Streaming

[turbine_prop]

Who's going to be streaming CFA both RMR and Ang over the summer period and with what software I'm happy to do Hume and Dist's 13 & 14.

Regards
Turbine_prop (wayne)
Melb

[vkcpolice]

illegal plus why bother there are heaps of people already streaming and who wants to listen to a online scanner with like a 40 second delay. if people live in bush fire prone areas they most likely already own a scanner. i only say illegal because it is against the radio commutations act. to rebroadcast anything you hear over the scanner. im not sure if this just applies to the police radio or all services.

[Phantom]

Illegal? Really?
Got a reference?

[vkcpolice]

ill find one for you but in the mean time check out on this site the rules of scanning in Australia

[michael]

ill find one for you but in the mean time check out on this site the rules of scanning in Australia

If you don't mind.

It sounds like the "same kind" of unproven assumption when some say "scanners are illegal to own full stop" completely ignoring the fact that major retail outlets stock them.

As always.. keeping an open mind and happy to be proven otherwise

[vkcpolice]

ok this one is a bit of a hard subject the laws in Australia state that it is illegal to disclose or pass on any information you hear on a scanner therefore rebroadcasting a transmission from a scanner to another person is illegal. so im guessing if you get caught streaming its up to the judge if they want to throw the book at you or not.

[Phantom]

Got a reference?
... But hey, I'm just a bush lawyer!

[vkcpolice]

[quote="Phantom"]Got a reference?

this site is a reference.... read scanning explained by streaming and uploading police audio you are passing on information you hear therefore breaking the law

[Phantom]

Which law? Can't seem to find the legal reference...

[Radio_Australia]

Basically it comes down to the copyright act , the police/fire/ambos own the transmissions and equipment so therefore rebroadcasting/re transmitting without authority is a breach of the Australian copyright act .

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1968A00063

Acting on information heard is also an issue .


Personally I would stay clear of broadcasting GOV services because at the end of the day , they have bigger wallets then you . And it's not worth the hassle.

[Vkfour]

This little gem has been around before and basically, this is a load of old washing. These transmissions are not broadcast for public consumption, a fee is not charged for listening, nor indeed is a fee able to be charged, and the Copyright Act does not apply.

These are radio transmissions and thus, are subject to the Radio Communications Act. Under that Act, anyone can listen to anything they like, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions are that it is illegal to listen to anything connected to the public telecommunications system, in other words, mobile phones, (you used to be able to her them on a standard scanner), or any other service originating from the pubic telecommunications system ad broadcast via wireless, (not common anymore).

It is illegal to rebroadcast anything you hear without the consent of the licensee or the originating transmissions, BUT, by using radio only. There is nothing prohibiting streaming.

It is not illegal to pass on anything you hear provided you do not use any information for financial or pecuniary gain, or to aid and abet the commission of a crime or an indictable offence. How else do you think news services are on the scene of some event in time to be able to film the emergency services arrive? Who do you think were the first to complain when the emergency services started yo use encrypting their transmissions?

It has long been assumed that the regulatory authorities peruse this site, and others of its ilk, and this has been proved on numerous occasions when someone has put something illegal up, only to have action taken against hem by the ACMA. Do you honestly thing that the authorities wouldn't have take action against streaming by now?

As regards to the Government services having bigger wallets, so what? They are not the ones who are going to be taking action, they can't. If they do get a little irritated that you are listening, or streaming, they have to report their irritation to the regulatory authority, currently the ACMA, who are the only people who are able to take action.

By the way, one commentator said that they were a bush lawyer. I'm not, I'm the real thing.

[Phantom]

Thank you for your informed response, for clarifying many topics raised and for clearing the "air"

[peteramjet]

I've mentioned it before, but people should consider a scanner no different to an AM/FM radio - because at the end of the day, there is essentially no difference.

If you can do it with an AM/FM radio, you can do it with a scanner.

The whole 'you can't make money off a scanner' or 'you can't act on anything heard' is simply not true. There are plenty of professions that act on and make money from what they hear on scanners, and there is certainly no legislation that restricts most things you hear. Overseas there are different laws, and I think sometimes people get info from these overseas websites then repeat the information on Australian forums. Even the info on this website (in the 'Scanning Explained' section) is also completely wrong and likely derived from overseas.

The only restrictions on 'scanners' in Australia - and it relates to ANY radio receiver, is minor restrictions on listening to some transmissions, such as those over the public phone system, etc as per the Rad Comms Act. Aside from those restrictions you can listen to anything, decode anything (including encrypted messages if you have the ability) and discuss basically whatever you want (in person or over the net).

Re-broadcasting is another issue though, and something I am still sitting on the fence with. Not so much regarding copyright, but more specifically in regards to private/personal information that goes over emergency service channels that may be restricted under privacy legislation. The Privacy Act, as well as numerous state based laws, restrict the disclosure of certain info without permission, something which is done when this information is re-broadcast over the internet. Restricted info could simply be a persons name and address, and this is particularly an issue with police and ambulance channels, not so much fire channels.

[Vkfour]

What you can do with an AM/FM radio, you can do with a scanner, is completely incorrect. What AM and FM broadcasters, together with TV broadcasters are broadcasting, is considered intellectual material, and as such, the material is copyright, although some may question my use of the adjective, "intellectual", after hearing and seeing what we listen to and watch! This is fully supported by the RadComm Act in dealing with national, commercial and community broadcasters, and in each of the three classes of licence they may hold, as well as a few other places in the Act. You would be hard pressed to present anything heard on a scanner, amateur radio, CB or commercial UHF/VHF, emergency radio as intellectual property, and as such the Copyright Act doesn't apply, although, harking back a line or two, it is usually much more "intellectual" than the professionals.

