What is 'Wrong'

[Riverwind]

No, the other possibility is to declare the signal to be the property of the homeowner when it enters her property.

Your property 'rights' are only what the gov't decides they are. You could be sitting on a huge deposit of gold but you have no right to it unless you have specifically purchased the mineral rights for your property. Even then the gov't has a right to take its share. Your argument that you have a right to signals in the air is invalid for the same reason.

People who want their 'economic viability' to come from criminalizing my liberty and property rights are the real pirates.

Preventing freeloaders is a common economic problem in our society. You have constructed a superficially logical argument that justifies freeloading in your mind but it does not change the fact that you seek to gain an unfair advantage over other people who are willing to be honest and pay for the signals.

Nonsense. There would be lower profit margins.

More rationalizations - why would anyone pay for a signal if it was legal to get it for free? You are a freeloader that seeks to screw your neighbors that pay for the service that you benefit from. If you don't want to pay for the service the don't use it.

Let me ask you a question ... if a truck driving by leaves tire prints on the edge of my lawn, am I not allowed to landscape them?

That is strange one. Doing does so does not make you a freeloader so it would be fine.

[Figleaf]

i know when i'm not wanted

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Riverwind]

Hmmm. If my neighbor puts up a light in his driveway and that light shines on my driveway too, am I freeloading?

Yes, if you benefit from the light and the neighbor asked you to contribute to the cost of the light. If the neighbor did not want you to freeload he could put up a wall or some other barrier. If you then came a long and added a mirror that directed the light around the barrier then you would be definitely freeloading. Putting up a mirror to direct light around a barrier is what you are doing when you use illegal decoder boxes.

You have fallen into the its not a 'crime if there is no human victim' trap. I agree that from a superficial point of view no one is harmed if a few people use illegal decoders to receive signals that they do not pay for. It only becomes a problem if everyone did the same. I used to work for a company that had chocolates/pop available on the honour system - people were expected to put money in the pot each time they took something. It worked well for many years, however, eventually the company got too big and too many people become freeloaders. As a result, the company stopped providing the service. The people taking the chocolates and pop without paying likely used the same rationalizations you use.

People who justify freeloading are like parasites: they seek to benefit from the labours of others and harm society in the process. It is often true that society could create more 'locks' to stop freeloading but society still loses because honest people end up paying more. For example, a satillite tv provider might be able to lock out pirates by changing the codes every month but the cost of changing these codes would have to be borne by the honest subscribers. In other words, your are asking other people to pay more for a service for no reason other that to prevent you from being dishonest - why is is this fair?

The case of the chocolates at the company is another situation where freeloaders increased costs for other people. When the honour system worked it only cost 50 cents for a chocolate bar because the secretary just picked up a bunch of boxes at Costco. When the service was ended the company allowed a vending machine company to come in which then charged $1 per bar. IOW - everyone lost because of the freeloaders. That is why I think your 'the satillite providers should just put better locks on' argument is bogus.

[rover1]

It appears that we are confusing the moral and the legal here. Sometimes they coincide, and sometimes they don't.

The satellite signal business is fairly recent, and the questions about 'black market' or 'grey market' are legal ones. I am not a lawyer, but I have opinions on the matter, just as others do.

The moral question is a different story, and it is up to each of us to come to a decision on the matter, and to defend that position where necessary.

I don't think that it is a settled matter, and new information is likely to be forthcoming.

[Figleaf]

protest

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Riverwind]

No. I am asking them to pay something toward the value of using my home or the value of using my allotment of public space.

The fact that the signal is in the air in no way affects your ability to enjoy the benefits of your property. The signal spectum being used is not used for for any other purpose. Your argument that broadcasting invisible and inaudiable signals into your property someone infringes your rights is ridiculous and you would unlikely use it if you did not want to justify freeloading to yourself.

I agree. Anyone who thinks I should subsidize his profits through the sacrifice of my rights is a true scumbag.

Read my post. I gave you two examples of how your insistance on non-existant rights actually forces other people to pay more for service than they should have to. Your attitude imposes additional costs on the service providers.

[Figleaf]

lllll

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[scribblet]

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 a satellite signal crosses over my private backyard I have every right to make use of it. If they don't want me to use it, they can get it out of my back yard.

