Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT2.2 2/15/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.legal
Subject: broadcast material
Message-ID: <278@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 01:28:08 EST
Article-I.D.: vortex.278
Posted: Sat Mar 31 01:28:08 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Mar-84 20:06:19 EST
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 23

Actually, there have been numerous exceptions to the blanket "freedoms"
of the Communications Act over the years.  For example, it has long
been illegal to listen in on point-to-point telephone company 
microwave transmissions -- this is considered from a legal standpoint
to be wiretapping.  

The rationale for the protection of satellite transmissions (HBO, etc.)
sub-tv services, etc. is based on similar provisions.  These services
are being classified as point-to-point with a specific (multiple) set of 
subscribers -- not general broadcast operations.

Frankly, I think it is rather hopeless to keep pointing at the old Act
and claiming that it is "gospel."  It is clear that the Act did
not have any way to anticipate new technologies and the commercialized
piracy of such technologies.  For better or worse, the clear leaning
of Congress and the Courts is toward more restrictions on usage
(after all, the Act is not engraved in concrete).  I don't think
there's a snowbell in hell's chance of loosening this stuff up
significantly -- the Congressional and Court trend is clearly in 
the opposite direction in line with current patent, trademark, and
copyright trends.

--Lauren--