On 20 Dec 96 10:45pm, John O'neill wrote to Bill Funk:
->> While the law does forbid us to divulge what we hear, the law seems
->> to be being interpreted to mean that there's no sense in prosecuting
->> unless: a) Someone actually uses the infoo to harm someone, or
->> b) Someone uses the infor heard to profit from it.
->>
->> So, since TV news departments, scanner pager nets, etc., do divulge
->> the info, no one is harmed, and no one uses the info to make money.
->> So, there's no prosecution.
->> However, as I understand it, it's still illegal.
 JO> TV, radio stations, and newspapers are not non-profit. They are
 JO> using the information to dispatch reporters and photographers to
 JO> gather information and photos which are placed in their broadcast or
 JO> publication which they sell for a profit. What they are selling is the
 JO> information they have gathered from listening.
 JO> How is this legal?
 There is a difference between profiting from the fact that the info exists,
 and profiting from the info itself.
 Example: take one hypothetical piece of info, gleaned off the airwaves.
        The info is that some students plan to kill a fellow student.
 Now, a news station could air the info, thus using it as part of their
 programming that makes them money, by selling advertising for that segment
 of their programming.
 OTOH, someone could use that info to blackmail the plotting students.
 One is profiting on the fact that the info exists, the other from the info
 itself.
 Fine distinction, I'll agreee. But such fine distinctions are what keep
 lawyers in new BMWs.
 In reality, the first is not prosecuted, while the second is, where
 possible. Even though, by the letter of the law, both are illegal.
 Make sense now?
Bill Funk:  Internet:  skypilot@starlink.com
	    ASCIi User Group: http://www.starlink.com:80/~ascii
... lok, I cne ytpe 300 wrods pre mnuiet!...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00 SW12853
---------------