[Riverwind]

If a satellite signal crosses over my private backyard I have every right to make use of it. If they don't want me to use it, they can get it out of my back yard.

Does that mean you have a right to free cellphone calls from your backyard?

[rover1]

Um, I would say that you could receive the cellphone signals, but you could not answer them, that is transmit without a licence.

It would be nice to know what people mean by 'freeloading', just to make the discussion clearer.

[Riverwind]

It would be nice to know what people mean by 'freeloading', just to make the discussion clearer.

Here is an example that makes it clear why freeloading is wrong:

I used to work for a company that had chocolates/pop available on the honour system - people were expected to put money in the pot each time they took something. It worked well for many years, however, eventually the company got too big and too many people become freeloaders. As a result, the company stopped providing the service.

When the honour system worked it only cost 50 cents for a chocolate bar because the secretary just picked up a bunch of boxes at Costco. When the service was ended the company allowed a vending machine company to come in which then charged $1 per bar. IOW - everyone had to pay more because of the freeloaders.

When it comes to satillite signals the freeloaders benefit because the majority of people choose to pay for the signals. If it was legal and/or moral to receive these signals without paying for them then no one would pay for them and the service would disappear. Figleaf tried to claim that the service would always be there but just not as profitable - this is bogus argument because no sane business person would ever run that kind of business with the ability to protect against freeloaders. Figleads argument that they should simply increase the cost of the service to pay for better protection mechanism is also bogus - increasing the cost of the service simply makes the business even less viable.

In short, freeloaders hurt society because their actions increase the cost of goods and services for the rest of us and, in some cases, prevent us from having access to services we would like to have.

[rover1]

I certainly agree with the chocolate argument, but I'm not sure whether the moral breach is breach of trust. or 'freeloading' or both.

I have to say that my guess is that many people subscribe to satellite fees because it is convenient, and because they are not technically competent to effect other arrangements. They may or may not take a moral position on the matter.

Could you let us know what the definition of freeloading is. I feel at a disadvantage not knowing just what you mean by the term. My observation is that some people define it differently than do others.

[Hicksey]

Similarly, The Radiocommunication Act states in Section 9(1)© that it is an offence to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization and in Section 10(1)(a) that it is an offence to manufacture, import, distribute, lease, offer for sale, sell, install, modify, operate or possess any equipment or device to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a recent decision published on April 26, 2002, has confirmed that there is an absolute bar on Canadian residents decoding encrypted satellite programming. The only exception is where authorization is acquired (by way of a valid subscription) from a distributor holding the necessary legal rights in Canada.

This action follows the April 2002 Supreme Court Decision in Bell ExpressVu versus Richard Rex, which confirmed that Section 9(1)© of the Radiocommunication Act protects both Canadian and foreign signals from unauthorized decoding.

Right or wrong -- it IS illegal.

Not only are you barred from decoding the signals broadcasted throughout your neighborhood, but also from either owning/selling/posessing equipment either designed or modified to decode that signal.

And if it did violate your rights to enjoyment of property, I highly doubt the SCOC would have ruled as it did.

You may think you have made a valid argument, but apparently the SCOC disagrees.

[Riverwind]

Could you let us know what the definition of freeloading is. I feel at a disadvantage not knowing just what you mean by the term. My observation is that some people define it differently than do others.

If you take advantage of an economic system that depends mostly on the honesty of the participants then your are freeloading. For example, someone who accepts or pays cash under the table to avoid taxes is freeloading because the system would collapse if everyone did that. I read some interesting game theory studies which demonstrated that a society could experience a total collapse if the number of freeloaders/cheaters exceeded 10% of the total population.

I have to say that my guess is that many people subscribe to satellite fees because it is convenient, and because they are not technically competent to effect other arrangements. They may or may not take a moral position on the matter.

If it was legal or moral to receive signals with paying for them then there would be many businesses willing to make it easy and convenient to do so which would quickly lead to the collapse of the system. IOW - satillite pirates depend on the fact piracy is illegal which limits the number of people willing and able to do it. That is what makes them freeloaders.

[Charles Anthony]

If you take advantage of an economic system that depends mostly on the honesty of the participants then your are freeloading.

Saying "take advantage" is too broad. Your example is more accurately described as people getting away with being dishonest.

