When U.S. broadcaster DISH Network files another new lawsuit in the U.S., targeting various players in the IPTV ecosystem, the company maintains a long tradition of legal action that aims high and goes in hard.

While DISH headlines all of these lawsuits with various appearances from Nagra and subsidiary Sling TV, behind the scenes DISH receives support from fellow members of IBCAP, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy. From monitoring and detection, content watermarking, DMCA takedown notices, to full-blown investigations, many tasks are handled under the anti-piracy group’s umbrella – and inside the IBCAP lab.

Retailer, Wholesaler, ‘Manufacturer’, DISH Likes to Meet Them All

A legal tactic less commonly seen elsewhere sees DISH target U.S.-based retail outlets that resell pirate IPTV subscriptions (and/or pre-configured set-top boxes) offering content to which DISH holds U.S. rights. Small or large, these entities receive the same treatment in original complaints, with a minimum seven-figure damages claims to ponder.

As DISH works to track down anonymous operators, of mostly overseas IPTV services being resold in the U.S., offers of information from various parties are rumored to put the plaintiffs in a better mood. Whether that will apply to defendants Massive Wireless, Inc., Khaled Akhtar, Rays IPTV LLC, and Mumyazur Rehman Daud, as DISH strives to identify Does 1-10, currently d/b/a as Glo TV, is unknown and likely to stay that way.

Lawsuit Filed In New York District Court

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Wednesday, the complaint speaks of a global pirate IPTV service variously branded as Glo TV, Rays IPTV, and Rays TV. Does 1-10 are described as the infringing IPTV service’s operators, who knowingly and unlawfully transmit, and publicly perform in the United States, TV channels for which DISH holds or held an exclusive license.

“Illegal streaming services are able to offer consumers thousands of television channels at a fraction of the cost of legal providers such as DISH, because they do not pay fees to license the content they deliver,” the complaint notes.

“For example, Defendants Rays IPTV LLC and Daud market the Infringing Service to the public by promising ‘No More Expensive Cable Bills,’ and targeting consumers ‘tired of paying too many bills for too little channels.’”

DISH says the ‘direct infringers’ behind the service deliver it via servers located all around the world, which are regularly moved to avoid enforcement measures. DISH is yet to identify the direct infringers but believes they’re located overseas.

Relationship Between Direct and Secondary Infringers

“Without authorization from DISH, the Direct Infringers take broadcasts of these copyrighted works soon after the original, authorized transmissions, transfer them to one or more computer servers under their control, and then transmit them to Service Users through the Infringing Service using OTT delivery,” DISH explains.

“The Direct Infringers carry and market the Infringing Service in two ways: by making the Infringing Service available to retail stores for resale to Service Users; and directly to individual Service Users. In other words, the Direct Infringers are both wholesalers and retailers of the Infringing Service.”

DISH alleges that New York resident Khaled Akhtar is the CEO of Massive Wireless, Inc., a company doing business at an address in Jackson Heights, New York. California resident Mumyazur Rehman Daud is described as the CEO of Rays IPTV LLC, a company doing business in Ramona, California.

“Defendants Daud and Rays IPTV LLC (together ‘Rays’) sell and market the Infringing Service directly to Service Users through websites and by telephone. Rays also sells [set-top boxes] preloaded with the Infringing Service to other retailers (including Massive Wireless).

“Rays markets and brands the Infringing Service as, alternatively, Glo TV, Rays IPTV, and Rays TV. Though Rays sometimes rebrands the Infringing Service using different names, testing conducted by DISH investigators confirms that, since Glo TV and Rays IPTV/TV
direct to the same authentication/authorization server, they are simply different brand names for the exact same service: the Infringing Service.”

The complaint alleges that Rays sold access to the IPTV service via Raysiptv.com, with a one-month subscription costing roughly $65 and a 12-month subscription around $305. The same service was also promoted on Dauditl.com

Warnings Ignored

In August 2017, a DISH investigator is said to have visited Massive Wireless’s retail store to confirm sales of other infringing services carrying DISH content. DISH followed up with an infringement notice on August 23, 2017, supported by copies of judgments and permanent injunctions previously obtained by the company.

A second infringement notice was sent on July 27, 2021, in broadly similar circumstances. In both cases DISH instructed Massive Wireless to cease-and-desist and both times DISH was ignored.

In March 2023, a DISH investigator visited the same Massive Wireless store and when offered a 12-month subscription for $240, purchased one, and was given a receipt.

A third infringement notice sent to Massive Wireless on May 5, 2023, performed as well as the two sent previously. Another visit to the retail store in June 2023 allowed the investigator to confirm continued sales of the infringing service through the purchase of a pre-loaded Rays TV-branded set-top box for $260, for which a receipt was also supplied. Three further infringement notices were ignored in July and August 2023, and sales continued in September.

Copyright Infringement Claims

In respect of Does 1-10, DISH alleges willful, malicious, intentional, and purposeful direct infringement and asks the Court to issue an injunction to curtail ongoing infringement. DISH says the secondary infringers’ conduct amounts to willful, malicious, intentional, and purposeful contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. The direct infringers and secondary infringers should be similarly restrained, the complaint adds.

A statement issued by IBCAP lays out the potential consequences for the defendants and the scope of the requested injunction.

