El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
to battleop
Re: DTV illegal in Canada? What is the legal justification?said by battleop:Please show me where this is mentioned ABOVE my reply. Not at the very bottom of the page... If you had bothered reading the thread before spouting off you would've noticed this was covered on the last page. Not that I would prevent from trying to re-visit that angle if you chose to do so. |
|
|
|
Last page? As far as I can tell this thread this topic is a single page. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
said by battleop:Last page? As far as I can tell this thread this topic is a single page. It's three pages long, this is the third. |
|
|
If you follow the link from the front page there is nothing that indicates there is more than one page to this thread. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
said by battleop:If you follow the link from the front page there is nothing that indicates there is more than one page to this thread. I don't know about you, but I see "page: 1 2 3" at the top and botton of the topic. I was wondering why you hadn't read the entire topic, honestly. |
|
|
It appears as a single page. |
|
|
bt
Member
2012-Oct-5 4:06 pm
said by battleop:It appears as a single page. ....something is going screwy for you. I'm seeing it as 3 pages as well. |
|
|
said by bt:said by battleop:It appears as a single page. ....something is going screwy for you. I'm seeing it as 3 pages as well. He must have something different set in his preferences in his profile. I'm seeing it as 3 pages too. Either way, the distinction between "above" and "a few pages back" is bordering on pedantic when referring to a previous part of the current thread of conversation in a topic. |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
See Topics/Posts per page ... for me this thread is 2 pages long! |
|
J E F F4Whatta Ya Think About Dat? Premium Member join:2004-04-01 Kitchener, ON |
J E F F4
Premium Member
2012-Oct-7 9:24 am
LOL! I'm at one page too!
Simple answer to question. Illegal, yes, will you ever be charged? No. It's like breaking the speed limit. You do 3 over the limit, illegal, yes, will you ever be pulled over and charged, no. Not if your paperwork is in order anyway.
The cheaper prices and better content make US providers look attractive. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1 to DKS
Premium Member
2012-Oct-7 10:06 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:It is considered acceptable in Canada, mostly for copyright and licensing reasons, to not allow free access to American satellite signals. You can believe differently, but what you have is the way it is, for good and legitimate reasons. Acceptable to who? And legitimate to who? I don't consider (morally or ethically) that it is a crime to "infringe on someones business model". I see picking up a US satellite TV signal to be no different to when I was a kid and watching the Buffalo stations via a tall antennae. As far as I'm concerned, get a US post office box, US credit card, pay for it, and watch it with a crystal clear conscience. Might you get fined? Sure. You might also win the lottery. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
said by Ian1:said by DKS:It is considered acceptable in Canada, mostly for copyright and licensing reasons, to not allow free access to American satellite signals. You can believe differently, but what you have is the way it is, for good and legitimate reasons. Acceptable to who? And legitimate to who? I don't consider (morally or ethically) that it is a crime to "infringe on someones business model". I see picking up a US satellite TV signal to be no different to when I was a kid and watching the Buffalo stations via a tall antennae. As far as I'm concerned, get a US post office box, US credit card, pay for it, and watch it with a crystal clear conscience. Might you get fined? Sure. You might also win the lottery. When you are bypassing the rights of the broadcasters, who paid very good money for the right to distribute a program in Canada, it's theft. That's a crime. Rationalize it any way you want, but in law, it's still theft. Don't like it? Change the law. But so far, the rights of the distributor are pretty clear. And the right to block is also grounded in law, unless you pay the distributor. That's their business model and how they make money. |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON 3 edits |
to johnkim
Is it not still bypassing the so-called "rights" of the Canadian incumbents by watching broadcast TV on an OTA HD from Buffalo instead of CTV? Boohoo, poor Bell.
How is it that one distribution mechanism is okay while the other is not? Its not because its Satellite either, as FTA dishes are considered legal yet you can still infringe on the (again) so-called "rights" of Bell, Global or Shaw, etc by receiving various American broadcast feeds.
Law be damned, it makes no sense. You could say the same thing about mainstream P2P filesharing being illegal yet millions of people do it without any thought or care about ones obsolete business model. If the law is unjust, nobody will care about it, simple as that. P2P is a grand example. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
said by Spike5:Is it not still bypassing the so-called "rights" of the Canadian incumbents by watching broadcast TV on an OTA HD from Buffalo instead of CTV? Boohoo, poor Bell.
How is it that one distribution mechanism is okay while the other is not? Because that particular spillover is limited in distribution. Law be damned, it makes no sense. You could say the same thing about mainstream P2P filesharing being illegal yet millions of people do it without any thought or care about ones obsolete business model. If the law is unjust, nobody will care about it, simple as that. P2P is a grand example. Yes, it is illegal. The silliest argument is "Everybody does it". |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON |
Spike5
Premium Member
2012-Oct-8 6:02 pm
said by DKS:Yes, it is illegal. The silliest argument is "Everybody does it". Too bad its fact. (Much to your dismay, because everyone should be obeying laws that are there to protect business models and nothing more) Also, "Limited in distribution" includes the whole GTA, I wouldn't call that "limited" by any means. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17
1 recommendation |
said by Spike5: "Limited in distribution" includes the whole GTA, I wouldn't call that "limited" by any means.
