gain is this then?
The issue of what constitutes ‘privacy’ is interesting here too. We are not referring to personal privacy so much as institutional privacy, or, corporate privacy then. Whose ‘privacy’ is it that is of concern here? Does this mean that if I was in a coffee shop and a police officer walks in and his radio blares out about an occurance on -------- street that we just invaded somebodies privacy? If I am in a public space and a domestic incident takes place that I’m violating someone’s privacy? It might be bad form to stick around to listen in but illegal? Doubt it. There were countries that did in fact control who heard what—I was born in one—believe me—not fun at all.
And we still have those websites with the scanners on the web thing going—and we all listen in on them.[:-^]
Yes, its what you do with the information that will either get you into trouble or not. But don’t get commercial radio programming confused with personal commnications radio. And as I also said, listening to police, fire, emergency, railroad, other private business communications, is winked at by authorities for the most part. But there are some places where having a scanner in your car, for instance, is illegal.
Wikipedia isn’t the be-all and end-all of accurate information, but this appears to be fairly correct:
The last one would seem to be the one that applies here, and is probably the most violated item on the list.
The last one would be the one that could be potential trouble if the above mentioned points were involved—I was told by a friend of mine–police detective–of these and the usual scenario involved more than the last one—if it is only the last one the case would be a darn sight difficult to prove.
Be that as it may then, the question should be asked then why allow the radio.net sites the ability to provide this service? It could be that it is assumed that no one is using the information for ‘criminal’ purposes—