dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
13185

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to battleop

Premium Member

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.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Last page? As far as I can tell this thread this topic is a single page.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

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.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

If you follow the link from the front page there is nothing that indicates there is more than one page to this thread.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

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.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Click for full size
It appears as a single page.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

said by battleop:

It appears as a single page.

....something is going screwy for you. I'm seeing it as 3 pages as well.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet
join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON

HeadSpinning

Member

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

sbrook

Mod

Click for full size
See Topics/Posts per page ... for me this thread is 2 pages long!

J E F F4
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON

J E F F4

Premium Member

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

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

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

Spike5 to johnkim

Premium Member

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

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

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.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

1 recommendation

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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_Area
Area of Canada ~ 9,985,000 sq. km »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
GTA 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/Canada
GTA 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

Spike5 to johnkim

Premium Member

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to Spike5

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

Ian1 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

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

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to Ian1

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

DKS to Spike5

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

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

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.
olive403
join:2012-10-10
Canada

olive403

Member

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>....
LondonOntGuy
join:2004-05-12
London, ON

LondonOntGuy to johnkim

Member

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.
jeffreydean1
join:2010-05-31

jeffreydean1 to johnkim

Member

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to LondonOntGuy

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

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.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

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.