Don't look for conditions of your amateur, CB, marine, aeronautical, commercial and so on, licences, permits and authorities in the Act because they just aren't there, only some general rules which apply to everyone. For those details, you have to go to the determinations relevant to what you are doing.

Under the various determinations of use, you are prohibited, or, in some cases, strongly discouraged from using information gained for personal, economic or pecuniary gain, nor are you supposed to pass specific information on, but in saying that you , can't, or shouldn't do it, doesn't mean that people don't do it. You're not supposed to speed either, but people do. (Given that this is usually a very minor matter, and the regulatory authorities don’t have many men on the ground, it usually just isn't worth the cost of pursuing).

The media are not doing anything wrong in using various means to report information that is in the public interest, and it is worth pointing out that they don't make any money out of it. The money in fact, comes from their budget, their advertising or sponsorship and not from the information intercepted. It may sound a bit of a thin argument, but that's how it is considered. (One court case deemed that if the transmission is directed to you, then it is received, otherwise it is intercepted).

The information presented by the owners of this site is generally pretty accurate, maybe a little heavy handed in some areas, but that's okay as unfortunately, some people do take liberties they shouldn't and stuff things up for the rest of us, and the rest of us may well include you sir.

Your next paragraph is absolutely correct, and I am glad to see that you mentioned any radio. I was going to, but this particular forum focuses primarily on scanners, so I didn't bother, but that's not to say I didn't agonise for a second or two!

Rebroadcasting by wireless, is specifically prohibited, without the permission of the originating licensee, but there is nothing in the Act, or its various subordinate legislation that prevents, recording and replaying the information at a later date, providing you don't charge etc., and provided you don't broadcast it over radio. (There is a delay in most streams).

State authorities have absolutely no control over communications of any kind as it is an exclusively Commonwealth function. They can limit certain communications devices in areas they do have jurisdiction over, such as banning scanners in cars and other public places, and local authorities have even less authority. I once represented a fellow who was told by his local council that it was against their by-laws to establish an amateur radio station in their shire! The Court refused to hear it and charged the council court cost and my fees. I really shouldn't have worked pro bono for my client as I could have made enough money for a new radio!

Now, before some of you may jump up and down and say, "hey mate", (it's Doctor actually), or, "hey Stupid", which my wife, daughter, son-in-law and cats call me, I'm well aware that various state police officers have various powers as radio inspectors depending upon what state they are in and what rank they hold. However, a breach of the RadComm Act is a federal matter and will be heard by a Federal Court. This is a lot of work for a state police officer who has enough on his or her plate as it is, and from my experience, a lot of work is just inconvenient.

By the way, there is absolutely no excuse for laziness under any circumstances, but if anyone out there can think of one, let me know, please! It's coming up to grass mowing season!!

The Privacy Act is a most misunderstood piece of legislation and I have experienced many people quoting the Privacy Act erroneously, (a change of name would help enormously as people see PRIVACY, and look no further). The Privacy Act applies to various groups who collect and retain data, how they secure it, maintain its integrity, how they ensure the accuracy and a whole heap of other things. It doesn't apply to information which is common knowledge or publicly available, and you would be surprised what is publicly available, especially if you pay the fees to find out, and if there is any breech of the data, unless you have broken in to get it, which is a different offence anyway, any group releasing information, provided they are covered by the Act, is at fault, not you.

Anything that is heard on a scanner, or any other radio, is heard, full stop, and what is heard can not be unheard, and streaming doesn't make any difference.

As I pointed out, the regulatory authorities do peruse these, and other pages, and have taken action in the past, on one or two occasions rather over zealously, so if they can get you, they will, or would have by now, one or two regulatory officers in particular. Streaming has been ongoing for a long time, and in fact many small local news services removed from their main offices use streaming in lieu of a scanner. If there were any problems, don't you think action would have been taken by now? After all, they are streamed from Australian origins.

Two more small things, broadcasters are actually allowed to replay a very small amount of emergency and other transmissions, without permission, but it amounts to only a few seconds, so if you see it, it's okay.

Lastly, don’t get too hung up on the Privacy Act. It doesn't apply to everyone, and even where it does apply, information can still be disclosed without your permission if a reasonable person wouldn't normally reasonably object to the information being passed onto someone else who may reasonably benefit them, (You'll see this sort of thing in Doctor's surgeries, or on their documentation). The way some people see it, even giving someone information from your private address book in your computer smart phone, or your Christmas Card list is illegal. (My sister-in-law does, but I am prepared to let her think that, because it is just a whole lot easier to let her think it than to try to explain it).

There is a lot of bad information provided in these forums by bush lawyers, people who garner information from overseas, people who are anarchists and people who just don't like hearing what they are hearing, and unfortunately, completely ignore advice given by professionals. I once had a fellow who told me that the Australian Constitution gave him the right to have and to bear arms. We must be able to, after all he had read it. He read it, but not in our constitution. By way of interest, our constitution deals almost exclusively with who has power, state or commonwealth, and we have only two inalienable rights. The right to a trial by jury, under most circumstances, and the right not to be subject to state religion.

Lastly, I don't like being referred to Doctor as I find it somewhat pretentious and people insist on telling me their most personal problems, especially women, and I'm not that kind of Doctor and easily embarrassed, and I am more comfortable with Stupid as it seems usually more appropriate.

[NakedFaerie]

If streaming and recording broadcasts were illegal then apps like ProScan would be illegal as that can record and broadcast.
The scanner itself wont record so its not illegal but ProScan does and it broadcasts so if anything is illegal its that software more than the scanner itself.