A lawsuit filed in the U.S. claims that a pirate IPTV seller adopted a novel marketing strategy to support a business with 450,000 subscribers . According to the plaintiffs, the owner of the service “held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer” to “mitigate potential concerns” over the unlawfulness of his business. A theoretical damages claim of more than a billion dollars, plus an allegation of wiretapping, makes this case a little more spicy than most.
The potential consequences of being associated with any aspect of a pirate IPTV operation are well known. Criminal action rarely ends well for defendants, with similar outcomes seen in private prosecutions and most civil copyright lawsuits.
However, since the odds of being investigated and subsequently prosecuted are still relatively low, there’s no shortage of people willing to roll the dice in the hope of hitting the jackpot – and keeping it.
But while some embark on a journey of meticulous anonymity, supported by knowledge of geographical complications that make others vastly easier to pursue, some prefer different approaches. These can also work quite well, at least until they don’t.
New Piracy Lawsuit filed in the U.S.
Filed at a federal court in Illinois, the complaint sees DISH Network and Sling TV target Richard Moy, the alleged owner of CLVPN LLC, which ordinarily does business as City Lights Entertainment.
According to the plaintiffs’ investigation, Illinois-based Moy claimed that his IPTV reselling business was ‘USA based’ and he personally controlled the content it allegedly made available. Advertised as a “top notch” service, in which Moy had invested considerable sums of money obtaining servers and streams, subscriptions were sold both in bulk to a network of resellers or on a singular basis direct to consumers.
The Plaintiffs cite Moy’s claim of having “over 500 sellers” in the market, but the number of subscribers isn’t a rough estimate. How DISH and Sling obtained direct access to Moy’s IPTV management panel isn’t revealed in the complaint, but it’s alleged that after seeing data for themselves, they concluded that the service had over 450,000 users.
A one-month subscription purchased direct cost customers $20. Resellers were charged just a quarter of that, ensuring that they were able to return a profit after accounting for costs. The complaint claims that Moy, at least according to his own recollection, also acted as a channel supplier to other IPTV providers.
Operations Exposed
The complaint alleges that payments for the City Lights Entertainment (CLE) service were processed through Moy’s company, CLVPN LLC. Payments were accepted through Venmo, Cash App, and PayPal, some under Moy’s real name and others under aliases including “PapitoPatron” and “PapitoChacon.” A Venmo account linked to CLE recorded over 1,700 transactions, the plaintiffs note.
“Moy instructed purchasers to disguise the purpose of their payments by claiming the payments were being sent to ‘Friends NOT [for] Services’,” the complaint reads. On various Telegram groups used in connection with the IPTV service, Moy operated under the alias ‘Holmes’ and the username ‘@PapitoPatron.’ Another ‘disguise’ allegedly deployed by Moy was much more unorthodox.
“Moy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer when selling the Service,” the lawsuit adds, referencing the images below.
“Moy’s resellers were informed that he was a law enforcement officer and that message was spread in the Telegram groups, including by group moderators working for Moy. On information and belief, Moy used his alleged association with law enforcement to market the Service to users and resellers and mitigate potential concerns over the unlawfulness of the Service,” the plaintiffs note
Other measures to avoid legal repercussions included a ban on resellers displaying “videos or pictures of channel lineups” of Moy’s service on social media, and the avoidance of “red flag keywords” such as “Tv Service… IPTV, Streams, Cable etc.”
Moy allegedly alerted resellers to legal actions against other streaming services and offered advice on how best to acquire their customers. The plaintiffs claim that Moy referred to himself and his resellers as “silent assassins.”
Claims for Relief Under the DMCA
Count I alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), which concerns circumvention of technical measures. The approach has proven successful for DISH and Sling and now appears in most reseller lawsuits.
Count II alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1), which prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of devices that have no commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing technical measures.
Claim for Relief Under ECPA
Count III alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which prohibits interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The plaintiffs allege violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c)-(d) which occur when a person –
• (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…
• (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…
While not usually seen alongside alleged violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, inclusion here suggests that the plaintiffs believe there is sufficient evidence to show that a live stream was intercepted. The interpretation of “live stream” under ECPA concerns interception of a real-time transmission, rather than a stream of a live event.
At least to our knowledge, this may be a new approach by the plaintiffs. However, the civil recovery available under 2520(a) does seem to align with existing strategy.
Claims for Damages
For Counts I and II, the plaintiffs request statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and § 1201(b)(1). Should their claim of 450,000 subscribers pass muster, in theory statutory damages could reach $1,125,000,000. An award of that scale seems highly unlikely under the circumstances but could still be significant.
Statutory damages for ECPA violations are almost negligible in comparison; $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.
The complaint makes no mention of how long the alleged offending lasted, while references to the business are made in the past tense, which may suggest it no longer exists. If the alleged offending went on for a year, statutory damages could in theory reach a relatively modest $36,500.
Insufficient Facts to Determine Actual Damages
The plaintiffs may prefer actual damages and the defendant’s profits instead, added to the punitive damages they’re claiming under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(2) for the ECPA violations, of course. Without access to specific details, such as the length of the alleged offending and how much profit was made, it’s not possible to estimate the scale of any damages.
These details aren’t provided in the complaint, nor does the complaint mention any prior communication with the defendant, such and cease-and-desist notices, that type of thing. Yet in a sentence that stands out primarily for not explaining how the plaintiffs gained access to the IPTV service’s main panel, the exact number of subscribers is revealed as 450,000.
Whether further details will emerge as part of a case contested on the merits remains to be seen, but a smooth conclusion here with damages for ECPA violations intact, may come in useful at a later date.
The complaint is available here (pdf)
Source: 
TorrentFreak.com
Be the first to comment