An award of the defendants’ profits attributable to the infringement of the unregistered works An injunction prohibiting any hosting company from supporting Glo TV or any other service used to access channels exclusively licensed to the rightsholder An injunction prohibiting the defendants from distributing, providing, promoting, or selling set-top boxes and services that contain the relevant channels listed in the lawsuit An injunction prohibiting the defendants from distributing, providing, promoting, or selling set-top boxes and services that contain the subject channels An order permanently transferring each domain name that the defendants used in connection with the infringement to the plaintiff Prejudgment interest and post judgment interest Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs Statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for the willful infringement of 170 registered works – up to $25,500,000 total

Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP, says the lawsuit sends a “direct message” to the entire business chain involved in piracy.

“From those who operate pirate services, to the distributors who wholesale pirate subscriptions, to the retailers who purchase and resell pirate subscriptions to consumers, the sale of pirate services will not be tolerated,” Kuelling says.

“As with other cases coordinated by IBCAP, we fully expect these defendants will be held accountable, and the Court will enjoin retailers, wholesalers, and others from supporting the Glo TV service.”

The complaint is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Following a request by the Office of the United States Trade Representative for stakeholders to identify so-called ‘notorious markets’ involved in large-scale infringement, submissions are now publicly available.

After reporting on submissions by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) ( 1 ) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) ( 2 ) this week, today we present a roundup of three key submissions, all of which target the pirate IPTV / live sports streaming ecosystem.

Anti-Piracy Coalitions, Members, Overlaps

Submissions by the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA), Football Association Premier League, plus a joint submission by beIN Media and Miramax, contain considerable detail on the problems faced by sports leagues and their broadcasting partners.

In some cases the nominated pirate services appear in more than one report. That’s not unexpected among companies in the same market but since some rightsholders are represented in more than one submission, for the sake of clarity those are shown in bold below.

AAPA members : Altice France, beIN Media Group , Canal+, Cosmote TV, CryptoGuard, Cyta, DAZN, DFL, Friend MTS, Irdeto, LeakID, LFP, Liberty Global, Nagra Kudelski, NOS, OPSEC, Premier League , Sky, Synamedia, United Media, Verimatrix, Viaccess Orca, Viaplay Group, Vodafone Ziggo, Wiley (S1)
Individual submission: Sole rightsholder Premier League (S2)
Joint submission: Miramax and beIN Media (S3)

Illicit IPTV Services

BestBuyIPTV heads the list of illicit IPTV services in the Premier League’s individual submission (S2).

“BestBuyIPTV is a very popular global IPTV service that carries channels from broadcasters located all around the world, including many that carry Premier League content. Investigations conducted by the Premier League have located the operator of the service in Vietnam.” (Premier League)

Forever TV (affiliates Chaloos and Mediastar ) takes the top spot in both the AAPA’s submission (S1) and the joint beIN/Miramax submission (S3). The IPTV service appears second in the Premier League’s report and is considered a major threat.

“The service operates from a website at https://foreveriptv.net/ where it offers subscriptions to its service as well as a re-streamer and re-seller program, which rewards third parties for further distribution of its pirated content.” (AAPA)

“These services between them are responsible for the unauthorized provision of thousands of premium TV channels and on-demand movies and TV content. Chaloos was named by the United States Trade Representative (‘USTR’) on its 2022 Notorious Markets List.” (Premier League)

Other IPTV services listed by the Premier League include the following (comments summarized):

EVPad: One of the most popular illicit streaming services across South East Asia. The business is extremely sophisticated. A product purchased on behalf of the Premier League was found to provide access to over 1,700 channels, including 75 offering live sports broadcasts. The operators have been very careful to hide their location and identities, Premier League links them to Hong Kong and China.

Family Box: Nominated in both Premier League and beIN/Miramax submissions. “Family Box is both a terrestrial pirate organization covering Kurdistan, and an IPTV pirate organization with global coverage. Its offices are in Erbil, Iraq,” beIN reports. Almost identical text appears in the Premier League’s individual submission, most likely since they’re both members of AAPA.

Globe IPTV: One of the most prominent wholesalers of content to pirate services around the world. Has supplied multiple pirate services that have been the subject of historical and ongoing legal action. Rightsholders have identified Globe’s operator in Lebanon.
(TF note: Globe was a supplier to Flawless TV. The roles were later reversed)

SVI Cloud: An illicit streaming device very popular in South East Asia. Operates both online and through an extensive list of resellers with over 70 physical locations listed as selling the device on their official website. (TF note: 17 people were arrested in Singapore early October and 2,500 devices seized. Follows a similar crackdown in Taiwan.)

Pirate Streaming Sites/Cyberlockers/Others

Both AAPA and Premier League have nominated web-based streaming sites to the USTR and in some cases the same platforms appear on both lists.

Livetv.sx , a popular sports stream indexing site, receives nominations from both, with the Premier League noting its availability in 12 different languages and an estimated 129 million global online visits since October 2022. The site is subject to Premier League blocking injunctions in multiple jurisdictions. AAPA believes the site is operated from Cyprus, Kazakhstan and/or Russia.

Freestreams-live1 receives a nomination from the Premier League. Previously the site operated from the domain freestreams-live1.com, but after that was seized by Homeland Security Investigations, freestreams-live1.tv became the site’s new domain.

Totalsportek (Poland), VIPBox (Germany), and Xoilac (Vietnam) were also reported by the Premier League.

LSHunter.net , Streamonsport , Rojadirecta , Soccerstreams.football , Totalsportek.pro , Filmmoviplex.com , RLSBB , Soap2day (variants), 1movieshd.com , Papadustream , Score808 , futemax.to , Pobretv.net , and YTS , were reported by AAPA.

We conclude with the AAPA’s cyberlocker and eBook nominations which include both Sci-Hub and Libgen due to publisher Wiley becoming an AAPA member.

The AAPA’s submission to the USTR is available here ( pdf )

The Premier League’s submission is available here ( pdf )

The beIN / Miramax submission is available here ( pdf )

———-

Other AAPA IPTV nominations not detailed above: GoGo IPTV , Apollo 5 , Yacine TV , Cobra TV , IPTV Smarty , IPTV Main , Bobres IPTV , SyberTV , Apollo Group TV , Xtreme HD , King IPTV , Orca IPTV , Dezor , META IPTV , 4KEVO IPTV , and XCTV IPTV .

(TF note1: AAPA reports that Cobra IPTV is “one of the most significant pirate IPTV services with worldwide popularity. TF note2: Sky obtained permission from the UK High Court in July to block IPTVMain’s servers . Others subject to blocking include BunnyStreams, GenIPTV, and GoTVMix)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In recent years, rightsholders of major sports events have complained that current legislative frameworks fail to provide efficient tools to tackle live streaming piracy.

This problem was highlighted repeatedly last year as the European Commission drafted its plans to tackle ‘live piracy’ going forward.

End the Live Piracy Plague

A group of more than a hundred stakeholders, including several of the largest sports organizations, called on the Commission to propose new legislation to effectively deal with the problem. Their motto: “ End Live Piracy Now “.

“We call on the European Commission to deliver a legislative instrument to tackle live content piracy as a firm commitment from the European Executive branch to address this issue with adequate measures.

“Notably, guaranteeing that notified illegal content is taken down immediately and blocked before the live event terminates,” the organizations added.

The plan eventually unveiled by the EU was mostly seen as a disappointment to rightsholders as it lacked support from new legislation. A subsequent ‘battle plan’ published by the Commission failed to propose concrete changes to the law and hammered on voluntary cooperation instead.

Amidst these legislative lobbying efforts, sports events continued, and so did live piracy. Recent surveys and studies have shown that the problem is growing globally. This increases the frustrations of rightsholders, who feel that more advanced tools and enforcement methods are required to properly deal with the problem.

IBCAP Books ‘Live’ Anti-Piracy Success

In this standoff, there are also positive signs, however. This week, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ) reports that its enforcement efforts in Europe and elsewhere are proving highly successful.

A few weeks ago, the coalition expanded its anti-piracy coverage to include Europe and the Middle East, adding Times Internet , India’s largest digital network, to its list of clients. This was timed well, as the network owns Cricbuzz , which was about to broadcast the Indian Premier League which attracts millions of viewers.

Cricbuzz has the broadcasting rights to the popular cricket event and IBCAP was tasked with protecting its live streams. At a time when other rightsholders mostly complain about the efficacy of existing anti-piracy measures, IBCAP has a more positive story.

100%

According to IBCAP, its worldwide efforts resulted in a “significant piracy takedown success” causing a “ major disruption ” of Indian Premier League piracy. This includes an impeccable “100%” takedown rate on social media and mobile applications.

“The team was able to disrupt nearly 9,000 streams over the course of the tournament, with more than 3.6 million views being disrupted on Facebook Live streams. The IBCAP team achieved an impressive 100% takedown rate for social media and mobile applications, constituting a significant portion of the infringing content,” the coalition reports.

While we can’t independently verify that all IBCAP takedowns were successful, it’s not hard to find evidence of IPL clips being taken down from Twitter and other services. Apparently, this was possible without any additional legislation.

From Pirates to Paying Subscribers?

In addition to its work for Cricbuzz, IBCAP also monitored piracy for the TV channel Willow . These efforts combined not only reduced piracy but presumably convinced some pirates to go legal.

“The impact of early and frequent takedowns throughout the IPL 2023 tournament undoubtedly led to frustration for pirates, increased legal viewership of the matches by consumers, and resulted in the acquisition of new paying customers for IBCAP members.

“The data once again shows that early action and consistent takedowns, particularly for cricket tournaments and other live sports coverage, result in a poor experience for users of pirate services and cause many of those users to switch to legal providers,” IBCAP adds.

Again, the information made available lacks hard data to verify these statements, but they are an interesting contrast to the complaints we have seen from sports organizations and rightsholders over the years.

Apparently, it’s also possible to effectively act against live-streaming piracy without additional legislation. According to Chintan Udani, Product and Business Lead for Cricbuzz, this can lead to impressive results.

“We are highly impressed by IBCAP’s monitoring capabilities in Europe and the Middle East. Their methods and tools are effective,” Udani concludes.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In November 2018, DISH Network filed a copyright complaint against Jadoo TV, a distributor of self-branded set-top IPTV boxes and later various software apps. DISH also sued Jadoo TV CEO, Sajid Sohail.

The complaint described Jadoo TV’s operation as a “wide-ranging, deliberate, multi-year effort” to distribute the plaintiffs’ exclusively-licensed TV channels without authorization. Alleging violations of 17 U.S.C. Section 501 , DISH filed claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement.

DISH took the position that Sohail could be held personally liable because he authorized, directed, or participated in Jadoo TV’s copyright-infringing activities.

In their answer filed in February 2019, Jadoo TV and Sohail denied the allegations, and in July 2020, DISH filed an amended complaint. A month later, Sohail filed his answer and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Jadoo TV’s CEO insisted that DISH could not hold him personally liable, but in September 2020, the court found that allegations in the amended complaint raised a “plausible inference” that Sohail “authorized, directed, or participated in the alleged infringement” so denied his motion to dismiss.

