Legal Question

[RedDevil]

Let me get all these legalities straight. I've read into the laws pertaining to DSS, radiocommunication, etc. So far, the only laws I found to be relevant to decrypting D*&$'s signal were Sections 9 c) and 10 b) of the Radiocommunications Act.

According to the Radiocommunication Act in states in Section 9 (1) Nobody shall (c.) Decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed.
According to Section 10 (1) (b) Every person who without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended for the purpose of contravening section 9.

Considering that D&%# is not a lawful distributor, then this law is irrelevant all together. The production, manufacturing, importing, distribution, yada yada, would be illegal only because they violate licensing laws found within section 6 of the Radiocommunication Act.

Is there anything that I'm missing in my interpretation?

[honky]

"lawful distributors' is the magic word. TTRK, I"m sure will attest to this being the main reason that some of the cases are won in this arena.

[RedDevil]

Direct-tv is not a lawful distributor in Canada, and whoever challenges those who decrypt it's signals, wouldn't have a case legally, unless they were potentially losing $$$ as a result.

Even then, it is hard to calculate how much money they would lose, because it cannot be determined if money would have been spent on alternative products.

It's too bad that only some of the cases are won in this arena, all of them should be.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Red Devil,

Listen you need to slow DOWN. The RC Act has not changed since 1991 yet over 30 defendants are in court with most of their property seized. Its not quite as black and white as you seem to think. Its easy to see that you are not before the courts.

It SHOULD BE clear mind you except for your section 6 nonsence. A right to sue based on distribution agreements does NOT make something illegal. Legal/illegal is based on the criminal LAW not a right of one party over another. Thats CIVIL and therefore not legal or illegal.

And if you want MORE law, look at section 327 of the Criminal Code. There is MORE that just the RC Act.

Many courts are in the process of deciding the matter that you think is so clear. If it were that clear there would be no need for all these court cases. There is even an Appeal in progress in the CanAm case in BC which concerns only the RC Act interpretation.

I agree totally that viewing Foreign originating signals (no matter how you get them) is fully legal because the RC Act does NOT address that or make it illegal. The recent ruling that I posted on my site at


http://www.legal-rights.org/documents/krazykrazy.html


explains that quite clearly. But section 6 has nothing to do with it and section 327 is covered by the requirement for a “lawful charge” which can only be made by a “lawful distriburor”. I agree that DirecTV® is NOT that and so have NO rights whatsoever under the law in Canada. Neither the RC Act or 327.

But don’t be quite so ‘cavalier‘ about it, its still undecided law in many parts of Canada and still before the courts in the rest.

The BC court of appeal will rule on Thursday the 7 Sept 2000 and if THAT goes our way then its a shoe in for the many other cases before the courts. But we are still 2 days away from a final answer.

Hopefully it will be with us.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!


http://www.legal-rights.org


Newbies PLEASE CLICK HERE and Read (http://www.dsschat.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=26)
.

[Edited by To The Real King!! on September 5th, 2000 at 04:58 AM]