Buying U.S. satellite TV service a crime under proposed bill

[8Man]

OTTAWA - Buying satellite access to your favourite TV show may soon be a
crime, if you pay your money to a foreign satellite television service.

Critics of the legislation say the bill makes no distinction between people
who take Canadian satellite signals without paying and those who pay U.S.
providers for channels the Canadian industry isn't willing to offer.

Among those critics is Paul Fitzgerald of the IberoAmerican Congress of
Canada. He has a dish and pays a monthly subscription fee to Bell ExpressVu.
But the company won't carry his favorite show on Mexican channel Telemundo,
even though it is licensed for broadcast in Canada. Fitzgerald pays an
additional fee to a U.S. provider, which would make him a criminal under the
proposed legislation.

See: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/20/Consumers/satellite040220

[Gary Tait]

Post by 8Man
OTTAWA - Buying satellite access to your favourite TV show may soon be a
crime, if you pay your money to a foreign satellite television service.
Critics of the legislation say the bill makes no distinction between people
who take Canadian satellite signals without paying and those who pay U.S.
providers for channels the Canadian industry isn't willing to offer.

More importantly, it makes no distiction between those providers that
would pose no threat to Canadian providers, and those that would.

Post by 8Man
Among those critics is Paul Fitzgerald of the IberoAmerican Congress of
Canada. He has a dish and pays a monthly subscription fee to Bell ExpressVu.
But the company won't carry his favorite show on Mexican channel Telemundo,
even though it is licensed for broadcast in Canada. Fitzgerald pays an
additional fee to a U.S. provider, which would make him a criminal under the
proposed legislation.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/20/Consumers/satellite040220

Not quite. It is a crime now. The proposed legistation just increases
the penalty of the crime, plus add the requirement of an import permit
for decoding goods, and broadens an inspectors search rights.

[Thom E. Illfigure]

In Canada it's Called " La Payola" in the US " Lobying"


TI

Post by 8Man
OTTAWA - Buying satellite access to your favourite TV show may soon be a
crime, if you pay your money to a foreign satellite television service.
Critics of the legislation say the bill makes no distinction between people
who take Canadian satellite signals without paying and those who pay U.S.
providers for channels the Canadian industry isn't willing to offer.
Among those critics is Paul Fitzgerald of the IberoAmerican Congress of
Canada. He has a dish and pays a monthly subscription fee to Bell ExpressVu.
But the company won't carry his favorite show on Mexican channel Telemundo,
even though it is licensed for broadcast in Canada. Fitzgerald pays an
additional fee to a U.S. provider, which would make him a criminal under the
proposed legislation.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/20/Consumers/satellite040220

[92301]

Just hope the legislation dies before an election is called. It won't
prevent the inevitable, but it will slow it down.

It is censorship by government. The CRTC says you can't watch it and the
gov't makes it a crime. What a lovely democracy.

Post by 8Man
OTTAWA - Buying satellite access to your favourite TV show may soon be a
crime, if you pay your money to a foreign satellite television service.
Critics of the legislation say the bill makes no distinction between people
who take Canadian satellite signals without paying and those who pay U.S.
providers for channels the Canadian industry isn't willing to offer.
Among those critics is Paul Fitzgerald of the IberoAmerican Congress of
Canada. He has a dish and pays a monthly subscription fee to Bell ExpressVu.
But the company won't carry his favorite show on Mexican channel Telemundo,
even though it is licensed for broadcast in Canada. Fitzgerald pays an
additional fee to a U.S. provider, which would make him a criminal under the
proposed legislation.
See: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/20/Consumers/satellite040220

[Warren Oates]

In article <aSP1c.68476$***@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
"92301" <***@mail.anonymizer.com> wrote:

:It is censorship by government. The CRTC says you can't watch it and the
:gov't makes it a crime. What a lovely democracy.

True, it's the way they do things in enlightened places like Cuba and
Iraq and North Korea. It's a good club for Canada to join.

[Gary Tait]

Post by Warren Oates
:It is censorship by government. The CRTC says you can't watch it and the
:gov't makes it a crime. What a lovely democracy.
True, it's the way they do things in enlightened places like Cuba and
Iraq and North Korea. It's a good club for Canada to join.

Wrong. It is in no way censorship. Nobody is preventing you from
watching programming from elsewhere in the world, like some of the
communist and religious regimes do. Canada is quite simply preventing
you from purchasing programming from sources not licensed from them,
to protect the industry licensed and funded by them, from unde outside
competition.

If it were censorship (Censorship is about the content), they would
ban all satellite TV except domestic providers (there is plenty of
unencrypted foreign stuff out there, that by Canadian law, is fair
game to legally receive and view), and there would be no US, British,
other programming, other than Caandian on Canadian systems.

[LithiaSpgs]

Post by Gary Tait
Wrong. It is in no way censorship. Nobody is preventing you from
watching programming from elsewhere in the world, like some of the
communist and religious regimes do. Canada is quite simply preventing
you from purchasing programming from sources not licensed from them,

Oh please...what the HELL is the difference? Iraq under Saddam had the same
law. You could watch Al Jazzera but not any other channel no licensed by
Saddam.

[Warren Oates]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Gary Tait <***@yahoo.cominvalid> wrote:

:Wrong. It is in no way censorship. Nobody is preventing you from
:watching programming from elsewhere in the world, like some of the
:communist and religious regimes do. Canada is quite simply preventing
:you from purchasing programming from sources not licensed from them,
:to protect the industry licensed and funded by them, from unde outside
:competition.

I knew you'd come running in with some sycophantic true-blue
Canuckistani drivel; you're predictable, it's too easy. I can't believe
you ate the whole thing.

When that Asper guy died, I said, "jeez, couldn't have happened to a
nicer guy."

[Gary Tait]

Post by Warren Oates
:Wrong. It is in no way censorship. Nobody is preventing you from
:watching programming from elsewhere in the world, like some of the
:communist and religious regimes do. Canada is quite simply preventing
:you from purchasing programming from sources not licensed from them,
:to protect the industry licensed and funded by them, from unde outside
:competition.
I knew you'd come running in with some sycophantic true-blue
Canuckistani drivel; you're predictable, it's too easy. I can't believe
you ate the whole thing.

I do believe Candains are getting a raw deal not being able to openly
subscribe to foreign services, but still, it is not censorship.

I'd like you to prove that it IS censorship,

Post by Warren Oates
When that Asper guy died, I said, "jeez, couldn't have happened to a
nicer guy."

But then again, he bought rights for FNC in Canada, for the purposes
of preventing the US version being aprroved here, with no real intent
on making good with his rights.

Hey, isn't his network essentially a repeater of US (read foreign)
programs, the the Candian governemt has NOT censored.

[LithiaSpgs]

Post by 92301
It is censorship by government. The CRTC says you can't watch it and the
gov't makes it a crime. What a lovely democracy.

You can always come south of the border and live in a more free country.