Motions for Summary Judgment

Four-and-a-half years after filing its original complaint, on March 13, 2023, DISH filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, Sohail also filed a motion for summary judgment. An order handed down this week by District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer granted DISH’s motion and denied Sohail’s.

In respect of direct infringement, the court found that there is “no genuine dispute that DISH owned the copyrighted material, that Defendants violated DISH’s exclusive right, that Defendants acted with volition, and that Sohail was personally liable as Jadoo’s director.”

On the contributory infringement front, Jadoo TV fared no better.

“There is no genuine dispute that Jadoo knew about the infringement and could have implemented several simple measures to prevent it,” the order finding in favor of DISH reads. “Accordingly, Jadoo materially contributed to the infringement, and thus is liable for contributory infringement.”

DISH’s claim for vicarious infringement, that Jadoo TV received a direct financial benefit from the infringement and declined to exercise a right and ability to control it, also went in the broadcaster’s favor.

“Defendants do not contest that the infringement provided some financial benefit, which is all that is needed to find Defendants liable for vicarious infringement,” the order reads, adding that “the only evidence offered — including evidence from Defendants’ expert —unequivocally demonstrates that Jadoo profited from the infringement.”

DISH Wins Summary Judgment

After granting DISH’s motion for summary judgment, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint filing on the subject of what relief the court should provide to DISH within 45 days. DISH says it is entitled to statutory damages, Jadoo’s profits, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction.

If the maximum of $150,000 per work is accepted by the court, statutory damages could reach $14.5 million for the 97 works in suit, with damages or profits for works published outside the United States to go on top. The final amount is yet to be determined, but it seems there will be no escape for Sohail.

As a result of the DISH lawsuit, which was coordinated by the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), Jadoo TV previously filed for bankruptcy, but after Sohail was found personally liable, options for recovery remain open.

“This ruling goes further than many other copyright cases coordinated by IBCAP. Here, the owner and CEO of one of the most popular South Asian services offering infringing content will not be permitted to hide behind a corporate shield and has been found personally liable for the damages caused by his and his company’s copyright infringement,” said Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“IBCAP and its members will not tolerate piracy, and the U.S. courts have once again not only sided with us by handing down a judgment against an infringing service, but also holding an owner personally accountable.”

The order granting summary judgment is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Advanced TV Network (ATN) was an IPTV service in Sweden that supplied more than a thousand TV channels to customers via the Internet. In 2008, that was an unusual achievement.

ATN gave the impression of operating legally. As a registered company it was generating annual sales of around $7 million by 2013 and paid taxes to the state. However, the content ATN supplied to its customers had illegal origins.

A police raid in 2016 led to three of its operators being convicted two years later for criminal copyright infringement, among other offenses.

All three were handed prison sentences and ordered to pay $24 million in damages to rightsholders, but the service itself lived on after relocating to the United Arab Emirates. Utilizing overseas resellers, ATN continued its business in Europe and North America but ran into more trouble in 2020. An IBCAP investigation led to a DISH lawsuit that targeted the pirate IPTV service’s official distributor in the United States.

DISH Lawsuit Takes a Second Bite

Filed in a Florida district court in October 2020, the complaint alleged that Alfa TV Inc. was operated in the United States by individuals associated with ATN. In the complaint, Florida resident Hisham Manse Ibrahem was named as the company’s president, Haitham Mansi its vice-president. Nezar Saeed Hammo allegedly acted as Alfa’s marketing manager while Mohammed Abu Oun was identified as the company’s general manager.

DISH alleged that the men and Alfa TV Inc. did business under the pirate IPTV brand ElafnetTV, which in turn described itself as the “Biggest Arabic IPTV Provider in the World.” After failing to respond to takedown notices, IBCAP/DISH ran out of patience and sought $150,000 in statutory damages for at least 107 registered works – a total of $16,050,000.

With the pandemic causing chaos and less than cooperative defendants, progress in the case was slow. Then on May 21, 2021, Alfa TV marketing manager Nezar Saeed Hammo filed for bankruptcy in Florida. Within days DISH moved to hold Alfa TV Inc. and Hisham Ibrahem in contempt of court, and then filed for default judgment against Haitham Mansi, who countered in August 2021 by answering the lawsuit.

After almost a year of subsequent filings, in July 2022 the court announced that a jury trial had been scheduled for July 3, 2023. What followed was six months of complete silence and then a sudden flurry of activity last month.

Docket Comes Alive, IBCAP Celebrates Judgments Worth $32m

In an announcement yesterday, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) celebrated wins for its member, DISH, in both the district court and bankruptcy court in Florida.

“[A] federal district court and a federal bankruptcy court, both in Florida, have ordered Hisham Manse Ibrahem and Nezar Saeed Hammo, U.S.-based sellers of the pirate service ATN, to pay $32,100,000 in combined damages for willful copyright infringement,” IBCAP’s announcement reads.

“Both individuals were selling the ATN service through a company known as Alfa TV Inc., which was also found liable, along with Haitham Mansi, a Sweden-based owner, and operator of Alfa TV, Inc.”

As previously noted, Nezar Saeed Hammo filed for bankruptcy in May 2021. IBCAP says that since the move was an attempt to avoid liability, an adversary complaint was filed to determine the non-dischargeability of the debt against him.

“As with similar actions against willful copyright infringers, the bankruptcy court ruled the judgment non-dischargeable, again showing that infringers cannot use the bankruptcy system to avoid liability for willful copyright infringement,” IBCAP notes.

