Federal Court enters final judgment against NFPS end-user Mourad LaTreche

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-08-2015, 07:59 PM
NHL

Federal Court enters final judgment against NFPS end-user Mourad LaTreche

Federal Court enters final judgment against NFPS end-user Mourad LaTreche, awards $10,000 in statutory penalties, and issues a permanent injunction

On February 27, 2015 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted DISH Network and NagraStar’s motion for final judgment against Mourad LaTreche. LaTreche was sued by DISH Network and NagraStar for federal claims arising out of his subscription to the NFPS IKS service. The Court’s order includes a permanent injunction against LaTreche as well as an award of $10,000 in statutory damages (the maximum damages per violation) under the Electronics Communication Privacy Act. DISH Network and NagraStar continue to investigate and take action against those responsible for trying to circumvent the companies’ security system in order to gain unauthorized access to DISH Network programming.

Final Judgment and Injunction_M.Latreche
03-08-2015, 08:08 PM
ddowder

Are these cases still from wufman demand lettrs? Or do they just have record of a purchase through PP and no codes or passwords?
03-08-2015, 08:10 PM
steven charles

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddowder

Are these cases still from wufman demand lettrs? Or do they just have record of a purchase through PP and no codes or passwords?

yes including there ip,s address,i,m sure he had a list of names and ip,s that connected to the server....
03-08-2015, 08:11 PM
NHL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DISH NETWORK L.L.C., ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., and NAGRASTAR LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MOURAD LATRECHE, Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-04849-CRB FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
I. NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC (collectively, “DISH Network”) filed this action against Defendant Mourad Latreche (“Defendant”) for unlawfully circumventing DISH Network’s security system and intercepting encrypted, copyrighted, subscription-based DISH Network satellite television programming. Defendant accomplished this in part by subscribing to a pirate television service called NFusion Private Server (“NFPS”). This service provided Defendant with the control words or “keys” that are needed to decrypt DISH Network’s satellite signal and view DISH Network programming without having authorization from and without making payment to DISH Network. 2. Defendant was properly served with a summons and DISH Network’s complaint, but failed to file an answer, responsive pleading, or otherwise defend the lawsuit within the time
1
allowed. DISH Network submitted evidence that Defendant is not an infant, is not incompetent, and is not on active duty with the military or otherwise exempted under the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act. 3. As a result of Defendant’s failure to answer, or otherwise appear in this action, the Court accepts as true the following well-pleaded allegations in DISH Network’s complaint: (a) DISH Network is a multi-channel video provider that delivers video, audio, and data services to approximately 14 million subscribers throughout the United States via a direct broadcast satellite system. DISH Network uses high-powered satellites to broadcast, among other things, movies, sports and general entertainment services to consumers who have been authorized to receive such services after payment of a subscription fee, or in the case of a pay-per-view movie or event the purchase price. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 10-11.) (b) DISH Network contracts for and purchases the distribution rights for most of the programming broadcast on the DISH Network platform from providers such as network affiliates, pay and specialty broadcasters, cable networks, motion picture distributors, sports leagues, and other holders of programming rights. The works broadcast on the DISH Network platform are copyrighted. DISH Network has the authority of the copyright holders to protect these works from unauthorized reception and viewing. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 12-13.) (c) DISH Network programming is digitized, compressed, and then scrambled prior to being transmitted to multiple satellites that are located in geo-synchronous orbit above Earth. The satellites relay the encrypted signal back down to Earth where the signal can be received by DISH Network subscribers that have the necessary equipment. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 14.) (d) The EchoStar Technologies receiver processes an incoming DISH Network satellite signal by locating an encrypted part of the transmission called the entitlement control message and forwards that message to the NagraStar smart card. Provided the subscriber is tuned to a channel that he is authorized to watch, the smart card uses its decryption keys to unlock the message, uncovering a control word. The control word is transmitted back to the receiver to decrypt the DISH Network satellite signal. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 18-19.)
2
Case3:14-cv-04849-CRB Document19 Filed02/27/15 Page2 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(e) NFusion Private Server or “NFPS” is an Internet key sharing service that provides end-users the control words that descramble DISH Network television programming. End users that receive control words from NFPS are able to view DISH Network programming without having authority from, and without paying the required subscription fee to, DISH Network. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 24.) (f) Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520, as alleged in Count III, by obtaining DISH Network’s control words through the NFPS service and using the control words to intentionally intercept DISH Network programming. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 26-28, 39-41.) 4. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520, DISH Network requested statutory damages of $10,000, a sum certain, for Defendant’s interception of DISH Network’s encrypted satellite signal. (Dkt. 1, Prayer for Relief § E.) II. FINAL JUDGMENT & PERMANENT INJUNCTION Upon default of Defendant, the Court, having reviewed the applicable law, evidence, and record in this matter, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Defendant, and anyone acting in active concert or participation with Defendant, is hereby permanently enjoined from: A. circumventing or assisting others to circumvent DISH Network’s security system, or otherwise intercepting or assisting others to intercept DISH Network’s satellite signal; B. testing, analyzing, reverse engineering, manipulating, or extracting codes, data, or information from DISH Network’s satellite receivers, smart cards, satellite data stream, or any other part or component of the DISH Network security system. (2) This permanent injunction takes effect immediately. (3) Judgment is entered in favor of DISH Network on Count III of the complaint alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520. (4) Statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 are awarded to DISH Network in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B).
3
Case3:14-cv-04849-CRB Document19 Filed02/27/15 Page3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(5) The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for two years for the purpose of enforcing this final judgment and permanent injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Feb. 27, 2015 Hon. Charles R. Breyer United States District Judge
4
U N I T E D S T A T E S
D I S T R I C T C O U R T
N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F C A L I F O
03-08-2015, 11:48 PM
whoknows