The GTA is just a tiny part of Canada. Area of GTA ~ 7,124 sq. km » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr ··· nto_AreaArea of Canada ~ 9,985,000 sq. km » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanadaGTA comprises about 0.07% of Canada by area GTA population is about 6MM »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area Canada population close to 35MM » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanadaGTA comprises about 17% of Canada's population Either way, it's pretty limited. A 17% shareholding might get you 1 or 2 seats on a Board of Directors consisting of 10-12 members. Hardly significant. |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON 2 edits |
to johnkim
Quite large in comparison to the amount that are actually willing to go through the trouble to get American TV in the first place.
From what I remember this law was mostly used to crack down on illegal piracy (when cracking N2 was childs play) of US signals as the incumbents were in an uproar about it. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to Spike5
said by Spike5:said by DKS:Yes, it is illegal. The silliest argument is "Everybody does it". Too bad its fact. (Much to your dismay, because everyone should be obeying laws that are there to protect business models and nothing more) Don't know much about ethics, do you? Also, "Limited in distribution" includes the whole GTA, I wouldn't call that "limited" by any means. Compared to the rest of Canada, it is. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:GTA comprises about 17% of Canada's population And the other 83% also lives pretty close to the US border, for the most part. |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON |
Spike5 to DKS
Premium Member
2012-Oct-8 6:57 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:Don't know much about ethics, do you? Ethics also works both ways, and as long as its all one-sided against the public, its fair-game. The TPP for example also wants to remove cancon requirements. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to Ian1
said by Ian1:said by MaynardKrebs:GTA comprises about 17% of Canada's population And the other 83% also lives pretty close to the US border, for the most part. But largely out of signal range of US TV. That's why cable TV became so popular after antennas. The HDTV revolution has brought it full circle. |
|
DKS |
to Spike5
said by Spike5:said by DKS:Don't know much about ethics, do you? Ethics also works both ways, and as long as its all one-sided against the public, its fair-game. The TPP for example also wants to remove cancon requirements. What is "against the public"? It is a foundationally capitalistic business model based on paying for distribution. |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON |
Spike5
Premium Member
2012-Oct-8 7:11 pm
said by DKS:What is "against the public"? It is a foundationally capitalistic business model based on paying for distribution. Okay, so American DTV on Canadian soil is illegal and can throw you in jail, yet at the same time the user can simply use P2P and get the same (and more) content (all commercial-free and time-shifted), and fall under civil reaching laws rather than criminal. Yes, makes sense to me too. EDIT: Yes, I know in the P2P case the incumbents still get to pilfer you on internet costs. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1 to DKS
Premium Member
2012-Oct-8 7:35 pm
to DKS
said by DKS:What is "against the public"? It is a foundationally capitalistic business model based on paying for distribution. Actually, the model you're describing is quite far from capitalistic. So the Government of Canada can sell the right to broadcast a signal to me? Says who? At what point did I give that right to them for them to re-sell it? Did they buy the right from me before re-selling it? If so, I'm still waiting for my cut. Strictly capitalistic would be for anyone that can afford to launch a satellite to compete with others in getting me to open my chequebook to subscribe to the services of that broadcast. I really don't care if the company is based in the US, Canada, or Latvia. |
|
|
ok so its illegal but dishnetwork still accepts canadian credit cards....... allows SLING access from Canada.
So its illegal for me to be a verizon wireless customer ROAMING in Canada and open up VERIZON TV on my mobile phone?
Verizon EVEN ACCEPTS CANADIANS with CANADIAN CREDIT FILE>.... |
|
|
to johnkim
I'm guessing DKS is a Bell shareholder, or maybe Mirko Bibic incognito. Never have I seen someone defend Bell like he has in this thread. |
|
|
to johnkim
lol, nonsense like this is why I cut cable and download everything and don't feel an ounce of remorse or guilt, and never will. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
to LondonOntGuy
said by LondonOntGuy:I'm guessing DKS is a Bell shareholder, or maybe Mirko Bibic incognito. Never have I seen someone defend Bell like he has in this thread. None of the above. Just happen to know how copyright works. |
|
Spike5 Premium Member join:2008-05-16 Toronto, ON |
Spike5
Premium Member
2012-Oct-23 6:07 pm
said by DKS:said by LondonOntGuy:I'm guessing DKS is a Bell shareholder, or maybe Mirko Bibic incognito. Never have I seen someone defend Bell like he has in this thread. None of the above. Just happen to know how copyright works. Very good, for the remaining 15% or so (and dropping rapidly) of people that actually have any respect for that slow motion lobbyist driven trainwreck that no longer serves its intended purpose. The industry made their precious government granted copyright laws into a toxic public matter, now they have to live with the resulting lack of public respect for copyright as a whole. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney Stones
join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON |
said by Spike5:said by DKS:said by LondonOntGuy:I'm guessing DKS is a Bell shareholder, or maybe Mirko Bibic incognito. Never have I seen someone defend Bell like he has in this thread. None of the above. Just happen to know how copyright works. Very good, for the remaining 15% or so (and dropping rapidly) of people that actually have any respect for that slow motion lobbyist driven trainwreck that no longer serves its intended purpose. The industry made their precious government granted copyright laws into a toxic public matter, now they have to live with the resulting lack of public respect for copyright as a whole. Like it or not, copyright law still exists. It is far older than any of us and still valuable,. I make my living using material I create and copyright. |
|