billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (03/21/84)
>> Whenever someone broadcasts something on the airwaves, everyone >> has a right to recieve and use it. Period. Does that include private conversations over wireless telephones? They're broadcast unscrambled - just listen on any shortwave receiver around 1.6 to 1.8MHz. Bill Pfeifer {cbosgd,decvax,harpo,ihnss,ogcvax,pur-ee,ucbvax,zehntel} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett) (03/23/84)
I suggest reading up on communications law, starting with the communications act of 1934. In general, it is illegal to use conversations overheard for illegal purposes or personal gain. In the case of telephone conversations and police calls, it is illegal to divulge the content of any transmission to anyone. As for what broadcasters put out, there are usually copyright notices in the title cards on TV programs. Most sports broadcasts include a verbal copyright notice. I do not know what standing these notices have in law. -- /////\\\\\ \ \ / / From the brightly colored, ever opening 'chute \ / of NOID Ray Tackett
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/24/84)
OK, it's time for my freedom of the airwaves soapbox. Your rights as laid forth in the Communications Act of 1934 and have been upheld (with minor exceptions) ever since is that you may listen (view) any radio broadcast as long as you do not relay what you heard to a third party. This means you can sit with your shortwave and listen to the world, eavesdrop on mobile telephones, pull in the emissions of a satelite. I further extrapolate that I can record these and make as many copies as I want, as long as I don't give/play them to someone else. This is the limit of the clear cut guidelines. As soon as you take the music you heard on the air, and play it for someone else you become subject to the copyright, licensing, and marketing laws because you are no longer listening to radio broadcasts. I feel that we must fight to prevent this "freedom of listening" from being legislated away from us. There have been several major attempts that threaten this freedom. 1. The record/video industry has been trying all kinds of methods to prevent people from making use of recordings of broadcasts, even when they conform to the restrictions of my first paragraph. 2. The video organizations have been using some threatening and possibly illegal tactics to keep people from making personal use of satellite and microwave pay-tv transmissions. In Denver a few years back, a firm was selling HBO receivers (much of Denver did not yet have cable so if you bought the service you were loaned a little microwave antenna and frequency mixer to shift the signal down to an unused VHF channel). They were shutdown (this I have less problem with because licensing of the production and sale of radio equipment is regulated and they probably were operating illegally). The irritating part is that the company was required to give as part of the settlement a list of the people who they had sold them to. The HBO affiliate them went around telling people that they had illegal HBO hookups (partly true, illegal to buy-maybe, illegal to use-NO!) and harassing them into paying for HBO service (they graciously volunteered to wave the installation charge). My advice was to say, get lost to them, and it worked fairly well. Conclusion: We need some large court decision or perhaps congressional action to reaffirm that it is the right of a citizen to receive whatever radio signals he may choose. =Ron
yee@ucbvax.UUCP (Peter E. Yee) (03/26/84)
Did anyone note the recent court decision in which evidence gathered by the police listening to wireless phone conversations was ruled valid? It seems that the defendants had been making drug deals over the phone and the police tapped in. I can't find my copy of the article in the paper, so somebody who has a copy may wish to expand on the implications and the specifics of the case. Peter E. Yee ..ucbvax!yee yee@Berkeley
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (H. Reza Taheri) (03/26/84)
{}
I saw an article in the paper the other day that is somewhat
related to this topic. Some guy was fooling around with his FM
receiver when it started to pick up the phone conversation that his
neighbor was having over his cordless phone. The conversation allegedly
circled around drug dealing.
After it was reported to the autorities, the man was asked to tape
his neighbor's phone conversations. The tapes were presented in court
when the neighbor was brought to trial. The judge disallowed the tapes
as illegal wire tapping.
The case was taken to the supreme court of that state (Kansas?),
which ruled that eaves dropping on cordless phones is NOT the same as
wire tapping and can be done without a warrant and the tapes can be
used in court as evidence. The article claimed that this ruling will
create a precedence.
So, next time that you use your cordless phone to talk to your
girl/boy friend about how much fun last night was, remember that the
neighbor can be legally listening to your conversation. I wonder if
he can claim that you are broadcasting filth over the airwaves and
have your phone line disconnected?
H. Reza Taheri
...!(most major machines on the net)!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza
(312)-979-1040