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.

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.

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.

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. :p

What is "against the public"? It is a foundationally capitalistic business model based on paying for distribution.

What is "against the public"? It is a foundationally capitalistic business model based on paying for distribution.

Don't know much about ethics, do you? :uhh:

GTA comprises about 17% of Canada's population

"Limited in distribution" includes the whole GTA, I wouldn't call that "limited" by any means.

Yes, it is illegal. The silliest argument is "Everybody does it".

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?

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.

It appears as a single page.

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

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

Please show me where this is mentioned ABOVE my reply. Not at the very bottom of the page...

"If one pays for it, how can you say it is illegal?"

Uh.. Do we really have to answer that question? If I pay for a bag of weed does that make it legal?

"If one pays for it, how can you say it is illegal?"

Uh.. Do we really have to answer that question? If I pay for a bag of weed does that make it legal?

Are you sure? That sounds pretty low-tech and would only work for OTA networks ( ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,PBS ). How would they get CNN and the other premium US channels that aren't broadcast OTA if they didn't get a digital feed from the source network?

...You're free to go back to the US . That's what will fly....

Law should make sense and comply with what the society believes to be the acceptable behaviour.

The topic was pretty well covered, but one argument wasn't addressed - "if you pay for it, it can't be illegal." What about crystal meth? You have to pay for that too, but the forces of law and order might have some issues with you having any amount on your person ;)

$1.50/month voip.ms US number call forwarded to a Canadian POTS line perhaps?

My understanding is that the box updates either via internet or phone line, how are you getting around that?

So you are an American and have sat tv on your boat and you sail into Canada and dock. Somebody better call the Mounties quick to seize your gear cuz you're watching some American channel because, after all, the RCMP is just Robellus's private enforcers.