shelleys1
Member
That's true, but significantly fewer of the transgressors have the scanners capable of monitoring the latest technology than they've seen in the past. At least that's what we've been seeing.
Shelley
K0SHL
Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
- Status
That's true, but significantly fewer of the transgressors have the scanners capable of monitoring the latest technology than they've seen in the past. At least that's what we've been seeing.
Shelley
K0SHL
Think, why would they care if you initially receive the broadcast or rebroadcast. Not much difference.
Again,
The key (legalese) word in all of this is unauthorized.
re·broad·cast (rē-brôd'kāst')
tr.v. re·broad·cast or re·broad·cast·ed, re·broad·cast·ing, re·broad·casts
1.To repeat the broadcast of (a program).
re·peat /rɪˈpit/ Show Spelled[ri-peet] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to say or utter again (something already said): to repeat a word for emphasis.
2.to say or utter in reproducing the words, inflections, etc., of another: to repeat a sentence after the teacher.
3.to reproduce (utterances, sounds, etc.) in the manner of an echo, a phonograph, or the like.
4.to tell (something heard) to another or others.
5.to do, make, or perform again: to repeat an action.
6.to go through or undergo again: to repeat an experience.
–verb (used without object)
7.to do or say something again.
8.to cause a slight regurgitation: The onions I ate are repeating on me.
9.to vote illegally by casting more than one vote in the same election.
–noun
10.the act of repeating.
11.something repeated; repetition.
12.a duplicate or reproduction of something.
13.a decorative pattern repeated, usually by printing, on a textile or the like.
14.Music.
a.a passage to be repeated.
b.a sign, as a vertical arrangement of dots, calling for the repetition of a passage.
15.a radio or television program that has been broadcast at least once before.
shelleys1
Member
There IS a difference between broadcast and rebroadcast. The definition is different, the legal definition is different. If you don't choose to see it, I can't explain it to you.
Shelley
K0SHL
Too bad for Law enforcement. This is the price you must pay to live in a free society.
Would you then please explain to me why they would not care about scanning but rebroadcasting? What is the difference? why does one matter and not the other?
Last edited:
N
N_Jay
Guest
Since she was not the one to propose, write, or vote on the law, how would you expect her to know?
She was just trying to straighten out your obvious misunderstanding.
Last edited:
shelleys1
Member
You're correct, N_Jay, I don't know why they have proposed the law against rebroadcasting law enforcement transmissions. I found it to be odd and, frankly, unproductive. That's some of what I said to the committee members. Among other things I also asked what the purpose was in stopping any rebroadcasting...that Illinois had nothing to hide and actually had plenty to be proud about. Their Starcom 21 system, along with many other agencies across the state, were efficient, professional and extremely effective. Very good reasons to both allow citizens throughout the state and the country to listen to them and for their systems to be a model for other states and agencies. I reminded them that their LE and FD personnel across the state also use scanners and I would bet that some of them need to make use of rebroadcasting in order to hear certain areas which they cannot receive normally. Something they should consider before banning rebroadcasting.
Shelley
K0SHL
Sorry,beg to differ; I understand Bills, Laws and unintended consequences.... This is clearly one if I ever saw one. And if you can say matter of factly that my interpetation is incorrect then clearly you know the intent as well as the meaning. If you can not tell me what is the diffference between scanning and rebroadcasting as it applies then I belive it is you who are clearly missing the intent and effect of the language.
While the second amendment is clear and written forcefully and effectively there are those who see it differently and open to modification and current pop culture interpitation; i.e. words have meanings, laws have effect, and interpetations are left to the courts.
Granted we can agree to disagree. But wouldnt it be better to solidify as a group and acheive a bill/law that is iron clad with no ambiguity? U say Tomato I say Tomata.. Potato Poatata
N
N_Jay
Guest
shelleys1
Member
Ok, N_Jay, I'm in now hysterics! (And thank you!)
But KIKINWING, You've totally lost me. You're off the wall and not making any sense. WHAT does the Second Amendment have to do with broadcasting or rebroadcasting and monitoring scanners? (I *know* I'm going to regret asking that question.)
Shelley
K0SHL
But KIKINWING, You've totally lost me. You're off the wall and not making any sense. WHAT does the Second Amendment have to do with broadcasting or rebroadcasting and monitoring scanners? (I *know* I'm going to regret asking that question.)
Shelley
K0SHL
The second amendment reference was just an example; HELLO!! I think it is you people who need to attend remedial reading lessons. I am trying to make it easy for you, but obviously that is futile. N_JAY, if witts were body armor you sir would obviously go to battle unarmed.