The success of most economic systems depends on participants taking advantage of the honesty of other participants. Would you continuously patronize a convenience store that repeatedly short-changed you?

[Figleaf]

Similarly, The Radiocommunication Act states in Section 9(1)© that it is an offence to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization and in Section 10(1)(a) that it is an offence to manufacture, import, distribute, lease, offer for sale, sell, install, modify, operate or possess any equipment or device to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a recent decision published on April 26, 2002, has confirmed that there is an absolute bar on Canadian residents decoding encrypted satellite programming. The only exception is where authorization is acquired (by way of a valid subscription) from a distributor holding the necessary legal rights in Canada.

This action follows the April 2002 Supreme Court Decision in Bell ExpressVu versus Richard Rex, which confirmed that Section 9(1)© of the Radiocommunication Act protects both Canadian and foreign signals from unauthorized decoding.

Right or wrong -- it IS illegal.

Not only are you barred from decoding the signals broadcasted throughout your neighborhood, but also from either owning/selling/posessing equipment either designed or modified to decode that signal.

And if it did violate your rights to enjoyment of property, I highly doubt the SCOC would have ruled as it did.

You may think you have made a valid argument, but apparently the SCOC disagrees.

As I mentioned earlier,

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Hicksey]

Similarly, The Radiocommunication Act states in Section 9(1)© that it is an offence to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization and in Section 10(1)(a) that it is an offence to manufacture, import, distribute, lease, offer for sale, sell, install, modify, operate or possess any equipment or device to decode an encrypted subscription programming service without authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a recent decision published on April 26, 2002, has confirmed that there is an absolute bar on Canadian residents decoding encrypted satellite programming. The only exception is where authorization is acquired (by way of a valid subscription) from a distributor holding the necessary legal rights in Canada.

This action follows the April 2002 Supreme Court Decision in Bell ExpressVu versus Richard Rex, which confirmed that Section 9(1)© of the Radiocommunication Act protects both Canadian and foreign signals from unauthorized decoding.

Right or wrong -- it IS illegal.

Not only are you barred from decoding the signals broadcasted throughout your neighborhood, but also from either owning/selling/posessing equipment either designed or modified to decode that signal.

And if it did violate your rights to enjoyment of property, I highly doubt the SCOC would have ruled as it did.

You may think you have made a valid argument, but apparently the SCOC disagrees.

As I mentioned earlier, the constitutionality of that provision is doubtful if applied to private persons on their own property or in public space. The article you quoted goes on to indicate that enforcement activities are entirely directed at suppliers of pirating equipment, and not (yet at least) at the users of the equipment.

It applies in so far as prohibition. There is no specific mention in either the statute or the decision whether it is targetted to a certain party. I take that as a blanket prohibition. It does say in the article that as of yet that only distributors/modifiers are currently being pursued for enforcement. I believe that may be only because of a lack of resources to do so, but that is speculation on my part.

The reason I pointed that out is because what you have explained would be a rights infringement could not be. When considering such an appeal, isn't the SCOC required to not only consider the letter of the law and precedence, but also any possible violations of our rights in the bill of rights and our constitution? If the judgement would constitute an infringement of our rights to the enjoyment of property, would they not have to rule against it?

[rover1]

Hicksey is basically right, but no they don't have to consider whether or not the ruling conforms the the charter. So far as I know, they consider each case in a narrow sense, related to the matter at hand. After all, they are ruling on appeal, and specific questions are asked of them.

Rex, ran a distribution company which sold and distributed satellite dishes and receivers equipped to receive signals from an American company which was not licenced in Canada. Since the American company was forbidden to transmit to Canada, they required an American address, before they would allow service. Rex supplied his Canadian customers with American addresses to meet this requirement.

Briefly, Rex's activities were found to be illegal, as stated by Hicksey.

No mention was made of the situation where a private person, on his own property, decoded signals for his own use, and did not distribute them to anybody else. If such a case came up, I believe that it would be found that the Radiocommunication Act did not apply.

One of the reasons that enforcement has not been directed toward individuals is that such private usage would be almost impossible to detect. Additionally, they probably concluded that commercial usage was more of a threat, and that private usage was a small nuisance.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey is basically right, but no they don't have to consider whether or not the ruling conforms the the charter. So far as I know, they consider each case in a narrow sense, related to the matter at hand. After all, they are ruling on appeal, and specific questions are asked of them.

