AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 54 of 54 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,893 Posts
Actually, Bill, I was referring to DAMAC. I know Rick is practically a neighbor :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H
As I've recently said, I also believe this to be the case. I would be very interested in any additional information that can resolve this issue once and for all.
I'm curious about this too, I've seen it said that it was illegal, but never any hard facts to support the statement. I believe the only "illegal" issues would be with the broker re-selling the service to south of the border customers, sort of like sub-letting, and even then I think the illegality would be a Canadian issue, not a US one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan
I'm curious about this too, I've seen it said that it was illegal, but never any hard facts to support the statement. I believe the only "illegal" issues would be with the broker re-selling the service to south of the border customers, sort of like sub-letting, and even then I think the illegality would be a Canadian issue, not a US one.
Here's the situation my research has come up with:


1. Canada's Supreme Court has ruled it's illegal for Canadians to receive sat. signals from any foreign countries, but the ruling indicated it was purposely not ruling on whether this is an unconstitutional infringement on "freedom of expression."


2. A Quebec court has subsequently ruled that laws making it illegal for Canadians to receive sat. signals from foreign countries are indeed an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of expression. And this is being appealed as we speak and I for one believe Canada's Supreme Court will reject such appeals and hopefully uphold this lower court ruling.


3. There are no laws per se in the U.S. making it illegal for U.S. residents to receive sat. signals from foreign countries -- good grief this isn't Russia for heaven's sake -- but the FCC does have licensing rules that prevent any Canadian sat. providers from being licensed in this country. I've been unable to come up with any solid proof that anybody in the U.S. has ever been busted for receiving BEV for example; but, if foxeng is correct about a Calif. person being so busted, I suspect it was a rare case of the FCC going to a Fed. district court and filing suit against someone for being involved in violating FCC licensing rules. And if that's the case, the person was probably busted by having a cease and desist order thrown at him. (And it had to be a "him" since women are too smart to go bananas, as we men do, over frustration at not being able to see an NFL game).


Now if my extensive research is wrong, I'm waiting for chapter and verse from anyone who can so show me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,893 Posts
I'd like to hear more aboput that California "bust". I am not doubting foxeng, I just can find no record of it.


I would assume that DirecTV just wouldn't care if a few thousand Americans went to Star Choice or BEV for HD DNS.


But if they started to defect by the tens of thousands, (and maybe even more) for the less expensive (and non-blacked out) NFL Sunday Ticket, I suspect the El Segundo troops would begin marching to state and Federal courts to do what they had to protect their $700 million yearly investment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I just fell on this thread while looking for some meaningful discussion and now I'm sucked in......utter nonsense regarding it being illegal to receive a Canadian provider.....come and get me!!!! The law if there is anything on the subject, dates back to the formation of the FCC....the air waves are free and when any case that ever came up dating back before satellite the only stipulation was that in instances of pay-per-view any device that decrypted the signal to avoid paying for a provider's service was considered illegal and in that prosecution has had difficulties as it has been challenged via constitutional argument. To make a long story short receiving Canadian signal and paying for same is entirely legal!!! I will continue to enjoy my HD network signals from BEV along with my *E signal and pay for both while the majority of those who can't get network HD whine about the lack of coverage and availability. The real issue is the fact that we have to go through the use of a Canadian provider to get signal that should be available to all of us for free and w/o restriction from either sat, cable, or OTA sources!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,722 Posts
Before Satellite you could only receive signals from local stations, this is all economic protectionism.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa
I'd like to hear more aboput that California "bust". I am not doubting foxeng, I just can find no record of it.


I would assume that DirecTV just wouldn't care if a few thousand Americans went to Star Choice or BEV for HD DNS.
It was not about receiving BEV or Starchoice.


It was about playing games with the access cards (hacking) of US Satellites so he could receive the NFL games from other markets.


No different than O.J.


That clearly is illegal and specified out as such in US law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
It was not about receiving BEV or Starchoice.


It was about playing games with the access cards (hacking) of US Satellites so he could receive the NFL games from other markets.
This has to be a big relief for many; but, having worked for govt. for many years, I was always dubious that we had satellite police in this country -- and most of all in California -- busting you for watching satellite television signals legally paid for. Mercy, that should only happen in communistic or closed societies fearful of people having too much freedom! We aren't there yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H
As I've recently said, I also believe this to be the case. I would be very interested in any additional information that can resolve this issue once and for all.
Ken, my feelings on this issue are simple:


No one has yet to identify a US law that forbids US households from receiving foreign satellite transmissions and paying for them. I subscribed to Star Choice because they had a number of programming packages that appealed to me. I am a paying subscriber and have a P.O. box in Hamilton, Ont. that I also pay for. A Canadian mailing address and credit card are all that Star Choice requires.


