ATTN Canadian Feed Providers - Information from Industry Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
Canadian feed providers,

Please read the following letter we received from Industry Canada. They asked us to pass along this information to you.

Thanks,
 

Attachments

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
11,002
Location
Central Ontario
It would appear from the second to last paragraph that live feeds are legal as long as excerpts or transcripts are not published without the consent of the originator of the broadcast.

Easiest way to comply would be to turn off archives.
 

IdleMonitor

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
2,454
Location
The Ottawa Valley - Eastern Ontario
As long as it's fine to have the feeds and it's only a matter of turning off the archives then that's great news for the feed providers.

Great info to know.

Hopefully this can put the horse down to finally sleep. :) It's been beaten down way to many times already.

It would appear from the second to last paragraph that live feeds are legal as long as excerpts or transcripts are not published without the consent of the originator of the broadcast.

Easiest way to comply would be to turn off archives.
 

AnneMacCat

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
33
Good to Know

This letter makes perfect sense. It's good to have a legal guideline of this sort for future issues if they arise. Thank you Lindsey for sharing this information.
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
11,002
Location
Central Ontario
Of course, you realize I'm not a lawyer and my thoughts on the matter are pure speculation.

The feed owners will have to interpret the letter for themselves and decide their own course of action.

I'm afraid the horse will continue to be beaten.
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
Of course, you realize I'm not a lawyer and my thoughts on the matter are pure speculation.

The feed owners will have to interpret the letter for themselves and decide their own course of action.

I'm afraid the horse will continue to be beaten.
That is exactly right. At this time we don't have any plans to change anything on our end based upon this letter and we aren't going to implement any wholesale changes to the audio archives at this time.
 

harryshute

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,624
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA
Good decision on keeping the archives. Those outlets who rebrodcast these feeds will be on the hook and not RR or the feed provider. Industry Canada will most likely be also sending this to Canadian media.
 

Chrome69

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
902
Location
Ontario, Canada
I would personally rather see the Archives removed... But the Media has their own scanners and they are setup to capture all transmission to computer via MP3. CP24 was the first to publish that transmissions and they capture it themselves and not from Radio Reference. My 2 cents...
 

Command30

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
167
Location
51 Panorama
Congratulations, Industry Canada, for taking three full months to draft a letter that simply quotes your own well established regulations. Very vague and open-ended IMHO. Does this mean that all the media providers who published the Styles audio will be fined and/or imprisoned? Very much doubt it. Is it not the end-user of RadioReference who ultimately decides if they want to "make use" or divulge such archived recordings? Is simply listening to a recording the same thing as "making use" of it? Making available ≠ making use.

Unless anyone can show me some type of precedent where an individual has been charged under this subsection of the Radiocommunication Act, I'm still unconvinced and will let the floggings continue.
 
Last edited:

harryshute

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,624
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA
So do you think Global National in Vancouver recorded the capture of the Canada wide Amber alert child abductor in Sparwood B.C. thousands of miles away on a newsroom scanner. The feed did come from Radio Reference. It really doesn't matter who was first to air (publish) the audio. Every one that aired it is in violation. CP 24 should just get the largest fine for being first.
 

Jay911

.
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,184
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
So do you think Global National in Vancouver recorded the capture of the Canada wide Amber alert child abductor in Sparwood B.C. thousands of miles away on a newsroom scanner. The feed did come from Radio Reference. It really doesn't matter who was first to air (publish) the audio. Every one that aired it is in violation. CP 24 should just get the largest fine for being first.
I would think the feed from that came from scanbc.com - they feed into RR as far as I know.

While I do have issues with the particular audio that was aired in the YRPS case, I don't think that it should be an offense to air/broadcast/publish audio that's broadcast on airwaves that can be received with a scanner. By nature of the transmission's design, it can be received by anyone who cares enough to try to pick it up. IMO (and IANAL and all the other applicable acronyms), the Canadian law is flawed.. but whatever, I'm not up for debating it.

As for my own feed, I have always had verbal permission from the radio system owners to broadcast what I do. I'm now in the process of getting electronic "written" copies of permission, and may actually turn it into an "official feed". Been meaning to do that for a while anyway.
 