Rex, ran a distribution company which sold and distributed satellite dishes and receivers equipped to receive signals from an American company which was not licenced in Canada. Since the American company was forbidden to transmit to Canada, they required an American address, before they would allow service. Rex supplied his Canadian customers with American addresses to meet this requirement.

Briefly, Rex's activities were found to be illegal, as stated by Hicksey.

No mention was made of the situation where a private person, on his own property, decoded signals for his own use, and did not distribute them to anybody else. If such a case came up, I believe that it would be found that the Radiocommunication Act did not apply.

One of the reasons that enforcement has not been directed toward individuals is that such private usage would be almost impossible to detect. Additionally, they probably concluded that commercial usage was more of a threat, and that private usage was a small nuisance.

If I supply you with a gun knowing you will use it in a crime, am I not as guilty as you are?

Why would that not apply here. If I supply someone with information which enables them to commit fraud knowing that is exactly they will use it, am I not as guilty as them?

[Charles Anthony]

If I supply you with a gun knowing you will use it in a crime, am I not as guilty as you are?

Morally, in my opinion, YES, I consider you guilty.

Why would that not apply here. If I supply someone with information which enables them to commit fraud knowing that is exactly they will use it, am I not as guilty as them?

I would say YES again for practical purposes.

The difference is that I do not think your "fraud" in the case of de-scrambling a radio signal is morally wrong even if today's law-books say it is a crime.

[rover1]

Well, you could read it in a book, and make your own, or by chance find that an all-wave receiver which you had, could be tuned to a unencoded frequency.

Exceptions like this are made all the time. The copyright act allows for certain private usage without permission, indeed libraries can reproduce a certain amount for specific purposes, and critics can quote a certain amount without asking. It's not a new idea.

[Hicksey]

If I supply you with a gun knowing you will use it in a crime, am I not as guilty as you are?

Morally, in my opinion, YES, I consider you guilty.

Why would that not apply here. If I supply someone with information which enables them to commit fraud knowing that is exactly they will use it, am I not as guilty as them?

I would say YES again for practical purposes.

The difference is that I do not think your "fraud" in the case of de-scrambling a radio signal is morally wrong even if today's law-books say it is a crime.

When did the illegality of an act become insufficient to consider it wrong?

I hate to highjack a thread, but I have a question: Do you consider breaking the law to be wrong?

[Charles Anthony]

I hate to highjack a thread, but I have a question: Do you consider breaking the law to be wrong?

Hijacking a thread??? I hate to draw your attention to THIS VERY thread but as of now, the results of this poll are:

Is so-called 'signal piracy' wrong?

Yes [ 2 ] [22.22%]

No [ 5 ] [55.56%]

My vast intellect perceives other choices than mere dichotomy [ 2 ] [22.22%]

Total Votes: 9

That would make a democratic majority that does NOT "consider breaking the law to be wrong" in signal piracy. Therefore, what difference does my opinion make?

When did the illegality of an act become insufficient to consider it wrong?

If you want my answer, here it is: legality has nothing to do with whether it is morally wrong, in my opinion.

[Hicksey]

I hate to highjack a thread, but I have a question: Do you consider breaking the law to be wrong?

Hijacking a thread??? I hate to draw your attention to THIS VERY thread but as of now, the results of this poll are:

Is so-called 'signal piracy' wrong?

Yes [ 2 ] [22.22%]

No [ 5 ] [55.56%]

My vast intellect perceives other choices than mere dichotomy [ 2 ] [22.22%]

Total Votes: 9

That would make a democratic majority that does NOT "consider breaking the law to be wrong" in signal piracy. Therefore, what difference does my opinion make?

When did the illegality of an act become insufficient to consider it wrong?

If you want my answer, here it is: legality has nothing to do with whether it is morally wrong, in my opinion.

Mock me all you want. You were the one who missed the point. I explained it in as simple of terms as I could and still you fixated on the question in that other thread.

As to this thread, you missed the point yet again. I asked the questions above in a general sense. And like the other thread they remain unanswered.

Here's another for you to ignore.

If laws do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong and should have no bearing on one's behavior, then why have them?

[Figleaf]

Consider an exampl

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf