 IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to DKS
Re: DTV illegal in Canada? What is the legal justification? 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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
 DKSDamn Kidney StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
 ·Bell Sympatico
| said by Ian: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
 SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
3 edits | reply 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 StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Spike: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | 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. |
|
| said by Spike: "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/Greater_Toronto_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. |
|
SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
2 edits | reply 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 StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Spike
said by Spike: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
|
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply 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. |
|
SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | reply 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 StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Ian
said by Ian: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
DKSDamn Kidney StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Spike
said by Spike: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | 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. |
|
IanPremium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply 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.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong |
|
Reviews:
 ·WestNet Wireless
| 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>.... |
|
| reply 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.  |
|
| reply 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 StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply 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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | 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 StonesPremium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Spike: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.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
