Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!ncc!lyndon
From: lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: on `why not do it both ways.'
Message-ID: <1400@ncc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 22:16:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncc.1400
Posted: Wed Apr 29 22:16:25 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 05:39:07 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <7967@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Nexus Computing Corp.,  Edmonton, AB
Lines: 20
Summary: Don't confuse the medium and the application

> Unfortunately, there *is* a legal reason to do it:  real, true broadcasts
> and point-to-point phone calls are *not* identical in the eyes of the law.
> There is a lot of uncertainty as to just how Stargate would be treated if
> it came to a court case, but it resembles a radio broadcast a whole lot
> more than it resembles a phone system.

No more so than a point to point microwave link resembles a radio broadcast.

In many ways, Stargate is similar to Pay TV. The material you see
distributed over a pay channel (sort of equivelent to a point to point
link in that two identifiable parties contract to exchange the information)
would cause a *lot* of hassle for the management of a broadcast TV
station in relation to the laws on transmission of "obscene" material.

The term "broadcast" has a very different *legal* meaning than the
term "transmit" when you are talking about communications law.
A "broadcaster" (in the radio example) is making information
available to the public without entering into a contractual
obligation with that public for specific identifiable reception
of that information.