From TeleSatellite

[incredible]

CRACKDOWN ON GREY MARKET
A recent crackdown on merchants selling equipment enabling Canadians to access programming from US satellite signals is being lauded by Canada's broadcasters. The RCMP, Canada's federal police force, has brought down charges against five dealers of illegal satellite equipment in Quebec. This follows other raids of merchants' satellite stock across the country, with dealers having been formally accused under Canada's Criminal Code for selling equipment that allows users to pick up programming from the 'grey market' - US signals that can be accessed from satellite dishes placed in Canadian homes. In April 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it is illegal for Canadians to access satellite TV signals via providers other than the country's two direct-to-home satellite companies: Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice Communications. However, as grey market satellite providers continue to operate, some are also attempting to fight the decision in court, saying that that the federal broadcasting law that prohibits the sale of grey-market satellite equipment violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), which represents the majority of the country's broadcasters, is publicly supporting the recent raids against the satellite dealers.


Does anyone know who these Dealers are ?

[RiseStar]

It says that they are charging people under the criminal code now? What section of the criminal code?

[incredible]

Most likely 327 of the crimminal code, theft of telecomunications.

[Bohanjian]

I don't know what Canada has but in the US-----

Probably US code Title 47 section 605-- it has both civil and criminal teeth in it.

(e) penalties; civil actions; remedies; attorney's fees and costs; computation of damages; regulation be State and local authorities.

1) violation of subsection (a) not fined not more that 2000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both
2) any person who violates subsection (a) and willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commericial advantage or pirvate financila gain shall be fined not more than 50,000 or imprisoned forn not more than 2 years or both for the first conviction and shall be fined not more than 100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent action

(4) any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or quipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily or assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satelllite or cable programming, or direct-to-home satelite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than 500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation or both.

[RiseStar]

Has any grey market dealers actually been convicted under 327?

They went all the way to Supreme Court to get an interpretation of 9(1)(c), so now it is illegal to decode. That however does not mean that the DTV signal is the same as the Bell Expressvu one. One is a lawful broadcaster, the other is not. 327 was put into place to protect lawful broadcasters from theft, not illegal competition. Who exactly is being protected from theft from a conviction under 327 against a grey market satellite dealer?

It seems to be that "without payment of a lawful charge" could possibly throw a monkey wrench into a conviction. Especially when you look at section 322 of the Criminal Code where it defines theft. "to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it" This would seem to infer that a lawful distributor must own what is being stolen in order to constitute theft. Since the DTV signal is not a lawful broadcast in Canada, its signal therefore cannot really be "owned" by anyone. If there is no owner, how can it be stolen?

It seems to me that they may be setting themselves up for a fall by using 327 as if it was the Bell Expressvu or Starchoice signal being stolen...


I suppose they are argueing that the Supreme Court ruling made it impossible for there to be a lawful charge for DTV, therefore you are stealing regardless of if you are paying for it or not. I am wondering if a court will see it that way, somehow I see a impartial judge being hesitant to imprision someone for theft, if they can show that they paid for service, albeit not thru a lawful distributor.




Theft Section 322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

Possession of device to obtain telecommunication facility or service

327. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, manufactures, possesses, sells or offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for obtaining the use of any telecommunication facility or service, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the device has been used or is or was intended to be used to obtain the use of any telecommunication facility or service without payment of a lawful charge therefore, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.


Originally posted by incredible
Most likely 327 of the crimminal code, theft of telecomunications.

[gunsmoke2]

No grey market was charged under 327. The supreme court dealt with the RC Act only so someone charged under 327 could fight it up to the supreme court in theory.



GS2

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Guys,

This should be quite interesting since this has been found NOT to be a criminal offence by both Provincial Courts , Courts of Queens Bench and even the Supreme Court of Canada. So how could this be argued to be an offence.

I guess everyone has heard of biting off more than they can chew but the illegal DTV who broadcast here illegally since they sell here but are not authorized to do so are the ones who should properly be charged with a crime here. One Charge convicts instead of thousands!!!!

Looking at the Klebuc case, the Haliburton case, the Fulop case which qan be seen on legal-rights at:

http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/RvFulop1.html

and

http://www.legal-rights.org/courtrulings.html

I think this one could define the law clearly.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"><strong><u>To </u></strong></font><font color="#FF4800" size="5"><strong><u>Th</u></strong></font><font color="#FF6200" size="5"><strong><u>e </u></strong></font><font color="#FF7002" size="5"><strong><u>RE</u></strong></font><font color="#FF9006" size="5"><strong><u>AL </u></strong></font><font color="#FFB508" size="5"><strong><u>Ki</u></strong></font><font color="#FFD014" size="5"><strong><u>ng!!</u></strong></font></a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/usflagwav.gif UNITED WE STAND http://www.legal-rights.org/images/canada.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!




Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!


<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

[Dean_M_Love]

...my guess is a mis-informed reporter who assumed "illegal" must mean criminal code....

There is no doubt about it, decoding signals for which there is no lawful charge in Canada is NOT illegal under 327....that is the very reason why the R.C.A. was amended in the first place, if 327 applied there would have been no reason to change a different law to attempt to cover that area.

I think all parties (including the Fed Gov) will agree that prior to Bill C-41 (which amended the RCA) there was no law that would apply to extra-territorial signals for which no fee could be lawfully collected in Canada.

[gunsmoke2]

Unless Bev was involved ?



GS2