What is 'Wrong'

[Figleaf]

Wh

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[jdobbin]

What do people think about so-called 'signal piracy'? E.G. decoding satelite TV without subscribing, or utilizing open wireless networks without specific permission.

Is it wrong? Why or why not?

If Canadians could get DirectTV and Dish Network, this would be an issue those companies could deal with legally.

Otherwise, it is grey area.

[M.Dancer]

It might be wrong but I couldn't care less about it.

Whoppeee! I'm stealing crappy TV!!!!!!

[M.Dancer]

Now ask me about the cash grab by the TV broadcasters who want to charge the cable companies for carrying their signal.

That would be like junk mail catalogues charging the post office for carrying their garbage. Lets put aside for a second that when ratings are compiled in local markets, that broadcasters count their viewers regardless of whether they are using cable or ..ahem....ariels.....that the rates they charge are based on those numbers.....If the broadcasters didn't count cable numbers, their viewership in the major markets would drop by at least 90% ......and so would the rates they can command.

....putting that aside, is it right that they should ask the cable companies who make them rich to pay for the service?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...query=regulator

[Figleaf]

ll

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I can't see how it can be considered wrong. If I am in my home, or in a public place, it is the signal provider who is broadcasting into either my home or that public space. There is no reason a homeowner or member of the public has any obligation to desist from intercepting and manipulating signals travelling into her home or in a public space.

If a utilities company has a pipeling or a powerline going through your property, do you feel you have the right to tap in on it?

[Leafless]

Personally, I can't see how it can be considered wrong. If I am in my home, or in a public place, it is the signal provider who is broadcasting into either my home or that public space. There is no reason a homeowner or member of the public has any obligation to desist from intercepting and manipulating signals travelling into her home or in a public space.

I don't see it as wrong either.

Air space is full of different types of signals at any given time. It is different than water, telephone, hydro or gas being attached to your house by equipment that is owned by the company supplying that service.

If I have the equipment to capture and decode those signals, whether AM or satellite in the privacy of my own home, it is my personal business.

It is up to the supplier of electronic signals to protect their signal and scramble them in a way that would make it very difficult or impossible to unscramble.

Now Figleaf, how about some decoding specifics?

[Riverwind]

It is up to the supplier of electronic signals to protect their signal and scramble them in a way that would make it very difficult or impossible to unscramble.

The signals are scrambled today. The only way you can use these signals is if you acquire illegal equipment designed to defeat the protections placed by the operators.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I can't see how it can be considered wrong. If I am in my home, or in a public place, it is the signal provider who is broadcasting into either my home or that public space. There is no reason a homeowner or member of the public has any obligation to desist from intercepting and manipulating signals travelling into her home or in a public space.

I don't see it as wrong either.

Air space is full of different types of signals at any given time. It is different than water, telephone, hydro or gas being attached to your house by equipment that is owned by the company supplying that service.

If I have the equipment to capture and decode those signals, whether AM or satellite in the privacy of my own home, it is my personal business.

It is up to the supplier of electronic signals to protect their signal and scramble them in a way that would make it very difficult or impossible to unscramble.

Now Figleaf, how about some decoding specifics?

I think it's fine for them to code their signal in any way they chose. But if I can decode it without trespassing on thier property or in their system, that should be my right. However, if I have to hack into someone's LAN to use it, then that would be wrong.

Government making decoding equipment illegal for the sole purpose of protecting the signaler's right to broadcast through my property would be an abuse of government power, in my opinion, and a violation of liberty, and property 'rights'.

I think where you argument fails is in the area of "airspace". You do not own the airways....neither does the signal provider. They are rented from the CRTC or FCC.....so you have no legal right to them whether you choose to crack their signal in your livingroom or at the beach.

[Riverwind]

purpose of protecting the signaler's right to broadcast through my property would be an abuse of government power, in my opinion, and a violation of liberty, and property 'rights'.

Most properties have hydro, gas, water and sewer right of ways on them. You have no right to intercept hydro, water or gas 'signals' for free even if they go through your property.

[Figleaf]

ents.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I can't see how it can be considered wrong. If I am in my home, or in a public place, it is the signal provider who is broadcasting into either my home or that public space. There is no reason a homeowner or member of the public has any obligation to desist from intercepting and manipulating signals travelling into her home or in a public space.

I don't see it as wrong either.

Air space is full of different types of signals at any given time. It is different than water, telephone, hydro or gas being attached to your house by equipment that is owned by the company supplying that service.

If I have the equipment to capture and decode those signals, whether AM or satellite in the privacy of my own home, it is my personal business.

It is up to the supplier of electronic signals to protect their signal and scramble them in a way that would make it very difficult or impossible to unscramble.

Now Figleaf, how about some decoding specifics?

I think it's fine for them to code their signal in any way they chose. But if I can decode it without trespassing on thier property or in their system, that should be my right. However, if I have to hack into someone's LAN to use it, then that would be wrong.

Government making decoding equipment illegal for the sole purpose of protecting the signaler's right to broadcast through my property would be an abuse of government power, in my opinion, and a violation of liberty, and property 'rights'.

I think where you argument fails is in the area of "airspace". You do not own the airways....neither does the signal provider. They are rented from the CRTC or FCC.....so you have no legal right to them whether you choose to crack their signal in your livingroom or at the beach.

In Canada rights to broadcast are controlled by the CRTC. The CRTC has no authority to regulate signal recipients.

Is that why TV receivers comply with FCC and CRTC regulations.....because the CRTC has no authority? Guess again.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Leafless]

I think where you argument fails is in the area of "airspace". You do not own the airways....neither does the signal provider. They are rented from the CRTC or FCC.....so you have no legal right to them whether you choose to crack their signal in your livingroom or at the beach.