In addition, I still maintain my DirecTV service (since 1994), and thus have the best of both worlds. Yes, the combination is a little pricey, but with the hundreds of channels available, the movies and sports I get border on overload. No need to subscribe to movie channels, NFL Sunday Ticket, MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass and (at long last) NHL Center Ice!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Johnson
3. There are no laws per se in the U.S. making it illegal for U.S. residents to receive sat. signals from foreign countries -- good grief this isn't Russia for heaven's sake -- but the FCC does have licensing rules that prevent any Canadian sat. providers from being licensed in this country ... if foxeng is correct about a Calif. person being so busted, I suspect it was a rare case of the FCC going to a Fed. district court and filing suit against someone for being involved in violating FCC licensing rules ...
I don't think it's so much an FCC licensing issue as it is an issue of rights to the content. BEV doesn't own much of the content. It merely has permission to distribute it to Canadian viewers -- and most likely, ONLY to Canadian viewers. That's why U.S. viewers have to jump through so many hoops to get Canadian satellite programming (the fake Canadian addresses, etc.) -- they don't have the rights from the content creators to sell that content south of the border.


I know someone who's been to Great Britain and bought a number of books there which say, "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A." That's probably what we're talking about here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dline
I don't think it's so much an FCC licensing issue as it is an issue of rights to the content. BEV doesn't own much of the content. It merely has permission to distribute it to Canadian viewers -- and most likely, ONLY to Canadian viewers. That's why U.S. viewers have to jump through so many hoops to get Canadian satellite programming -- they don't have the rights from the content creators to sell that content south of the border.


I know someone who's been to Great Britain and bought a number of books there which say, "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A." That's probably what we're talking about here.
I think you are right on the money, and in such a situation I believe the broker and or the Canadian satco would be the only ones liable to be litigated against. Even then, can US copyright laws be enforced in Canada? I think if the practice became widespread then the content providers would be the ones to put pressure on the Canadian satcos to tighten up their requirements regarding who can get service. I can't really imagine any situation where the actual US sub could be prosecuted for anything.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,893 Posts
yup, dline and keenan, that is it precisely.


Copyright holders sell their products for use in certain countries or regions of the world. And they charge different amounts for different countries.


It is up to the DBS company to make sure it doesn't sell to those it isn't authorized to serve.

It seems to me Canadian satellite companies could solve the "problem" -- if it ever really becomes one -- by simply by requiring a telephone hookup.


As long as we are just talking a small number of Americans getting the Canadian DBS services it won't be worth it for anyone to try to stop the practice.


But let's be serious: if it were truly legal, Americans wouldn't have to go through the "address broker" charade to sign up for Canadian satellite.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dline
I don't think it's so much an FCC licensing issue as it is an issue of rights to the content. BEV doesn't own much of the content. It merely has permission to distribute it to Canadian viewers -- and most likely, ONLY to Canadian viewers. That's why U.S. viewers have to jump through so many hoops to get Canadian satellite programming (the fake Canadian addresses, etc.) -- they don't have the rights from the content creators to sell that content south of the border.


I know someone who's been to Great Britain and bought a number of books there which say, "For copyright reasons this edition is not for sale in the U.S.A." That's probably what we're talking about here.
It is also the reason the D* and E* cannot sell their services in Canada.


They buy programming from HBO, Showtime, Starz etc. etc. etc. for resale in the United States.


Their purchase does not give them the rights to resell the products to customers in countries outside of the United States.



On another note, being from Florida, there are number of Canadian Snowbirds who spend every winter here. They bring their STB with them.


One of the largest commercial satellite companies in florida that installs and maintains all those dishes you see on top of the retail establishments has a deal with Starchoice to install dishes for the Winter Snowbirds.


In fact, one of the heads of engineering at SC had them install a setup for his parents who live down here FULLTIME. I bet they get Movie Central and Movie Network as well as things us mere mortals cannot :(


If it were against the law, it would be very easy to crack down in Florida every Winter and this company that deals with uplinks (from retail links to MNF for ABC) wouldn't be installing SC downlinks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,893 Posts
Apparently it is a civil matter, not a (major) criminal one.
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top