Untill just then I have refrained to lowering myself to being rude or name calling; I'snt that a "prime directive"? I have learned over the years that those who resort to such antics are both unintelligent and uninformed and ill equipped to rise to the level.
But one thing is for certain, neither of you have answered the question. And when you cant, throw mud. An old trick but which is transparent. Shame on you, these boards are for constructive discourse not dim witted fools.
I had hoped this discussion might light the spark to effect change but if this is what one is fighting for I may rethink my efforts.
Untill just then I have refrained to lowering myself to being rude or name calling; I'snt that a "prime directive"? I have learned over the years that those who resort to such antics are both unintelligent and uninformed and ill equipped to rise to the level.
But one thing is for certain, neither of you have answered the question. And when you cant, throw mud. An old trick but which is transparent. Shame on you, these boards are for constructive discourse not dim witted fools.
I had hoped this discussion might light the spark to effect change but if this is what one is fighting for I may rethink my efforts.
Last edited:
shelleys1
Member
Ok, now it's just getting funny. How was I to know you were throwing out the Second Amendment reference as an example? Example? It has nothing to do with anything in this discussion nor is it applicable. That's why I said it was off the wall.
I have no antics, I'm not unintelligent (far from it) and I'm certainly not uninformed. But I will not continue a discourse such as what has been going on here. It's meaningless and certainly not going to further the cause. I've done what I said I would do and I needn't discuss it further in this environment.
So, I'll be happy to further a discussion intelligently and further the cause in a professional manner. Otherwise, I'm finished.
Shelley
K0SHL
N
N_Jay
Guest
Since (according to KIKNWING) I am the slow one, I will try again, so he can point out my obvious (to his superior intelligence) error.
You are asking Shelley, why the authors, supporters, or signers of a piece of legislation would "care" in different amounts about "scanning" vs. "rebroadcasting"?
First, Shelley is a third person to the issue (as are you and I), so she has no way to know what is in the minds of those directly involved.
Second, nothing says they "care" more or less, just that one is written into the proposed law and one is not.
Maybe they "care" that same, but have been advised to the difficulties in states regulating radios? I don't know, I am just guessing, because I, like Shelley, have not been involved in either the discussions nor are mind readers.
But that was not your erroneous point that was being addressed.
Specifically you were implying that reception 'was' the same as rebroadcasting.
It is not, and anyone with even my (according to you) limited intelligence can understand that!:roll:
http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ti-rebroadcast-legislation-5.html#post1264676
Just to clarify (for simple little me):
You are asking Shelley, why the authors, supporters, or signers of a piece of legislation would "care" in different amounts about "scanning" vs. "rebroadcasting"?
First, Shelley is a third person to the issue (as are you and I), so she has no way to know what is in the minds of those directly involved.
Second, nothing says they "care" more or less, just that one is written into the proposed law and one is not.
Maybe they "care" that same, but have been advised to the difficulties in states regulating radios? I don't know, I am just guessing, because I, like Shelley, have not been involved in either the discussions nor are mind readers.
The difference is one has to do with direct reception of the system and is well addressed under existing law (mostly federal) and is principally a passive act, while the other is specifically an active act and apparently is not addressed to the satisfaction of those authoring, supporting or signing the legislation.
I don't know, why don't you ask the author of the legislation?
But that was not your erroneous point that was being addressed.
Specifically you were implying that reception 'was' the same as rebroadcasting.
It is not, and anyone with even my (according to you) limited intelligence can understand that!:roll:
http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ti-rebroadcast-legislation-5.html#post1264676
Last edited:
Discussing this amongst ourselves is futile. AGAIN I see the law as having consequences be it intended or unintended and they are negative to the interests of the ham/scanning community. Active or passive is as germain as semi auto or revolver is to murder. While we can agree to disagree the point is, unfortunatley lost along the way, that something MUST be done before it is to late. It is easy to let the cat out of the bag just try to put him back in. (No n_jay and Shelleys1 I am not talking about pooper scooper laws!!) That said, quite often, I have first hand experience and see it all the time laws, when written and not thoroughly vetted in committee, have significant consequences that were unforseen. A simple discussion with Rep. Brady and all of us writing letters should hopefully make the change. And realize this is but one of many battles that will have to be raged. That is why i advocate for a "fund", call it whatever, that would allow us to get the test case to reverse this trend.
Example: Trash haulers were always told by municipalities to dump the trash collected in there towns at transfer stations in there control. The haulers sued. In 1996 i think the carbone decision came down that said trash can be dumped anywehre saving billlions. The point is we need something like this so when something is even discussed we can slam on the table our "carbone' and say unh, unh, unh!!!! Sorry Charlie.... rethink that encryption. Laws are for everybody. Thats all, we need to do it. Not argue about words that are not for us to decide anyway. We need to strategize and plan. If not we will come to rue this day.
