Sources close to the Battery card programmer claim the few ECMs that have taken place since the release of main01.bin really have not made much of an impact on the test device users. Battery card down time has really been very minimal, compared to the ECM of September 1996. This was when the original programmers left the business leaving test card users high and dry for 45 days with no new main file upgrades.
Our new software developer known as Big Gun, is really doing an excellent job of providing software. When DirecTv sends an ECM, Big Gun has a new main file ready within a few minutes of the hit.
The big problem is, a lot of Battery test device users either don't have the means of reloading their test cards or they are just getting poor service from their card dealer. This causes increased down time for the end user of the test device.
The source offered this advice as an aid to keep you up and running should you be having problems getting support for your test cards.
1. Find a dealer that has the ability to supply you the main.bin software upgrades as they are needed.
2. If you have a computer, purchase a test card programmer. These programmers are very simple to use and will allow you to load the main.bin software upgrades in to your Battery Card . The cost for a test card programmer is around $150 U.S.
Discount Satellite's Jack Daniels claims they soon will be offering a retrofit Dallas 5002 sip stick module for the L and T test devices. The 5002 device will replace the existing Dallas 5000 block on the L- card, or the Dallas 5000 sip stick used on the T-Card
The cost for this retrofit upgrade device, according to J.D., will be $120.00.
This new upgrade will allow the L and T card users to get back online using the same software that is used in the battery test devices.
Howdy All,
Remember all the raids conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on DSS test card dealers' homes and business back in June 1996? Well, here is another result from the R.C.M.P TV enforcement efforts. The Canadian government offered a plea bargain to defendant Bill Mitton of Coastal Leasing, in Moncton, New Brunswick Canada. According to the deal, Mitton was ordered to pay a $300 fine and he would not be personally implicated in any way. Mitton's satellite dealership was one of many raided throughout Canada in 1996, in a nationwide crackdown on alleged DSS satellite piracy.
This is a first...On June 26 1996 Jerry Williams a small satellite dealer in San Diego was raided by the FBI. Williams was not named in the original law suit filed by the legal firm of Yarmuth and Wilson on behalf of DirecTv And News Datacom. However, the law suit did name 23 other defendants, plus 1 to 100 John Doe warrants in the U.S. and Canada. Williams was convicted in U.S. Federal Court on charges associated with distributing fraudulent DSS access cards. To top it all off, Williams is now being sued by DirecTv and News DataCom. This is the first time that a small dealer has ever been sued in a civil action for selling any type of test device...
It seems that the battery card's are still showing great promise. Main03.enc was ECM'd and Main04a.bin was waiting for test card users within one hour of the ECM. There is a great deal that goes into keeping these test devices up and running. At this point the heart beat of the battery card is an individual, known as Big Gun. It is only through Big Gun's exceptional abilities and efforts that the battery card test device, is and remains a viable and useful device. Thanks much B.G., for giving me something to write about an a monthly basis, and also from my readers and the users of your code.
Until Next Month
As we discussed last month, Star Choice is the first "legal" DBS system to be introduced to Canada. The speed with which they have come on line makes PowerDirect and Expressvu look like they simply aren't interested in the Canadian market. Rather than humming and hawing about all the different reasons for not having a system, Star Choice has put up, rather than shut up. With all the obstacles to overcome, including the CRTC and the obvious technology issues, it is nothing less than astounding that they have been able to put together a working system in such a short time.
With this new system available, it raises many questions, legal and otherwise. The first is what effect does the availability of Star Choice have on receiving DirecTv? Many people have the assumption that since there is now a "legal" system, it muse be illegal to decode DirecTv. This is not entirely true. The fact that Star Choice exists has no bearing on the situation that exists with DirecTv, that they are licensed from the CRTC and simply are not making their programming "readily" available.
As we have discussed before, it would appear that under the RadioCommunication Act that it is lawfully sanctioned to "modify, operate, install or possess" equipment for the purpose of decoding "subscription programming signals" without "payment of a fee or other charge" to the "lawful distributor" when that lawful distributor fails to make their programming "readily available". Does it matter that many of the same channels on DirecTv may also be on Star Choice? Under the legislation, it would appear not. The RadioCommunication Act does not deal at all with content, it deals specifically with a signal. Content related issues would probably be better dealt with under the Copyright Act. This way, any owner of a program who feels they're copyrights are being violated by decoding signals which they offer for sale can sue for damages under the Copyright Act.
The problem you run into here, is that there may be more than 1 party authorized by the owner of a program to transmit it in a particular area. What if there were more than 1 party authorized to sell the same signal, and one or more of those parties failed to make their programming available for sale? Under the RadioCommunication act you are entitled to decode the signal which is not readily available, without paying a fee. But what about the other party(s) who are selling the same programming, but on a different signal? Aren't they losing? Well, they are losing potential revenues. Does this mean you may be liable for copyright infringement? It would appear that so long as you are decoding the signal which is not readily available, there is no legal action that could be taken.
I think the responsibility would have to go back to the program originator. If the owner of a program (not parties who are reselling it) has authorized 2 parties to resell their signal, and 1 of those parties fails to make it readily available, the other party is losing, but their claims to any loss may be negated by the fact that the owner of the programming has not been diligent in making sure that it's vendors actually offer the programming for sale. The program owners, who stand to lose revenue, have to make sure that they are only allowing people who will actually sell the programming, the rights to do so.
Another frequently asked question lately seems to be, where is the EchoStar hack? I am a little shocked at how many people are looking for this, knowing that the EchoStar technology is being used in Canada by Star Choice. Are Canadians really that accustomed to free programming? Many people don't seem to understand that this is not the land of piracy because piracy is legal, but due to the prior unavailability of programming. A hack on EchoStar would at this time be, for the most part, illegal. There can be no question that Star Choice is a lawful distributor, and they are (or will be shortly) making their programming "readily" available. So, to decode any of the programs offered by Star Choice would definitely be illegal.
An EchoStar hack, however. MAY have legal circumstances. I say MAY because it depends on interpretation of the RadioCommunication Act. This interpretation has been the root of many arguments in defence of charges under the Act. The government's position (instilled in them by your local cable company.) is that the Act ought to be interpreted to mean that no lawful distributor means an outright prohibition of decoding those signals. (It is using this interpretation with which I make all of my other interpretations of the Act, in order that they are relevant under the current rulings, notwithstanding of course the King ruling).
The other interpretation, suggested but not quite ruled by the King case, is that the RadioCommunication Act cannot apply to signals originating from outside of Canada, since to do so would be an infringement of our personal freedom of communication. If you take this position, then an EchoStar hack would be legal for the purposes of decoding signals not originating in and for which no lawful distributor exists in Canada. This would then create a sticky situation of proving "intent", did you have the hack to "steal" the Star Choice programming, or was it only for "legal" use of decoding channels like HBO? Since we have a presumption of innocence in our justice system, the Prosecution would be obligated to prove what you intended...short of busting in while you're watching a certain channel, how could they do this? (Believe me, with all that I have seen happen, it would not surprise me a bit if the RCMP stooped to this level).
As another month whips by, I still have heard nothing on the outcome of my own case. Being some 10 weeks since the hearing, I can only wonder what is taking this long. Is the Judge writing a landmark decision, and is carefully reviewing his decision to uphold further appeals? Or is he writing a well founded reason for why I lose. Only time will tell, but waiting is the worst. Hopefully when I see you here next month I will have some news, good or bad.