A Win is a Win – Even When Defendants Agree to Lose

While IBCAP’s statement is technically accurate, liability was only established after consent was obtained from the defendants. On January 10, 2023, a stipulation was filed jointly by DISH and defendants Alfa TV Inc., Haitham Mansi, and Hisham Manse Ibrahem. This meant that the judge didn’t have to determine liability on the merits, because an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants established that as fact.

“DISH and Defendants request that the Court enter a final judgment and permanent injunction against Defendants. This stipulation has no effect on DISH’s claims against co-defendants Nezar Saeed Hammo and Mohammed Abu Oun,” it reads ( pdf ) .

The proposed order and injunction ( pdf ) was signed by the judge the very next day. A note that each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs may hint at the realities behind the scenes, but cast-iron confidentiality agreements mean the details are unlikely to see the light of day.

And Then There Were Two…

In response to Nezar Saeed Hammo filing for bankruptcy in May 2021, DISH filed a complaint against him in August the same year. That docket runs to 51 entries with the penultimate entry (dated January 12, 2023) revealing another stipulated motion for final judgment and permanent injunction.

The agreement between DISH and the apparently penniless Hammo is almost identical to the separate agreement signed by his colleagues. However, by admitting his actions were “willful and malicious,” the $16 million Hammo owes DISH in damages is rendered non-dischargeable.

Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter too, but the real magic lies elsewhere.

The original complaint filed by DISH demanded $150,000 in statutory damages for 107 registered works – a total of $16,050,000. From the same pool of defendants, with exactly the same damages claims, DISH has managed to double the original request for damages to more than $32 million.

IBCAP Says It’s Pleased With The Result

As some may have noticed, a defendant named in the original complaint is absent from these judgments. DISH voluntarily dismissed Mohammed Abu Oun from the lawsuit on January 18, 2023, but without prejudice. In theory, that raises the possibility of another $16 million in agreed damages later on. Whether any of the defendants expect to pay anything is unknown but IBCAP says it’s pleased with the outcome.

“Yet again, the federal courts have levied huge financial awards against individuals in the U.S. who were selling pirate services,” says Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“This case is another example of why it is not worth the risk for retailers to sell pirate services. It is also important to point out that sellers of pirate services cannot use bankruptcy to shield against their illegal activities.”

Meanwhile, the ATN IPTV service is still online, but IBCAP says its members’ content is no longer being made available. In a statement sent to TorrentFreak, IBCAP notes that while DISH puts its name on the lawsuit as the rightsholder, IBCAP itself does most of the work.

“IBCAP is the driver behind these lawsuits. As a coalition that represents the interests of more than 170 channels, our lab and analysts, team of lawyers, and other experts are instrumental in identifying pirate sources of content and we have a very high success rate in taking down illegal streams without litigation,” the anti-piracy group notes.

“On behalf of our members, IBCAP is responsible for all monitoring, pre-litigation investigations, legal resources and efforts, including takedowns and the identification of non-compliant sources of our members’ content. Once identified, we guide our members to take final legal action to protect content. As the final part of this process, our members have to do the actual filing because they are the rightsholder.

“However, it is IBCAP doing the pre-litigation work, takedown efforts, identifying the targets for lawsuits and providing the necessary evidence to achieve a successful outcome,” the group concludes.

Documents related to both actions can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , all pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

U.S. broadcaster DISH Network has already booked a string of successes against pirate IPTV services this year, securing millions of dollars in damages.

A few days ago, another victory was added to the list when a district court in Texas issued a default judgment against local resident Yahya Alghafir.

Super Arab IPTV

The case began in 2020 when Dish filed a complaint against four defendants. In addition to Alghafir and his company Texas Communication and Technology LLC, the lawsuit also targeted a pair of Chinese corporations, Street Cat Technology and Jiemao Technology.

The Texas resident stood accused of selling the IPTV service “Super Arab IPTV” or “Super IPTV” through a variety of vendors, including Amazon and Walmart. Dish claimed that the service infringed its rights, as it included rebroadcasts of protected Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera Arabic News, and CBC channels.

In an attempt to stop this copyright-infringing activity, Dish sent repeated takedown notices to all parties involved, including Amazon and Walmart, but the sales continued nonetheless.

The defendants all played unique roles. The IPTV service was offered by Street Cat Technology, but Jiemao, Alghafir and his company were seen as key intermediaries who helped to make the service available in the United States.

$2.1m Default Judgment

After the defendants failed to answer the complaint, Dish requested a default judgment. This was granted by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. who finds Street Cat liable for direct copyright infringement. The other defendants are seen as contributory infringers.

“Alghafir, TCT, and Jiemao are contributorily liable for copyright infringement because they served as the intermediary between third parties who directly infringe DISH’s exclusive distribution and public performance rights and Super Arab IPTV users, who became a necessary component of the infringement – the audience.”

The court further agrees to a maximum statutory damages award for copyright infringement, a total of $2,100,000 for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.

“This amount consists of $150,000 for each of the 14 registered, copyrighted works that DISH owns and that Defendants willfully and maliciously infringed by transmitting and providing access to without authorization on the Super Arab IPTV service,” the order reads.

The ‘jointly and severally’ part is important because full damages can be recouped from any defendant. Dish may have a hard time collecting from the two Chinese companies so Alghafir may have to pay a bigger share.

