Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues
Message-ID: <10251@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 30 Jul 90 22:44:11 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 23
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 530, Message 7 of 11


> [Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but
> the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast?

Here you argue ethics rather than legality.  The "catch" is what the
law defines as lawful or unlawful.  Intent *unless specifically
mentioned* by the applicable legislation (or policy as for the FCC),
is ENTIRELY irrelevant.

> No broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast',
> profit from or print what was overheard.

Legal rights are defined by the law.  The understood definition of the
law is under construction (remember we are talking about Canada here).
Hence the basis of valid legal argument.


Benjamin Ellsworth -- All relevant disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: The FCC rules are in fact very well defined.
'Broadcast' has a definite meaning, and it is the only type of radio
transmission intended for dissemination by the listener.  PT]