🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <125816@midas.UUCP> mbennett@midas.UUCP (Mike Bennett)
writes:

	[ A nice summary of the problem deleted. ]

>Let's look at a comparable problem. A number of years ago, home satellite
>dishes became popular. You could go out and buy the dish, set it up in your
>backyard and receive any signal you wanted (limited only by your receiver).
>Of course, this didn't please the cable networks such as ESPN, HBO, Showtime,
>and Cinemax, et al. They wanted people to PAY for their signal so they decided
>to scramble their signal. Now, you could still receive the signal through
>your receiver, but it was unintelligible. You were forced to buy a descrambler
>and pay monthly fees to receive a clear signal. Of course, we all know that
>bootleg descramblers exist which you can purchase for a onetime fee and avoid
>the monthly charge. However, we also all know this is illegal. Why? I'm not a
>lawyer so I can't answer that question, but that does not change the fact that
>decoding this signal is illegal - even though it arrives at my home without
>me asking for it.

Well, actually, in Canada this decoding is perfectly legal. Under the
Canadian Copyright Law, any use or reproduction of a copyrighted item
that was originally received legally, is in turn legal. Under the CRTC
(Canadian equivalent of the FCC) guidelines, any telecommunications that
are received from the _public_airwaves_ are to be considered under the
Copyright Law. Thus, if I construct a descrambler that is capable of
descrambling ESPN from a satellite transmission, then I am not at risk
of being charged under either Copyright Infringement nor Theft of
Telecommunications.

When Pay-TV first arrived in Calgary, there were a number of home-brewed
descramblers floating around that, in most cases, did a fairly good job.
Calgary Cable TV/FM Inc. attempted to bring suit against several
subscribers for descrambling pay signals without paying the monthly fee.
The actions were thrown out on the grounds that the Cable TV service had
provided the signals, and thus no Theft of Telecommunications had
occurred; and that since the subscribers' use was strictly for their own
private use that no Copyright Infringement had occurred.

>
>Although I am technically capable of adding additional outlets in my
>home for the cable signal I receive, I am not allowed to do so without
>increasing my monthly payment to the cable company. In other words,
>there would be an additional charge for using the same signal I receive
>now.

Calgary Cable would have you believe that you are legally restricted
from adding your own outlets, but again they have no legal basis under
which to make that claim.

To the best of my knowledge these points HAVE been tested in court.

>
>If you feel your code is good enough to be shareware and you desire it
>to be so, post an article stating what you have available and have
>people "order" it for a trial period by mailing you with their return
>address. This, then, legally obligates them to send the money you ask
>if they decide to use it or destroy their copy if they decide not to
>use it.

Incidently, I think this is a wonderful idea. This way the author and
the prospective buyer are known to each other and an agreement can be
said to exist between these people. For example, the article announcing
the software could include a sentence stating that a file called
"LICENSE" is included with the package and that if you do not agree to
the terms as set out in that file then you must delete the package. By
explicitly ordering the package you are agreeing to the terms of the
original article, and if you do not delete the package then a license
agreement between you and the author could be shown to exist. Legal and
reasonable!

>It is my opinion that this whole discussion is a direct outgrowth of the 
>kind of "Ivan Boesky" ethics people hold to today. What a shame.

Actually, I disagree. The only reason I'm in this discussion has to do
with the fact that people are trying to tell me that I am bound by an
agreement that I did not make. I've said before that if I use ShareWare
I would pay for it. The fact that I don't currently use any, nor the
fact that I would pay for it has no bearing on my opinion regarding the
legal issue. I don't feel that ethics have anything to do with the
entire issue. It simply isn't an ethics issue. It is either a legal
issue, or one of interpretation (whether or not an agreement can be said
to be in effect).

>-- 
>Encore Computer Corporation, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
>.....!{uunet,sun,pur-ee,brl-smoke}!gould!mbennett
>I am paid to work and to think for my employer - so I do.
>I am NOT paid to speak for my employer - so I don't.

	Cheers,
	Bruce.

==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson			| "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd.	| diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
brucet@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA	| Paranoid Android

The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of
NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.