Broad Injunction

The court order comes with a broad permanent injunction that will provide ammunition for Dish to go after others who attempt to sell the same IPTV service. Specifically, it prohibits all dealers, distributors, and retailers from offering Super Arab IPTV set-top boxes.

The injunction also prohibits CDN providers and hosting companies from doing business with the IPTV service. In addition, domain name registries, including Verisign, are ordered to disable associated domain names including superarabiptv.com, iptvarab.com and superarabiptv.net.

As far as we can see, these domain names haven’t been active in a while, but the order is still a win for Dish and its partners, which includes the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ).

IBCAP’s anti-piracy lab and NAGRA assisted with evidence collection in this case. According to IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling, the court order should act as a clear deterrent for operators and sellers of pirate IPTV services.

“An award of more than $2 million against an individual residing in Texas reinforces our repeated message to dealers of pirate services — participating in copyright infringement by selling pirate services is not worth the risk,” Kuelling says.

“We will enforce this order against dealers of the Super Arab service, non-parties associated with Super Arab, and the transfer of domains critical to the operation of the service.”
—

A copy of the final judgment issued by U.S. District Court Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In September 2021, U.S. broadcaster DISH Network filed a copyright infringement complaint in a Michigan court targeting two sets of defendants.

Atlas Electronics, a Michigan-based retailer of unauthorized IPTV services, and company owner Alaa Al-Emara made up the first set. The second comprised iStar Company and owner Ahmed Karim, the suppliers of iStar set-top boxes and operators of ‘Online TV’, the iStar IPTV service resold by Atlas.

The Atlas defendants were accused of indirect copyright for their part in facilitating access to iStar streams. The iStar defendants were accused of both direct and indirect copyright infringement. All told, the Atlas and iStar defendants faced a $24 million copyright infringement damages claim.

In January 2022 and after none of the defendants mounted a defense, DISH requested a default judgment. It appeared that DISH might settle with the Atlas defendants but this July, the broadcaster walked away with a $5.7m judgment – $35,000 for each of the 164 copyrighted works infringed.

On top, DISH won a restrictive permanent injunction but taking down iStar would be less straightforward.

“Little Hope” of Stopping iStar IPTV But DISH Presses On

Since its launch in 2006, Iraq-based iStar and its ‘Online TV’ IPTV platform have become huge problems for legitimate broadcasters. Earlier this year, broadcaster beIN told the USTR that iStar’s links with Iraqi government officials made it almost untouchable, leaving “little hope” of tackling the service in civil or criminal procedures locally.

Of course, beIN has seen it all before. Notorious piracy giant beoutQ also seemed unstoppable before disappearing in 2019. beIN and DISH are members of the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy so given that group’s reputation for escalating action across multiple investigations, nothing should be ruled out here either.

iStar and Karim: Direct Copyright Infringers

With the win against Atlas in hand and iStar failing to appear, DISH asked a Michigan district court to enter a default judgment against iStar and owner Ahmed Karim.

In a judgment handed down this week, Judge Laurie J. Michelson says that Michigan long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over the defendants, not least since they transmitted copyright content and supplied piracy-configured set-top boxes to Michigan customers. DISH properly served the defendants under Iraqi law, the Judge adds.

Noting that DISH had established liability via its well-pled factual allegations, Judge Michelson found that the iStar defendants directly infringed DISH copyrights in 157 works, all registered in the United States.

DISH requested maximum statutory damages of $150,000 each of those works based on the defendants’ willful infringement. During 46 months of iStar activity, DISH said it had lost thousands of subscribers but the Judge notes that there is no way of knowing how many of those subscribers would have subscribed to DISH if iStar wasn’t available.

“[M]any factors apart from cheaper alternatives lead consumers to stop subscribing to television programming, such as market downturn,” Judge Michelson writes. “So the Court will not award DISH the statutory maximum of $150,000 per infringed work.”

DISH Wins $15.7m in Copyright Infringement Damages

After ruling out a maximum damages award for willful infringement, the Judge notes that statutory damages are not just about compensating rightsholders. By awarding $100,000 for each of the 157 works – a total of $15.7 million – a clear deterrent message will be sent to the infringers.

The question of how iStar will be prevented from simply carrying on its business regardless was addressed in a proposed permanent injunction filed by DISH. Given the likelihood that iStar will demonstrate non-compliance and DISH will be required to put in more work as a result, the company aimed high. As a result, DISH didn’t get everything it asked for.

Permanent Injunction Justified

In justifying its request to the Court, DISH spoke of the damage caused by iStar’s infringing activity. Claims of reduced demand for subscriptions, reputational damage, and erosion of goodwill due to content appearing on a sub-standard service, all helped to convince the Court that DISH suffered irreparable harm due to iStar’s infringement.

Agreeing that a permanent injunction is appropriate to protect DISH, Judge Michelson sees no downsides to an order restraining iStar’s business. The public has “no legitimate interest” in the continued operation of the iStar service and the public interest is best served when the creation of copyrightable works is encouraged.

Ensuring that injunctions have sensible limits is also part of that formula, however.

Judge Declines to Restrain Unknown Third Parties

To disrupt iStar’s operations, DISH asked the Court to authorize Verisign and Registry Services to disable and then transfer several domains – istar-hd.com, istar-3d.com, stbhostupdate.biz, and online-validate-api.com – over to DISH.

Since the domain companies are “in active concert or participation” with iStar’s infringing activities, the request was granted, along with a similar request for Servers Services Ltd, Worldstream B.V., and Incapsula Inc. to disable iStar servers on various IP addresses, and terminate all business activity with iStar.

