dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12077
share rss forum feed


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
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


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.


Spike
Premium
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.

Yes, it is illegal. The silliest argument is "Everybody does it".
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Spike
Premium
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.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 recommendation

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.


Spike
Premium
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.

Compared to the rest of Canada, it is.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
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.


Spike
Premium
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.


Spike
Premium
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.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
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

olive403

join:2012-10-10
Canada
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>....

LondonOntGuy

join:2004-05-12
London, ON
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.

jeffreydean1

join:2010-05-31
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.


Spike
Premium
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.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
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.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Spike
said by Spike:

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.

DTV being illegal isn't a copyright issue at all, it's a licensing issue, and is only loosely related to copyright.

If you download from a source not authorized by the copyright holder, you're violating copyright.

If you're watching DTV in Canada, then you're not violating copyright because the rights holder has approved the materials for transmission on DTV, but, someone else in Canada has paid for the rights to broadcast this here, making it a violation of the exclusive privilege granted to the Canadian broadcaster.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
said by El Quintron:

If you're watching DTV in Canada, then you're not violating copyright because the rights holder has approved the materials for transmission on DTV, but, someone else in Canada has paid for the rights to broadcast this here, making it a violation of the exclusive privilege granted to the Canadian broadcaster.

And the actual violation is the American DTV provider and that's who the Canadian broadcasters should go after since they are infringing the Canadian Broadcasters' rights! The American DTV providers should not be providing service to Canadians.

But that's too hard and potentially costly, so, instead the Canadian Broadcasters twisted the CRTCs arm to put the fault on the Canadian consumer for buying foreign services.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by sbrook:

And the actual violation is the American DTV provider and that's who the Canadian broadcasters should go after since they are infringing the Canadian Broadcasters' rights! The American DTV providers should not be providing service to Canadians.

But that's too hard and potentially costly, so, instead the Canadian Broadcasters twisted the CRTCs arm to put the fault on the Canadian consumer for buying foreign services.

It's also fairly deniable by the American DTV provider seeing as most of the time a 3rd party is selling the service to non-Americans.

I know it would be difficult to prosecute, but it's like blaming car manufacturers because their cars were used in bank robberies... a thin link at best.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

carcajou

join:2012-10-16
Riviere-Beaudette, QC

4 edits
reply to johnkim
It s kinda funny that so many here think that is is a " canadian thing " to limit your sacred right to watch the TV you want.

It is actually JUST AS ILLEGAL to decode a CANADIAN signal like Express Vu when you are residing in the USA.

Now, you ll probably laugh and say there s no such thing as a US resident dying to get ExpressVu, but plenty of us Quebecers retire in Florida and some want access to their familiar channels in french and yes, they use the address of some family member in Quebec to decode Express Vu illegally in Fl.

The rationale here is simply that a broadcaster pays the content providers ( Hollywood or whatever you want to call them collectively ) a certain amount of money for the right to broadcast said content over a SPECIFIC territory in an encrypted form to limit viewing to authorized users. Each market is treated as a separate contract with different amounts to pay per user in each market ( unless a broadcaster would simply buy an unlimited World license from the content creators )

And DirecTV THEMSELVES ( a US corporation ) are going ferociously against the grey market resellers in Canada who make arrangements with canadian clients to provide them with a false US address.

DirecTV seeked injunctions in Canada against those simply because they are afraid to get sued by the content providers who hold the copyrights.

Face it: it s all about corporations protecting their turf. Nothing to do with infringement on individual freedoms. And dishes are not illegal at all if the signal you receive is not encrypted. Then, it means there is no such " copyrights problems " involved with it. Those are simply free-to-air and free to receive. Even the CRTC cannot do anything about them. Space is outside the jurisdiction of any nation ( wise decision to avoid having the USA and the USSR destroying satellites over their territory back in the Cold War days ).