CODEC & Software Defined Radio legalities

[bassjunkie]

Originally Posted by davidbond21

It's strange that a person who spends much of his time in the tavern trying to show how the democrats are really socialists and/or communists, is now out here in the general forum attacking basic tenets of business(protection of copyrighted, trademarked, or patented property).

Ah, but piracy is Capitalism on a personal level! I have no issue with piracy of that sort of thing - I would never buy the software/music/DVDs anyway, I don't like wasting money on that sort of thing, so no loss of sales to the producer, right?

[rvictor]

Originally Posted by ab3a

Don't we have a right to listen in to the daily goings on of our tax funded initiatives?

No, we have no such right, at least none that I'm aware of and this thread has cited no basis for the existence of any such right. The government doesn't work for you or me personally. It works for all of the people collectively and in doing so, it acts as it determines to be in the overall public interest. If you disagree, the remedy is to elect a government that acts in the way that you want it to act. There will always be those that disagree with the policies of the elected government. They have the right to disagree, but just because they do doesn't mean that they can create rights just by stating that they've paid for some aspect of government operations.

Pronouncements about non-existent rights just distract from the real solution. You have no right to listen, but you do have the right to vote for a government that will permit you to listen.

Dick

[kd7rto]

The proper analogy is public land. If you want privacy, bring a tent. Expecting a ranger to keep people out of eyesite of your camp is not reasonable.

Where this should end is that the government needs to realize that it is the user's responsibility to protect his own privacy with sufficiently strong encryption (or a sufficiently opaque tent).

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by kd7rto

The proper analogy is public land. If you want privacy, bring a tent. Expecting a ranger to keep people out of eyesite of your camp is not reasonable.

Where this should end is that the government needs to realize that it is the user's responsibility to protect his own privacy with sufficiently strong encryption (or a sufficiently opaque tent).

Good analogy.

What would you expect the ranger to do if you are sitting outside someone else's tent with a parabolic microphone and transcribing and broadcasting everything they are saying in their tent?

What if the people you are "spying on" are not in a tent? Is there a difference?

Privacy in public places is a complex matter.

[davidbond21]

Originally Posted by bassjunkie

Ah, but piracy is Capitalism on a personal level! I have no issue with piracy of that sort of thing - I would never buy the software/music/DVDs anyway, I don't like wasting money on that sort of thing, so no loss of sales to the producer, right?

OK, so when you say you have no problem with piracy of software/music/DVDs, you really mean that you have nothing further to add to this conversation.

Originally Posted by ab3a

This topic is drifting a bit, but the fundamental problem is this: Who owns the airwaves and what does this imply?
*snip*
Now some are actually contemplating whether people who may reverse engineer and build their own CODEC are criminals.

Nobody can own any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, you're correct. To imply this gives everyone free range to whatever portion they want is to ignore the practicalities of living in civilization, where limited resources must be shared for everyone to utilize them.

I personally don't think an amateur or hobbyist trying to reverse engineer anything for the sake of knowledge and furtherance of the art(telecommunications in this context) is all that bad on an intellectual level, but the fact of the matter is, independent of what I or anyone else thinks, if what you are trying to do involves protected intellectual property, this type of activity constitutes a crime. Many hackers only work their way into protected networks just for the intellectual curiosity to see if they can do so, without causing any other harm other than the actual intrusion, but this is still a crime. Many people drive a few miles over the speed limit(even past cops running radar, who do nothing), but this act makes them a criminal abstractly.

I'm not talking abstractly though, I'm talking about what happens in the real world. Just like DVDs are a product, so are proprietary CODECS and other technology. Once XYZ company decides to create one(for the purposes of generating profit), what is involved? How many engineers and programmers and other specialists are involved in this creation? How many thousands of hours are invested in this design and creation, and then implementation? And testing to put it through its paces, and then how much time and money goes into turning this now finalized CODEC into a marketable product base with support systems and regular monitoring of how well it performs in the field? Now, add up all the time/money that was spent on this project, just to have some individual or group deconstruct their maybe years of cumulative work taken apart in a fraction of the time and then possibly distribute that out as if it were the fruit of their short labors.

If I work in the pharmaceutical industry, and my company spends 7 years and over $10million to get a drug product approved for marketing, why should I the day after getting approval go out and tell everyone what our formulation is or all the steps to properly make it? That's ludicrous, and antithetical to running a for profit business. I can go out and buy any competitors product, break it down with my machines and some other qualitative/quantitative analysis, and reproduce that product myself, just like you suggest doing in a separate context. The only thing stopping anyone from copying and reproducing a product we invested time and money in to develop to hopefully(not guaranteed) turn a profit in a few years after finally breaking even, are easily ignored IP laws. Anyone can still copy this drug product, but big pharma(along with smaller players too), who may spend 500 million on a single product pipeline, is going to protect that investment they made and the profits they hope to make with such legal fury that it will make your head spin.

My point is not so much to berate you for what you are taking interest in; I agree with the spirit of what you are doing, but this is how it is to someone who is not on the outside looking in.

[ab3a]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

No matter how many times that argument is used it is still false.

It is the same as saying Why can't I sit in the Mayor's office, we paid for the furniture.

If I added up my taxes, I probably own a HumVe, yet I can't go to the nearest armory and check one out.

It's not the same thing. On the one hand, you cite physical property. On the other hand, I cite a broadcast. It's not physical property. I'm not even sure it is intellectual property. In fact, it may well be just the opposite. We can make FOIA claims for government to disclose this stuff. Governments most certainly do NOT own this data.

I can understand the notion of privileged communications. So if someone is conducting an investigation and needs to do so quietly, I can understand giving them an encrypted communications node. However, if someone is going through a routine traffic stop, why can't I listen in? If I happened to be on the side of the road, I could watch it. If a cop is breaking up a fight at a local bar, or the fire department is running a water rescue operation, why shouldn't I be able to listen in? If I were standing there or flying around in a helicopter, I'd be able to watch.

So if some police department purchases an IDEN system, why shouldn't they be required to disclose all radio traffic in real time? Isn't this why we put dash cameras in police cruisers? Aren't they interested in fairness and openness?

[N_Jay]

The argument was "we paid for it so we should be able to listen", you have moved to the concept of public and private conversations.

See my Tent analogy instead of the "paid property analogy.

Can you give me an single example of FOIA in real time? (as opposed to an after the fact request)

[ab3a]

No, there is no such thing and you know very well that it has never happened --because it is practically impossible.

However, the fact that such activity can be requested in the first place shows that the government has no right to keep this stuff secret.

My concern about asserting real time access to this data is that it is no different than reporting something in real time as a bystander. These sorts of reports are studied all the time on aviation radio traffic, and even recordings of the 911 calls themselves are often obtained by news reporters for the evening news.

Thus, my point is that since police do not own this data, and that it is routinely exposed to the public, why shouldn't we expect most police and fire/rescue radio operations to be transmitted in well known protocols that are capable of being monitored by anyone with a scanner?

[kd7rto]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Good analogy.

What would you expect the ranger to do if you are sitting outside someone else's tent with a parabolic microphone and transcribing and broadcasting everything they are saying in their tent?

What if the people you are "spying on" are not in a tent? Is there a difference?

Privacy in public places is a complex matter.

Harassment is actionable, as it should be, however laws restricting surreptitious surveillance are an area where we would be wise to tread lightly. Society does derive some benefit from individuals and private organizations dedicated to uncovering and exposing secrets.

A parabolic mic could be used by someone with malicious intent, but to ban or limit such products would also take them out of the hands of the media and private investigators.

[N_Jay]

What ever you care to believe.

They do have the right to keep it private for a period of time.
You have to right to monitor but not disclose what you can receive.
They have no responsibility to take any action to make it easier for you to monitor.
You have no more rights to their real time communications just because the system is government owned than you have to any private business radio communications.

Your points are about what you desire, my points are about the facts.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by kd7rto

Harassment is actionable, as it should be, however laws restricting surreptitious surveillance are an area where we would be wise to tread lightly. Society does derive some benefit from individuals and private organizations dedicated to uncovering and exposing secrets.

A parabolic mic could be used by someone with malicious intent, but to ban or limit such products would also take them out of the hands of the media and private investigators.

In a lot of ways we agree, the PRIMARY POINT is that privacy in public is a complex issue.

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

No matter how many times that argument is used it is still false.

It is the same as saying Why can't I sit in the Mayor's office, we paid for the furniture.

If I added up my taxes, I probably own a HumVe, yet I can't go to the nearest armory and check one out.

What happens when these companies run out of places that need there encryption? Maybe they will sellout to scanner companies...but then them companies will more then likely not exist anymore. If you cant scan police no more then they should change it to ham scanner then.

[rvictor]

Originally Posted by ab3a

Isn't this why we put dash cameras in police cruisers?

No, we don't put them in so that you and I can view the videos for our entertainment. We put those cameras in for two primary reasons. One is to provide evidence which can be used in prosecutions of violators. The other is to protect the police from baseless lawsuits brought by people willing to make false claims of inappropriate conduct by officers. It is possible that some jurisdictions are motivated by the desire to let the citizens watch what goes on, but in most, that's not the case. If you doubt this, just stop in at the local PD and tell them you'd like to check out the latest videos.

You seem to be consistently confusing what we have a right to with what you believe we should have a right to.

Your reference to FOIA proves the contrary of the position which you argue. In the absence of such laws, you have no right to the information. It is only by reason of the adoption of such laws that you can get it and then only within narrowly defined boundaries after following very specific procedures in requesting it. I am not aware of any FOIA which provides the right to listen to police dispatches although you may, in some cases, have the right to copies of the tapes which are maintained of such dispatches. This will depend on the particular state in which you make the request since the laws of each state are different in this regard. It will also depend on the facts of each specific request.

The bottom line is that it is nice to be able to listen to this stuff and one could argue that we should have a right to do so, but so far no such right exists in any U.S. jurisdiction that I am aware of. If you can cite some authority to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it. In the absence of such authority, you're just dreaming.

Dick

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

What happens when these companies run out of places that need there encryption? Maybe they will sellout to scanner companies...but then them companies will more then likely not exist anymore. If you cant scan police no more then they should change it to ham scanner then.

Resend, message corrupted!

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Resend, message corrupted!

Indeed....Maybe you need a new Cat5 cable?

[poltergeisty]

Originally Posted by davidbond21

Museum Art=One of a kind objects meant for display, and usually not created for the purposes of profit, but for the sake of art

DVD Movies=Mass produced in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, explicitly for retail sale, usually in a follow up to the big screen production that was, created to make a profit.

By your "logic" there's nothing wrong with the following statement.


It's strange that a person who spends much of his time in the tavern trying to show how the democrats are really socialists and/or communists, is now out here in the general forum attacking basic tenets of business(protection of copyrighted, trademarked, or patented property).

Tell me where and when I try to show that Democrats are communists? I tried to make a connection somewhere??? Hmm, maybe this quote might be a first!
Now socialists. You better study Europe!


It is my opinion and I'm not attacking like you are.

When movies and music are mass produced to make mass amounts of money, it is then that the "Liberal arts" has collapsed.

You follow Thomas Edison's vision!

Now go back to the Tavern yourself!

I'd continue with more in depth high quality production, but this topic has already been pirated..

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Indeed....Maybe you need a new Cat5 cable?

No, the ascii text was intact, and even the words were properly formed (for the most part), but the content was meaningless.

Additionally the apparent meaning of the context had no relevance to the quoted post.

These types of failures do not occure at the PHY layer.

I would guess the generating application has many logic errors.

[davidbond21]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

Tell me where and when I try to show that Democrats are communists? I tried to make a connection somewhere??? Hmm, maybe this quote might be a first!
Now socialists. You better study Europe!

How about your post from just this morning in defining what socialism is, this is the third definition you list:

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Thanks for that, so I didn't have to go reading all that far back to find an example.

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

It is my opinion and I'm not attacking like you are.

When movies and music are mass produced to make mass amounts of money, it is then that the "Liberal arts" has collapsed.

You follow Thomas Edison's vision!

Now go back to the Tavern yourself!

I'd continue with more in depth high quality production, but this topic has already been pirated..

In my original post, I was trying to say that distributing illegal copies of DVDs for free, still hurts people whose jobs/livelihoods involve mass producing a product that will hopefully sell enough for their company to generate a profit. You then equated these DVDs to the status of museum art and implied that these DVD creations should be available to the public as such. There is art that is done for the sake of art and not for monetary gain; even movies can be made this way(think indie films). There is also art, for the sake of business and generating a profit. I can think of many examples of this, but one that is relevant to this conversation is that big screen productions are not art for the sake of art; they are an investment, just like investing in any business, they are taking a risk that the investors will make their money back or even make a profit if the film is successful and popular. Some films bomb after they are released, and provide a poor return of their investments. DVD sales are just the next step in getting a good return on the investments made for a popular film. Businesses exist to make money, and to a degree, there's nothing wrong with that.

For you being a registered republican, I thought you would have understood and agreed with that simple premise, but let that go to show that I shouldn't be making assumptions(i.e. using stereotypes) about people because of their ideology. Sorry about that.

[poltergeisty]

I don't want to take this off topic, but do you think that I would post a recent thread knowing that you were looking for some evidence to support your rant on me?

You were saying that I was trying to make a connection to communists and Liberals. And I stated in what thread? I also stated that you should study socialism particularly in Europe. Now what don't you understand? Communism and socialism are two seprate words used in your writing and I addressed them accordingly.

Originally Posted by davidbond21

For you being a registered republican, I thought you would have understood and agreed with that simple premise, but let that go to show that I shouldn't be making assumptions(i.e. using stereotypes) about people because of their ideology. Sorry about that.

Yeah... think really hard.

The fact is, no matter what is made in Hollywood its still considered art...

Anyone who types up a paragraph of ridicule has an agenda..

Originally Posted by N_Jay

No, the ascii text was intact, and even the words were properly formed (for the most part), but the content was meaningless.

Additionally the apparent meaning of the context had no relevance to the quoted post.

These types of failures do not occure at the PHY layer.

I would guess the generating application has many logic errors.

Must be scratched...

[N_Jay]

deleted