SCANNER AUDIO RECORDINGS

[peteramjet]

there is a law stating you cant do this or rebroadcast or pass on infomation heard on a scanner to other partys please refer to the radio communications act 1992

Mind pointing us to the sections that relate? You won't find them in the Rad Comm Act.

[railscan]

there is a law stating you cant do this or rebroadcast or pass on infomation heard on a scanner to other partys please refer to the radio communications act 1992

Mind pointing us to the sections that relate? You won't find them in the Rad Comm Act.

It is international convention. While it is law in some countries like New Zealand, but not here.

R

[peteramjet]

there is a law stating you cant do this or rebroadcast or pass on infomation heard on a scanner to other partys please refer to the radio communications act 1992

What section?

He won't reply as it doesn't exist.

[Vkfour]

Actually, it is illegal to re-broadcast anything heard without the permission of the original owner of the transmission, but nothing to stop you, yet, from streaming it over the Internet, live or recorded, or recording it and letting someone else hear it, (but not broadcasting it). It is definitely not illegal to pass on information heard otherwise all of our media, print and electronic, would be in trouble. Broadcasters ARE permitted to play very short amounts of intercepted broadcasts without permission. The Radcomm act is basically an overview of broadcasting in Australia, a very dense, convoluted and confusing, 415 page overview, and basically sets up different licence classes and address only a few specific rules applicable to all users. For the specifics of any licence, the Act refers the reader to the determinations applicable to the licence, in fact, in a number of places, the Act contradicts its self and directs the reader to the applicable determinations. Now, vkcpolice, you have been asked to show where, but you have failed to do so, on a number of occasions. As a barrister, I have worked a great deal with this Act, so, chapter and paragraph please so I know what to do next time I am asked for an opinion or am in court.

[Vkfour]

By the way, the Act is easily downloaded from the comm law site, or just Google it. Make sure you read ALL of it as the part is in the whole.

[michael]

Really over reading the dribble that's coming from her / him.

Can I please ask that you go back and edit what you wrote before the sentence above? Comments like that are uncalled for and there is no place here for them. We welcome everyone here regardless of age/sex/disability providing they follow the general rules (which are common sense really).

there is a law stating you cant do this or rebroadcast or pass on infomation heard on a scanner to other partys please refer to the radio communications act 1992

I am not going to instantly dismiss what you've said, but if you could please link us to or quote the act specifically on this matter I would then be gladly able to post this important information on the main website for the greater AU comms community to find.

Unfortunately this claim has been thrown about many times over the years on many comms forums, although nobody has came through with the specific parts of the act which go into detail on the subject. I am not completely ignorant to the point where if I don't see it then it doesn't exist, but I share the same view as what VKFOUR has posted above unless otherwise the information is tabled for us to see.

Thanks guys.

[Vkfour]

Michael, I agree that name calling and flaming shouldn't be tolerated on this site, or others, and not just because everyone is entitled to their opinion, although it maybe better if some opinions weren't aired, but because name calling and flaming distracts from the original post and even away from the original concept of the forum.

This particular gentleman can't show us where the Act prohibits this, simply because it doesn't exist, either in the main body of the Act, or in any of the subordinate legislation. My challenge to this articular individual was to see if the information was coming from another source, but the silence issuing from him, it appears that it doesn't.

In dealing with radio people, amateurs, CB'ers, SWL,s an the like, for a very long time, both professionally, and by participation, I have come to the conclusion that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to legal matters, and our discussions often degenerate to what we can't do, (when in fact we can), and what we can do, (when in fact we can't), rather than enjoying our hobby.

In this particular case, it is not illegal to record anything, re-broadcast yes, but record, no, with the exception of copyright material, and there are even situations where that can be done, legally.

Maybe this particular subject should be put to bed before it sews more seeds of divisiveness?

[Phil]

Michael, I agree that name calling and flaming shouldn't be tolerated on this site, or others, and not just because everyone is entitled to their opinion, although it maybe better if some opinions weren't aired, but because name calling and flaming distracts from the original post and even away from the original concept of the forum.

This particular gentleman can't show us where the Act prohibits this, simply because it doesn't exist, either in the main body of the Act, or in any of the subordinate legislation. My challenge to this articular individual was to see if the information was coming from another source, but the silence issuing from him, it appears that it doesn't.

In dealing with radio people, amateurs, CB'ers, SWL,s an the like, for a very long time, both professionally, and by participation, I have come to the conclusion that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to legal matters, and our discussions often degenerate to what we can't do, (when in fact we can), and what we can do, (when in fact we can't), rather than enjoying our hobby.

In this particular case, it is not illegal to record anything, re-broadcast yes, but record, no, with the exception of copyright material, and there are even situations where that can be done, legally.

Maybe this particular subject should be put to bed before it sews more seeds of divisiveness?

couldnt agree more with your last sentence, consider it done