Nap

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
142
Location
Ontario
Hi All,

I am not a lawyer nor am I connected to Industry Canada in any way. I am just a regular guy in the process of learning for my amateur license and so far this is what I found out about the Canadian laws:

First of all, there is the "Radiocommunication Act", this is "the mother of all laws" regarding radio communications. You can find the official version here:

Radiocommunication Act

It is this Act that gives authority to Industry Canada to make further "Radiocommunication Regulations" (which include the "Standards for the Operation of Radio Stations in the Amateur Radio Service").

The official pages of Industry Canada regarding Radio, Spectrum and Telecom can be found here:

Industry Canada Site - Radio, Spectrum and Telecommunications

As a ham radio you have to know them. I wish I could learn them faster :)

Nap.
 
Last edited:

kayn1n32008

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,638
Location
In the \'patch
Congratulations, Industry Canada, for taking three full months to draft a letter that simply quotes your own well established regulations. Very vague and open-ended IMHO. Does this mean that all the media providers who published the Styles audio will be fined and/or imprisoned? Very much doubt it. Is it not the end-user of RadioReference who ultimately decides if they want to "make use" or divulge such archived recordings? Is simply listening to a recording the same thing as "making use" of it? Making available ≠ making use.

Unless anyone can show me some type of precedent where an individual has been charged under this subsection of the Radiocommunication Act, I'm still unconvinced and will let the floggings continue.
If the violator is an entity it is a fine only. I believe the issue is using a scanner to intercept the comms and then streaming it on the net is the real issue.

There probably has not been a precedent set yet but with all the live feeds I think it may be only a matter of time. It will probably be when another officer is killed and his comms are rebroadcast that will push his agency to lay charges.
 

Bullmax

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
357
Location
London, ON
So to get this straight, as long as you do not rebroadcast it is ok? If you hear it live then it's legal but if you record the incident, then post it on a site or other it is not legal?
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
I would personally rather see the Archives removed... But the Media has their own scanners and they are setup to capture all transmission to computer via MP3. CP24 was the first to publish that transmissions and they capture it themselves and not from Radio Reference. My 2 cents...
We are just an infrastructure provider. Those that choose to utilize our facilities need to take into account their local jurisdiction's laws and how it impacts them as a feed provider.

With that said, we are a United States limited liability corporation (LLC partnership), so Canada's laws have no jurisdiction over RadioReference.com LLC, and Industry Canada obviously recognizes this based on the tone of their letter.

Thanks,
 

mikewazowski

Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
11,002
Location
Central Ontario
and from the second to last paragraph (and the CC to the York Region Police Service Chief), they are more concerned with audio excerpts and transcripts being released without permission.

What the media did was disrespectful to the family of Constable Stiles.

If they had waited for YRPS to release a sanitized transcript after a suitable period, feed providers wouldn't be questioning whether they can continue their feeds.
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
Additionally, their letter does little to tell anyone what is legal and not in Canada with regards to the live audio streams. They seem to obviously focus on the Officer Styles issue which I think we can all agree was a terrible decision by the media to broadcast the archived communications online. One could argue that everything we do here is illegal. One could argue that only a certain subset is illegal.

In any case, I would strongly recommend that some of you in Canada write to the person who drafted the letter and seek further clarification from Industry Canada on their strict position with regards to the live audio platform and Canadian citizens.

In the mean time, I'll attempt this week to reach back to my contact with Industry Canada to get further clarification. With that in mind, could you Canadians propose a set of questions that you would like answered with regards to the Live Audio feeds? I'll do my best to get the best questions answered and/or clarified.

Thanks,
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
and from the second to last paragraph (and the CC to the York Region Police Service Chief), they are more concerned with audio excerpts and transcripts being released without permission.

What the media did was disrespectful to the family of Constable Stiles.

If they had waited for YRPS to release a sanitized transcript after a suitable period, feed providers wouldn't be questioning whether they can continue their feeds.
I think they (the media) hopefully learned their lesson on this one because they got blasted. I'm fully on board with the thought that the media really should not have publicly broadcasted those communications.

Does anyone find it interesting that the media hasn't been a legal target of Industry Canada? They, in effect, violated the law based on Industry Canada's assertions. Or did they?
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
I don't think that anyone here is qualified to be "armchair lawyers". As a result, Lindsay is doing what should be done and that is getting clarification from Industry Canada (The Canadian equivalent to the FCC in the US for those that don't know).

I do agree that the media overstepped their boundaries and broadcasting the audio in question was in poor taste.

Hopefully once and for all we can get from Industry Canada what their feelings are when it comes to live audio feeds in Canada, as well the letter doesn't tell us anything that we haven't already known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top