The airways are not rented from the CRTC or FCC.

What is bought is a license which among other things also permits the broadcastor to transmit 'information signals' within a certain frequency.

No one as an exclusive right to 'air space'.

If a providers scrambling methods fail to halt 'signal piracy', then it's up to the provider to come up with an alternative method or simply like they have been doing previously, issue a receiver access descrambler card as often as it takes to rectify the situation if they are so worried about piracy.

[Riverwind]

In Canada rights to broadcast are controlled by the CRTC. The CRTC has no authority to regulate signal recipients.

Wrong:

Under the Radiocommunication Act s. 4(1), radio or television equipment or service not specifically authorized for use in Canada falls into a black market category, contravening Canadian law. Until 2004, some debate ensued as to whether the purchase and tuning of equipment to receive unscrambled or lawfully paid-for programming not licensed by the CRTC in fact constituted black-market activity which was certainly illegal or merely grey-market which was possibly illegal; amendments to the Radiocommunication Act in 2004 resolved this debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC

[Figleaf]

In Canada rights to broadcast are controlled by the CRTC. The CRTC has no authority to regulate signal recipients.

Wrong:

Under the Radiocommunication Act s. 4(1), radio or television equipment or service not specifically authorized for use in Canada falls into a black market category, contravening Canadian law. Until 2004, some debate ensued as to whether the purchase and tuning of equipment to receive unscrambled or lawfully paid-for programming not licensed by the CRTC in fact constituted black-market activity which was certainly illegal or merely grey-market which was possibly illegal; amendments to the Radiocommunication Act in 2004 resolved this debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRTC

A couple of comments:

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I can't see how it can be considered wrong. If I am in my home, or in a public place, it is the signal provider who is broadcasting into either my home or that public space. There is no reason a homeowner or member of the public has any obligation to desist from intercepting and manipulating signals travelling into her home or in a public space.

I don't see it as wrong either.

Air space is full of different types of signals at any given time. It is different than water, telephone, hydro or gas being attached to your house by equipment that is owned by the company supplying that service.

If I have the equipment to capture and decode those signals, whether AM or satellite in the privacy of my own home, it is my personal business.

It is up to the supplier of electronic signals to protect their signal and scramble them in a way that would make it very difficult or impossible to unscramble.

Now Figleaf, how about some decoding specifics?

I think it's fine for them to code their signal in any way they chose. But if I can decode it without trespassing on thier property or in their system, that should be my right. However, if I have to hack into someone's LAN to use it, then that would be wrong.

Government making decoding equipment illegal for the sole purpose of protecting the signaler's right to broadcast through my property would be an abuse of government power, in my opinion, and a violation of liberty, and property 'rights'.

I think where you argument fails is in the area of "airspace". You do not own the airways....neither does the signal provider. They are rented from the CRTC or FCC.....so you have no legal right to them whether you choose to crack their signal in your livingroom or at the beach.

In Canada rights to broadcast are controlled by the CRTC. The CRTC has no authority to regulate signal recipients.

Is that why TV receivers comply with FCC and CRTC regulations.....because the CRTC has no authority? Guess again.

What TV receivers and what regulations?

Open up the spec book of any electronic allpiance and in the fine print you will read that it complies with all FCC (and or CRTC) specs.......

[Riverwind]

If a providers scrambling methods fail to halt 'signal piracy', then it's up to the provider to come up with an alternative method or simply like they have been doing previously, issue a receiver access descrambler card as often as it takes to rectify the situation if they are so worried about piracy.

The people who pay for the infrastructure required to distribute these signals are entitled to fair compensation for the use of these signals. You can try to rationalize theft any way you want but it does not change that fact. By you logic, you should be entitled to walk into a stolre and steal anything you want since most stores do not put protections in place to prevent you from stealing.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[rover1]

So far as I know, the CRTC rules applying to television sets and radios have to do with seeing to it that they do transmit with stray radiation, thereby ruining your neighbour's reception. They are not a licence or permission, or anything like that.

In Canada, the 'airwaves' are controlled by the CRTC in terms of transmission. I don't think that they control reception, nor could they.

My opinion is that the airwaves, in general, are a kind of public highway, and it is a good idea to have this kind of regulation. When the airwaves come onto my property however, they cease being public, and are at my disposal. Since the CRTC controls the public part, they should keep any signals they don't want me to have off my property.

Some seem certain that capturing unintended signals constitutes theft, but this is an oversimplification and is wrong. The telephone companies all used to maintain that having your own phone at home and not theirs, or wiring an extension on your own, was theft, but the courts disagreed with them.

What is really being asked, it seems to me, is whether or not it is right to use a signal, on your own property, that was not intended for your use.

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with using such signals, provided that you don't transmit them or sell them to others.

[Riverwind]

(1) I am entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of my property, per ardua ad astra. They ought to be required to seek permission from every person whose home their signal intrudes upon.

That is a technical impossibility so the only way to avoid intrusion is to not offer the service and society would lose the benefit of a potentially useful technology.

(2) I am also a free citizen in a democratic state and I am entitled to own any equipment that harms neither me nor my neighbors. Protecting THEIR signals from my legal activities is THEIR problem, not mine, not my government's.

You are not entitled to own equipment that allows you to make counterfeit currency even though creating counterfeit currency harms no one directly. People who pirate signals make the business of providing such signals less economically viable. If everyone did the same their would be no signals to pirate. That is why it wrong. Your superficial claims about property rights mean nothing. You have not addressed by earlier point about water, gas and hydro lines. If you have a right to steal anything that comes on your property does that mean you have a right to steal water, gas and hydro as well? If someone drops their wallet on your lawn does that mean you have no obligation to return it to the owner?

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf