According to the plaintiffs\u2019 investigation, Illinois-based Moy claimed that his IPTV reselling business was \u2018USA based\u2019 and he personally controlled the content it allegedly made available. Advertised as a \u201ctop notch\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
The Plaintiffs cite Moy\u2019s claim of having \u201cover 500 sellers\u201d in the market, but the number of subscribers isn\u2019t a rough estimate. How DISH and Sling obtained direct access to Moy\u2019s IPTV management panel isn\u2019t revealed in the complaint, but it\u2019s alleged that after seeing data for themselves, they concluded that the service had over 450,000 users.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Operations Exposed<\/h2>\n
The complaint alleges that payments for the City Lights Entertainment (CLE) service were processed through Moy\u2019s company, CLVPN LLC. Payments were accepted through Venmo, Cash App, and PayPal, some under Moy\u2019s real name and others under aliases including \u201cPapitoPatron\u201d and \u201cPapitoChacon.\u201d A Venmo account linked to CLE recorded over 1,700 transactions, the plaintiffs note.<\/p>\n
\u201cMoy instructed purchasers to disguise the purpose of their payments by claiming the payments were being sent to \u2018Friends NOT [for] Services\u2019,\u201d the complaint reads. On various Telegram groups used in connection with the IPTV service, Moy operated under the alias \u2018Holmes\u2019 and the username \u2018@PapitoPatron.\u2019 Another \u2018disguise\u2019 allegedly deployed by Moy was much more unorthodox.<\/p>\n
\u201cMoy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer when selling the Service,\u201d the lawsuit adds, referencing the images below.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"law-enforcement\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/law-enforcement.png.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cMoy\u2019s 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,\u201d the plaintiffs note<\/p>\n
Other measures to avoid legal repercussions included a ban on resellers displaying \u201cvideos or pictures of channel lineups\u201d of Moy\u2019s service on social media, and the avoidance of \u201cred flag keywords\u201d such as \u201cTv Service\u2026 IPTV, Streams, Cable etc.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201csilent assassins.\u201d<\/p>\n
Claims for Relief Under the DMCA<\/h2>\n
Count I alleges violations of the DMCA,\u00a017 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(2)<\/a>, which concerns circumvention of technical measures. The approach has proven successful for DISH and Sling and now appears in most reseller lawsuits.<\/p>\n Count II alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 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\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2511(1)(c)-(d)<\/a>\u00a0which occur when a person \u2013<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0(c)<\/strong>\u00a0intentionally 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\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0<\/em>(d)<\/strong>\u00a0intentionally 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\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n While not usually seen alongside alleged violations of the DMCA\u2019s 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 \u201clive stream\u201d under ECPA concerns interception of a real-time transmission, rather than a stream of a live event.<\/p>\n At least to our knowledge, this may be a new approach by the plaintiffs. However, the civil recovery available under\u00a02520(a)<\/a>\u00a0does seem to align with existing strategy.<\/p>\n For Counts I and II, the plaintiffs request statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 1201(a)(2) and \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n Statutory damages for ECPA violations are almost negligible in comparison; $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs may prefer actual damages and the defendant\u2019s profits instead, added to the punitive damages they\u2019re claiming under\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7 2520(b)(2)<\/a>\u00a0for 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\u2019s not possible to estimate the scale of any damages.<\/p>\n These details aren\u2019t 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\u2019s main panel, the exact number of subscribers is revealed as 450,000.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The complaint is available\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0(pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0Claim for Relief Under ECPA<\/h2>\n
Claims for Damages<\/h2>\n
Insufficient Facts to Determine Actual Damages<\/h2>\n
![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"