An additional request, allowing for unknown third parties to be automatically restrained by the injunction, was rejected outright.

“[T]o the extent DISH asks the Court to permanently enjoin unidentified third parties, the Court declines to do so at this time as such an injunction would be overly broad,” the judgment reads.

“DISH has not shown that any of these nonidentified third parties have affirmatively acted to ‘aid and abet’ [Karim and Istar] in evading a prior order or in committing the alleged underlying unlawful conduct. And none of these parties have received notice.

“As such, the request is premature and without any evidentiary basis, so the Court declines to issue the requested relief at this time.”

Warning all parties that violations of his order will lead to penalties, including but not limited to contempt of court proceedings, Judge Michelson retained jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of enforcing the judgment and permanent injunction. Given iStar’s past conduct, further intervention seems almost inevitable.

The order for default judgment and permanent injunction is available here ( pdf )

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Even in the wake of dozens of operations aimed at disrupting illegal IPTV services, people looking to buy IPTV packages containing thousands of channels remain spoilt for choice.

At $10/€10/£10 per month, give or take, illegal subscriptions are extremely cheap compared to those offered by legal broadcasters. But for pirates determined never to pay for anything, free alternatives are also available. They tend to be unreliable but can indeed offer a full subscription-like service for zero cost, albeit for limited periods.

Sports leagues and broadcasters such as Premier League and beIN would like to see both disappear for good, a position shared by anti-piracy coalition IBCAP and its partners operating in the same field – ACE, MPA, AAPA, and AVIA, for example.

Lists of services causing specific problems were recently outlined in submissions to the US government. Whether they will be branded ‘notorious markets’ remains to be seen, but it’s interesting to see which platforms could face unexpected pressure in the months and years to come.

Note: Text in italics represents direct quotes from submissions

Premier League: Free Streaming Sites

Premium IPTV providers are all causing problems for Premier League but a number of its recommendations focus on free streaming platforms, most with no barriers to entry.

Lalastreams / istream2watch.com (Germany)

Lalastreams / istream2watch.com is a family of Streaming Websites that have amassed almost 60 million global visits so far in 2022. Approximately 20 domains redirect to istream2watch.com.

As Premier League points out, there’s certainly no shortage of redirecting domains; alastreams.me, stream2watch.club, stream2watch.one, stream2watch.sx, streamgaroo.com are just a few examples.

The Premier League says that it detected over 1,000 infringing live streams on istream2watch.com over the course of the 2021/2022 season. It also claims to have traced “the likely operator” of the platform to Germany.

Livekoora.online

Livekoora is an Arabic language Streaming Website that provides links to live football matches from around the world, including the Premier League. The site provides a list of infringing streams for each match, allowing users to select what they want to watch and play the stream within the website.

Livetv.sx – (Cyprus/Kazakhstan/Russia)

Livetv.sx is a Streaming Website that has historically operated through multiple domains to provide an index of links to live streams of a very broad range of sports events, including live Matches.

According to a Premier League investigation, Livetv.sx has received 125 million visits from its global audience in 2022 alone. The football league also reveals that despite “successful” legal proceedings brought by other rightsholders, the site continues its operations.

Soccerstreams / Weakstreams (Egypt)

Soccerstreams was originally a sub-thread on the Reddit platform which had attracted over 400,000 subscribers. Following pressure by a number of legitimate content owners, including the Premier League, the thread was suspended by Reddit in January 2019.

Shortly afterwards, however, a website with the same brand name appeared, claiming to be ‘by the founders of /r/SoccerStreams’.

SoccerStreams was once the UK’s most popular pirate site with a global reach in excess of 25 million visits per month.

Traffic today appears to be down about three million visits per month but the Premier League believes that Weakstreams.com is potentially linked since it drives traffic to SoccerStreams. Overall, it estimates that the domains have pulled in 230 million visits to date in 2022.

Totalsportek (Poland)

Totalsportek12 is a major pirate sports Streaming Website that provides links to multiple live sporting events. The site does not post links until about an hour before each live football match starts and when it does, it provides an index of up to 40 links.

The site attracted over 150 million global visits in the last year (October 2021 – September 2022). The Premier League believes that this website is operated by an individual in Poland.

Premier League: Premium IPTV Providers

BestBuyIPTV is already listed by the USTR as a ‘notorious market’. The Premier League claims that the service carries channels from all over the globe, including those carrying Premier League content. Following an investigation, the Premier League says it has located the operator of the service in Vietnam.

That doesn’t appear to have affected the service’s availability, however. BestBuyIPTV is happy to sell subscriptions to the public ($70 per year/7300 channels/9600 VOD titles), resellers, and restreamers alike.

Other IPTV providers listed by the Premier League include Chaloos (Iraq), EV Pad (Hong Kong/China), Globe IPTV (Lebanon), and Redline (Turkey).

Free M3U IPTV Playlists

Earlier this year the Premier League complained to the European Commission about so-called “Open Web Piracy”, i.e freely accessible content available on the web without users having to pay anything.

In their joint submission to the USTR, sports broadcaster beIN and Miramax (which the former controls) list a large number of IPTV-related services that have mostly been covered in one form or another. However, the companies also draw attention to what they say is a “serious and rapidly growing problem.”

Players in the IPTV system that provide rather than consume content, often have access to management dashboards. Known simply as ‘panels’, these interfaces allow for the distribution of IPTV channels and chosen access controls. They can also generate ‘playlists’ in the form of small, portable text files, usually in .M3U format.

