Like they say, the RCMP always get their man...even if he isn't doing anything illegal! Such is the case in the latest bust, which occurred in North Western Ontario, to an individual I will refer to as "Ben". It seems the RCMP have failed to get the messages handed down in New Brunswick, B.C., and Manitoba, and have instead chosen to continue to attempt to humiliate, harass, and intimidate hard working, law-abiding citizens who are simply trying to earn an honest living. It's hard enough to make a living, without having to look over your shoulder, wondering if today will be the day it happens. We've talked about this many times before, but it needs to be said again: This is NOT about piracy. If there were not signals being transmitted which we are not "allowed" to subscribe to, I would not argue that this is in any way legal or justified. However, so long as HBO and other channels are not allowed to sell in Canada, due to the CRTC, I will maintain this position.
It was early evening, approximately 7:30 p.m., when "Ben" heard a knock on the door. Upon answering it, he was greeted by several RCMP officers, who informed him he was being arrested for non-payment of fines. (Owing from the LAST time he was busted for satellite related matters!) He advised them he would have the money within an hour and a half. No problem, they said, since they were also going to search his house, too. And then they produced a search warrant, and spent the next four hours searching his home. They were apparently a little dismayed when they failed to find everything they were looking for, and kept asking Ben "Where's your un99 machine?" among other things. The only pertinent items seized were some subscription access cards, and 1 battery card. Hardly a monumental bust.
Upon hearing of yet another RCMP action, I couldn't resist getting their side of the story, to see if I could some how understand their position on this. I called the Fort Francis, Ontario, RCMP Detachment, where they search warrants were served from. I spoke to a gentleman, and advised him I had heard of some satellite related activity they had been involved in, and was curious if he could give me some details. "Who's calling ?" I'm a reporter, with Satellite Watch News, I advised him. "Oh. OK." I was told that they executed a warrant and seized various items, with respect to offence(s) under the Radio Communication Act.
The officer on the phone kept referring to the cards as "Black Market" type devices. I inquired if the signals that were involved were those of DirecTv. He confirmed that it was. At that time, I wondered aloud if they fully realized that these devices are in fact legal, and that decoding the signals of DirecTv in Canada without payment of a fee is actually legal. How could that be, he queried? I asked him if he was familiar with the Radio Communication Act, as well as some of the recent case law. Not fully, he replied, maybe I could fill him in. Of course, I was more than happy to oblige.
I went on to explain that under Section 10(2.3) of the Act, DirecTv was failing to make their signal "readily" available, in that they had been licensed by the CRTC but had failed to "make their programming...available, on payment of a subscription fee...in the area where it had been decoded". Therefore, they were subject to the "exception" clause, which exempts decoding without payment of a fee, from the offences under the Act. He acted a bit surprised at this point, and clearly wasn't prepared for this confrontation.
He inquired about the license, and I advised him that PowerDirect, partly owned by DirecTv, had applied for and received the licensing from the CRTC. But was this the same signal, he asked. It sure is, I replied, and referred to the actual license (supplied to me by the CRTC) which states quite clearly that the signals they were licensed for were to be delivered by the DirecTv satellite, including even the coordinates for the bird.
As well, I went on to explain, the channels which are not licensed for sale in Canada also cannot be regulated by the Radio Communication Act, as established by the recent decision in my own appeal. In this decision, Justice Kennedy, of the Winnipeg Queen's Bench, wrote in his decision that a "lawful distributor" is in fact, an essential element of the offence. In the absence of one, there cannot be an offence. This decision, being the highest of it's type ever rendered in Manitoba, is now the LAW in Manitoba, and also is very persuasive in other courts outside Manitoba. " Really? I wonder why we are doing this...." No kidding. I also referred to the King case, where a similar search warrant was help to be an illegal search. "Gee, could you FAX me all this information, it might be helpful to us dealing with these charges?"
I also asked the officer if this action was something they just decided to do on their own, or did they have a complaintant? Well, it's a little of both, I was advised. Hmmmmmm, I thought to myself, who could be complaining? Some dealer down the street? Probably selling Gray Market programming, for which there is no exception under the Act, and is under all circumstances illegal, since it involves fraud.
By this point, I was getting a little upset at this type of activity taking place, despite the lack of justification given the current legal scenario. I asked the officer who's agenda this was, who was really driving this. He replied that it was not the RCMP, they were simply acting on behalf of Industry Canada.
At some point during this conversation, this officer seemed to get a little nervous. He asked me to hold for a moment. After several minutes, he returned to the line. We resumed our conversation, and it seemed to me that he was clamming up and I would get little more useful information. So, I decided I should wrap up the call, but I did want to get a name, for my notes. I asked, can I get your name please? I couldn't believe the response. "uhhhh, no, I don't want to give that information." Excuse me? An RCMP officer, serving the public, does not want to give me his name? I asked again. "What's YOUR name ?" was the response. I told him my name, and he responded, "ooooooohhhhh Deeeeeeean"... All of a sudden the line went dead.