Example: Trash haulers were always told by municipalities to dump the trash collected in there towns at transfer stations in there control. The haulers sued. In 1996 i think the carbone decision came down that said trash can be dumped anywehre saving billlions. The point is we need something like this so when something is even discussed we can slam on the table our "carbone' and say unh, unh, unh!!!! Sorry Charlie.... rethink that encryption. Laws are for everybody. Thats all, we need to do it. Not argue about words that are not for us to decide anyway. We need to strategize and plan. If not we will come to rue this day.
I would like to make one final point, shot, stab at explaining the broadcast/rebroadcast issue. There is no difference from the two. If you capture the modulation in the scanner and it emitts intelligable sound from the speaker to your ear that is both broadcast and rebroadcast. If I take that scanner and hook it up to a computer and it is shot 12,000 miles away to singapore and emitts intelligable sound on lee chans speakers what is the difference??? NONE. They both do and accomplish the same thing the same way. Taking something that they claim is theirs and using a device to turn it into sound. Period.
JoeyC
Senior Member
Here is a simple analogy for you.
We live in adjacent properties and it is raining.
Your yard and my yard are both getting wet as it rains.
In my yard I built a large container to collect rainwater.
If I install a pump and a hose to pump the water out of my container and into your yard, I am doing the SAME THING AS REBROADCASTING.
Having it rain on both our properties is occurring naturally. Pumping it into your yard is man-made.
Radios or scanners (our yards) listening to the airwaves (falling rain) is a matter of natural order. Channeling it (rebroadcasting) into your yard is not.
Maybe you should come out from under the bridge and see the light.
We live in adjacent properties and it is raining.
Your yard and my yard are both getting wet as it rains.
In my yard I built a large container to collect rainwater.
If I install a pump and a hose to pump the water out of my container and into your yard, I am doing the SAME THING AS REBROADCASTING.
Having it rain on both our properties is occurring naturally. Pumping it into your yard is man-made.
Radios or scanners (our yards) listening to the airwaves (falling rain) is a matter of natural order. Channeling it (rebroadcasting) into your yard is not.
Maybe you should come out from under the bridge and see the light.
I actually like that analogy!
shelleys1
Member
Legislation 101
Years ago I did some lobbying here in Sacramento. I learned quite a bit and got a good understanding of how the bill process works. The grassroots group I was with made a LOT of changes. It wasn't easy though and required that everyone be on the same page.
The most effective means is to WRITE letters. Don't be vulgar or rude. Treat the person that you are writing to as your best friend. Remember you want them to vote in the direction you want.
If every RR member in Illinois wrote to the author of this bill against it, it would at least make him take notice. Politicians are all about numbers, and mostly looking at potential votes in their area. I can think of dozens of good reasons to state in opposition to this bill, and that's what needs to be written. The fact it is a hobby or because you want to listen/stream is not a good idea. Point out the tax dollars generated by sales of equipment (it takes more than scanners to stream), and that's $ lost to the state, if this passes.
Find out the bill number, and the committee it goes to next. Every RR member should write the people on that committee. Hopefully the bill is killed there. If not, we have to stick with it as it winds its way to becoming law. The group I did work for often had to innundate the governor with letters when a bill made it to his desk. We killed a lot of them that way, but let's hope it does not get that far.
Does this bill address recording or archives?
Years ago I did some lobbying here in Sacramento. I learned quite a bit and got a good understanding of how the bill process works. The grassroots group I was with made a LOT of changes. It wasn't easy though and required that everyone be on the same page.
The most effective means is to WRITE letters. Don't be vulgar or rude. Treat the person that you are writing to as your best friend. Remember you want them to vote in the direction you want.
If every RR member in Illinois wrote to the author of this bill against it, it would at least make him take notice. Politicians are all about numbers, and mostly looking at potential votes in their area. I can think of dozens of good reasons to state in opposition to this bill, and that's what needs to be written. The fact it is a hobby or because you want to listen/stream is not a good idea. Point out the tax dollars generated by sales of equipment (it takes more than scanners to stream), and that's $ lost to the state, if this passes.
Find out the bill number, and the committee it goes to next. Every RR member should write the people on that committee. Hopefully the bill is killed there. If not, we have to stick with it as it winds its way to becoming law. The group I did work for often had to innundate the governor with letters when a bill made it to his desk. We killed a lot of them that way, but let's hope it does not get that far.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