These files are appearing online more than ever before, and since they often carry login credentials, access to pirate IPTV platforms becomes essentially free. They can be opened in software such as VLC but unlike torrent files, playlists can be remotely disabled at any moment.

Playlists are quick and cheap, but despite being unreliable too, beIN would like those who distribute them to be labeled as ‘notorious’ when the USTR publishes its report.

These temporary playlists have, in recent years, been distributed online by a number of sources.This has become a very popular means to access pirate sports content, in particular, given that the playlists are available shortly before games commence. Some of the fora dedicated to sharing these illegal IPTV playlists, and which are notorious for piracy, include:

• https://iptvlistm3u.com/
• https://m.tousecurity.com/
• https://usa.m3uiptv.com/
• https://artiptv.net/
• https://www.dailyiptvlist.com/
• http://iptvhit.com/freeiptv
• https://best.freeiptv.life/
• https://www.iptvsource.comhttps://m3u.bestfreeiptv.com/
• https://dwdvb.com/all-country-free-iptv-channel-links-m3u-playlis-2022/
• https://talysports.com/free-iptv-channel-links-m3u-playlist/

Finally, it’s interesting to see which sites and services are nominated for action but at the same time, some extremely big platforms are not put forward by rightsholders at all. It seems unlikely that they’re unaware of their existence, so that raises the question of why they’re absent from the list.

Information like that isn’t made public, but since submissions are, perhaps it’s a case of not rocking the boat during sensitive periods or simply waiting until the time is right.

Three IPTV-related submissions to the USTR can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 )

Image credit: Pixabay/ geralt

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Following more than a year of legal action, DISH Network has booked yet another big money win against yet another pirate IPTV provider targeting the United States.

DISH filed its complaint against My Indian TV in a New York district in August 2021, describing the defendant as a global pirate television service. The broadcaster said that the IPTV platform transmitted channels originating from India and Pakistan to customers in the United States, violating the exclusive licenses it holds for the entire country.

Subscriptions to My Indian TV were advertised on Twitter and YouTube. Starting at $14.95 per month, customers were promised HD quality via browsers, Android and iOS apps, and a custom Kodi addon. After attempts by DISH to shut the IPTV service down came to nothing, the company responded with its lawsuit alleging direct copyright infringement ( 17 U.S. Code § 106 ) and secondary infringement in 177 registered works.

DISH Awarded $26.5m in Copyright Infringement Damages

In a judgment handed down yesterday by District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken, two operators of My Indian TV are found directly and secondarily liable for infringing DISH’s exclusive rights to distribute and perform the licensed channels and the copyrighted programs within.

The Court found that the defendants captured the programs and converted them to “internet-friendly” formats, transmitted them to subscribers in the United States, and unlawfully publicly performed and distributed the copyrighted content.

By marketing and advertising My Indian TV as a piracy service, knowingly facilitating subscriber access, and knowingly inducing infringement of DISH’s exclusive rights, the defendants demonstrated willfulness and actual knowledge of their infringing activities, the judgment adds.

The Court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for each act of infringement because they “personally directed, authorized, supervised, or participated in, and financially benefited from” infringing conduct. Describing that conduct as willful, malicious, intentional, and purposeful, they were hit with an injunction and ordered to pay damages of $150,000 for each of the 177 registered works, $26,550,000 overall.

IBCAP Celebrates Big Win

The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ) today celebrated the award on behalf of member and plaintiff, DISH Network.

IBCAP says it coordinated and supported the lawsuit against My Indian TV and welcomes the broad injunction. It prohibits future infringement such as sales and marketing, and restrains hosting companies and CDNs from providing services facilitating such infringement. On top, domain name registries and registrars must transfer the IPTV service’s domains to DISH.

“This case marks yet another victory where IBCAP coordinated a lawsuit with its member companies resulting in the shutdown of a major pirate service in the U.S.,” says Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“With broad injunctive tools such as prohibitions against CDNs and hosting providers supporting the pirate service, banning retailers from selling the pirate services and transfers of key domain names used by the pirate operators, we can cripple pirate services to a point where they have no choice but to exit the market.”

DISH and IBCAP are clearly pleased that My Indian TV is now offline, something that appears directly attributable to the lawsuit. Yesterday’s injunction will also help to stop My Indian TV from reestablishing itself but, in this case, it wasn’t responsible for the service exiting the market.

Lawsuit Was a Massive But One-Sided Effort

When DISH filed its complaint more than a year ago, the company revealed it had no idea who it was targeting because the defendants had taken “elaborate steps” to conceal their identities. A two-year investigation revealed account names and IP addresses but what DISH really needed was real names and physical addresses. Expedited discovery against third-party entities doing business with My Indian TV might turn those up. The court agreed.

On March 30, 2022, DISH filed an amended complaint naming Sanjeev Kumar and Tsvetomir Dobrilov as the alleged operators of My Indian TV and just over a week later permission was granted to serve both via email. Just days later, users began complaining that the service had gone down unexpectedly. According to DNS records, My Indian TV was last seen on April 13, 2022, and it hasn’t been seen since.

DISH Network’s motion for default judgment was served on Kumar and Dobrilov by sending a link to a Dropbox folder, as instructed by the Court. There’s no indication that there was a better way to contact the men or that DISH has since obtained their physical addresses, wherever they are in the world.

That raises the question of whether $26.5 million in damages will ever find their way to DISH. Given its track record, the company seems unlikely to give up trying.

The original complaint and default judgment can be found here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.