# The Supreme Court of Canada Decision



## Ray H (Mar 28, 2002)

For what it's worth, there's just a 4 day countdown until the Supreme Court of Canada announces its decision regarding the Bell ExpressVu appeal against Richard Rex, _Et Al_. A win by B.E.V. will have far reaching effects regarding the contested "legality" of Canadians receiving U.S. satellite pay-TV signals, with or without a subscription, as well as the unfettered cross-border traffic in satellite piracy paraphenalia coming into the U.S.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

It is very unlikely that the Supreme Court of Canada will overturn the rulings of many lower courts regarding those courts determination of a pre DBS law.

What you will see following this ruling is new legislation that wil reinforce the preception of 85% of Canadians - the Federal Government is corrupt (BTW the Federal Government paid for the study that came up with the 85% corrupt politician rating)

One could imagine what would happen in the US if AOL/TW and Rupert Murdoch owned the satellite, the services and the programming. Expect to see it in Canada - and expect to see mass civil disobedience


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

This will be a very interesting ruling when it is given.

The borders are open, so why can't Canadians watch the TV they want to. I believe that if a Canadian wants DirecTV they should be able to have it! The cost of pirating the signal is almost higher then subscribing to it. I am sure many of the folks out there would love to subscribe and eliminiate all the headaches of pirating the signal.

Same goes for us folks here in the US, we would love to watch Canadian Television why do we need to go to brokers or get service from relatives living in Canada, we are willing to pay for it.

Why are both Countries so scared of us seeing each others programming?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

While I agree with you, it's more a matter of copyright and retransmission agreements. I don't think the governments give a darn - it's the program providers that are raising this issue so much.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Scooper I hear what your saying.

The thing the copyright holder must realize is that they are the ones loosing out!

If a person wants to see something they will do what they need to do to get it, beg borrow or steal!

Again many of these Canadians who hack to get US Television would HAPPILY PAY to get the service!

Improving anti theft technology does no good, people will find a way to crack it, look at DirecTV's new P4 card if you read the newsgroups like I do you will see the new P4 has already be compromised!

_(Please note - My note is meant to tell my feelings on the subject and in doing so I point out the obvious about hacking. It is not meant to turn this thread into a hacking thread, which is a violation of our posting guidelines. Please keep the discussion on topic. Thanks.)_


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

The reasoning is that both Canada and the United States regulate the airwaves differently. Since the services in the United States are bound to FCC regulations, and the services in Canada are tied to the CRTC regulations, there is hardly any "cross-selling" of the two, between any given single network.

That is why there is a "Food Network" on DirecTV and Dish Network, and a "Food Network Canada" on BEV and Star Choice. The "Food Network" follows the US FCC guidelines, and the "Food Network Canada" follows Canada's CRTC guidelines.

Greg Bimson


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

... and yet people in both countries can watch BBC World, Deutche Welle, Al Jazerra etc. no problemo - go figure


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

Of course everytime I read this thread I keep singing he South Park song "Blame Canada" in my head.

I don't quite know why that is though. :hurah:


----------



## Ray H (Mar 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski
> *... Improving anti theft technology does no good, people will find a way to crack it, look at DirecTV's new P4 card if you read the newsgroups like I do you will see the new P4 has already be compromised! ...* _


_

The myth of the cracked P4 popped up as soon as grudging admission of a card swap among the pirates. Piracy news groups are among the worst offenders in passing along misinformation as fact, or, more ominously, to support a scam. The more reliable hacking experts on the pirate boards are stating categorically there is no P4 crack, the card is unglitchable, and it will take a LONG time to even achieve a code dump. Laughably, a just released script floating around the internet to be run within another program hackers use that purported to achieve a P4 code dump, did just that. Whether a P4 card (or any other access card, a credit card, or a playing card) was installed correctly, upside down, bass-ackwards, or not at all! Almost as amazingly, all code dumps were identical. The P3 (HU) card was more than two years running before it was compromised. (And the hackers still don't know anything approaching half its intracacies - just enough to get it working with limited reliability.) According to Dan Collins, the P4 is several orders of magnitude more complex in its security than the P3 and includes some nasty "gotchas". This was from information he claims (And, I believe him.) was passed to him from sources within DirecTV. Dan also correctly passed along the day the card swap would begin nearly two months before it started. As for the notion that any security scheme will ultimately be cracked, well, maybe. But ten years running and Video Cipher II hasn't been compromised, and a LOT of laboratory analysis and computer time went into trying. DirecTV and/or NDS obviously misjudged the pirates' tenacity and abilities from the get-go. Two subsequent CAM releases still left 'em wanting. While it's too early to tell, it would be naive to dismiss DirecTV's latest attempt to tighten their security. I don't believe it's mere coincidence that DirecTV got into a hands-on mode during the development phase of the P4. Time'll tell._


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Unregistered _
> *The reasoning is that both Canada and the United States regulate the airwaves differently. Since the services in the United States are bound to FCC regulations, and the services in Canada are tied to the CRTC regulations, there is hardly any "cross-selling" of the two, between any given single network.
> 
> That is why there is a "Food Network" on DirecTV and Dish Network, and a "Food Network Canada" on BEV and Star Choice. The "Food Network" follows the US FCC guidelines, and the "Food Network Canada" follows Canada's CRTC guidelines.
> ...


In Canada programmers must carry a certain percentage of programming each day that is produced in Canada. If a broadcaster carries programming in English there must also be a French equivalent. American program producers by-and-large aren't worried about complying with these regulations since the American market is much more lucrative. There is also some sort of regulation here in the US regarding reciprocity of programming from foreign countries. The way I understand it since many American programs are shunned in Canada because of the regulations cited above Canadian programs are blocked out of the US market. There is also a general (perceived) lack of interest here in any programming produced outside of this country. Many perceive Canadian produced shows as "inferior" to similar American productions. They don't know what they are missing IMHO.


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

"If a broadcaster carries programming in English there must also be a French equivalent. "

Absolutely FALSE


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

CRTC you are correct that is false, although I understand that the channels must have X amount of Canadian content per day (English is fine)


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Where does the North American Free Trade Agreement weigh in on all this? Aren't we supposed to be removing "provincial" boundaries? Won't NAFTA at some point make these legal or contractual restrictions illegal?

On the p4, I recall what someone told me many years ago about the increasing complexity of cable tv descrambler boxes, but it still applies:

The more you squeeze your fist, the more slips through you fingers.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Scott Greczkowski _
> *Improving anti theft technology does no good, people will find a way to crack it, look at DirecTV's new P4 card if you read the newsgroups like I do you will see the new P4 has already be compromised!*


Scott, please tell me you do not believe everything you read on Usenet, do you?


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2002)

"Where does the North American Free Trade Agreement weigh in on all this? Aren't we supposed to be removing "provincial" boundaries? Won't NAFTA at some point make these legal or contractual restrictions illegal? "

Cultural identities were not part of NAFTA (tv, books etc)

Neither are softwood lumber, wheat or any product lobbied by the Bush handlers.

Keep it young Bush - your chances of re-election will soon be the same as your old man's was. Remember NAFTA when your builder tells you that the price of your new home just went up $1500


----------