Did this public servant just hang up on me? Now, I was on my cellular phone, and it happens every so often that you will drop a call. So I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he didn't actually hang up on me. So I called back, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I had hung up on him, and I did want to get his name. The phone rang. And rang. Finally, after 10 or more rings, an answering machine picked up the phone!! These cowards didn't have the b*lls to even pick up the phone! And it was definitely a mechanical answering machine, not voice mail like you might get if they were on the other line or something. "....you have reached the Fort Francis RCMP detachment.....no one can take your call at the moment, please leave a message...if this is an emergency, please call 1-800-xxx-xxxx"
I hung up and tried again. Answering machine. I tried several more times, only to continue to get the machine. I eventually left a message, something to the effect that I could not believe the RCMP were so unprofessional as to hide behind a telephone answering machine. And I continued to call back, for probably about half an hour, only to get the machine time and time again. So I quit trying for a while. I was contemplating calling the RCMP headquarters and lodging a complaint for poor conduct.
Several hours later, I decided to try calling the detachment again. This time, someone answered, and it sounded like the same voice I had spoke with earlier, but I wasn't sure. So I asked him, who was the gentleman answering the phones this morning? He replied he was the only one who had been answering the phones that morning. Well, could I get his name? "Who's calling?" Dean, I replied. I told him he hung up on me earlier and I called back only to get the answering machine. He responded that he didn't hang up on me, that I must have hung up on him. I wasn't about to argue the point, but this didn't really explain why he wouldn't answer the phone only seconds after being disconnected.
He explained that all I had to was to be honest with him. This confused me a little, since all I was with him was honest. Thinking about it later, I suspect he thought the part about being a reporter for SWN might have seemed like a ruse to him. It wasn't.
I finally asked him his name. Walker, he replied. Kevin Walker.
We went on to continue discussing the various legal and political circumstances of satellite television, and I reiterated my previous position. He again seemed very interested in seeing any of this documentation I referred to, and asked again if I could please FAX it to him. I got his FAX number, and told him I would. After thinking about it for a while, I decided not to. I figure, screw 'em, let them find it the hard way - in the court room sitting at the opposite table. If the government is not properly prepared and informed on this, I am sure not going to do it for them. They deserve to be embarrassed and look bad in court, rather than giving them a chance to back out gracefully beforehand.
I would have thought that they would have learned some tough lessons, particularly with the outcome in B.C., which cost the Canadian taxpayers an additional $400,000+, over and above what the RCMP got PAID by DirecTv. It seems completely unexplainable how this activity continues, despite decisions such as this. And, aside from the financial, we also have to realize the message being handed down, which is that the RCMP is doing illegal searches. Our constitution and out culture holds our homes and privacy an inalienable right, and the right NOT to have that privacy unlawfully invaded. These searches offend those basic principles, and this seems to be the most disturbing aspect of this. Particularly when you look at the message in the King decision, which is essentially that conducting such a search and seizure is too severe in proportion to the offence, and that the materials seized are not needed and add little to a prosecution, since the undercover operation is all the evidence needed.
And speaking of undercover operation, that is usually common practice. An undercover operator will visit a store or dealer, to purchase equipment or have his modified. This is usually essential to the operation, because that is what is used to obtain a search warrant. In this case, the "undercover" operator was not successful in getting anything done or purchasing anything. She brought a card in, and asked him to look at it, and see if he could fix it. He simply returned it to her, and told her he could do nothing for her. This seems to indicate to me, that they had to have some other information to get their search warrant, or it more than likely is "defective", since the undercover operation resulted in nothing.
In any event, I am quite confident that Ben will be acquitted, if it even gets to a trial. I believe that until DirecTv actually SELLS their signal in Canada, there is complete legal exception to decoding ALL of the channels on it's signal, CRTC approved or not. Even when they do sell, they will be limited to selling only CRTC approved channels, which will still leave HBO and many other channels, for which there is no lawful distributor. And remember, at least in Manitoba, no lawful distributor means no offence. So it would still be legal to "modify" for the purpose of decoding those channels. The problem at that time will be if the modification also accesses channels which are available for sale. At that time, it may be prudent to use the parental control to lock out those channels before selling a system.
Of course, the legal system grinds quite slowly. Even though the outcome may be apparent, a person must still go through the motions, which in the legal system takes a long time. I will keep you up to date with the developments in this case, as well as any others that may develop! I have a gut feeling these types of busts are far from over. When things seem too quiet, it only seems to be the calm before the storm. Needless to say, the fight will continue.
Howdy All,
What a great Hamvention. It sure was great to see and talk to all of you who attended the Hamvention this year. We had great weather and more fun than you would believe. I would like to thank John and Jackie Kelsey of the Orchard Lounge for being such great hosts and making our stay in Dayton such a memorable one.
Some of you have been asking, "Will there ever be another VCII Decoder compromise for C-band?" The awnser to that question is, "it is very possible". We are waiting on more information and as soon as I receive any solid info worth reporting to you, I will do just that.
Remember the L test Card? Well, there is a new and improved version of the L card now hitting the market known as the L2 test card. The new version is smaller than the old L-Card and is faster and cheaper to build. The developer claims that this new L2 card utilizes the best features contained in the current battery and L test cards, offering those features and more.
The L2 card utilizes the I system technology. The I system is special software embedded on the L2 cards microcontroller chip. The developer claims that the I system has already proven to be the easiest, most reliable bootstrap available today! It gives the L2 card the ability to be updated by the users remote control instead of loading main files like the other devices. According to the L2 folks, the L2 card using the I-System will continue to receive excellent support. Codes will be made available so that you can update your L2 card properly. Note: I have neither seen nor tested this product as of this issue, when I do I will let you know more.
Until next Month....Dan