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddowder

Are these cases still from wufman demand lettrs? Or do they just have record of a purchase through PP and no codes or passwords?

Quote:

Originally Posted by steven charles

yes including there ip,s address,i,m sure he had a list of names and ip,s that connected to the server....

How would you know whether these court cases have anything to do with wuf ? Or paypal?
03-09-2015, 01:00 AM
Benney

The question I would be asking is why is NFPS still advertizing, hell why is it still around?

Some things make go mmmmm!
03-09-2015, 02:14 AM
ddowder

That's what I'm wondering ? Let's say they just have PP records alone that you made payment to a PS.

I know in regards to wuf letters they atleast had the codes and passwords + dos key.

Would just the mere donation be sufficient in a civil case.
03-09-2015, 08:49 PM
jvvh5897

The doc shows that defendant never showed up in court. Pretty much made the result a requirement. If he had bothered to appear, odds are the results would have been different.
03-10-2015, 12:58 AM
kutter

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvvh5897

The doc shows that defendant never showed up in court. Pretty much made the result a requirement. If he had bothered to appear, odds are the results would have been different.

the judgments have been the same for those that tried to fight it so I don't think the results would have been different ... other than you can add a few thousand more for legal fees .... you're better off settling before it goes to court IMO ...
03-10-2015, 02:08 AM
alex70olds

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutter

the judgments have been the same for those that tried to fight it so I don't think the results would have been different ... other than you can add a few thousand more for legal fees .... you're better off settling before it goes to court IMO ...

Nobody has challenged the lack of effort in securing their signal. It worked against Bell.
03-10-2015, 03:01 AM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Nobody has challenged the lack of effort in securing their signal. It worked against Bell.

Do you really think that would be a defense for an end user that its their fault for not securing their signal ?

With Bell, Videotron was seeking damages they alleged they suffered but don't see an end user saying I suffered damages.

Even in Canada where Bell lost if they did go after end user lawsuist and the end user brought up the case Bell could say well because of that we are now going after end users to combat piracy.

Someone like Comcast in the US would have to file against DN alleging similar to what Videotron alleged. Now that could be interesting if that happen. Go Comcast go lol

GS2
03-10-2015, 03:25 AM
alex70olds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Do you really think that would be a defense for an end user that its their fault for not securing their signal ?

With Bell, Videotron was seeking damages they alleged they suffered but don't see an end user saying I suffered damages.

Even in Canada where Bell lost if they did go after end user lawsuist and the end user brought up the case Bell could say well because of that we are now going after end users to combat piracy.

Someone like Comcast in the US would have to file against DN alleging similar to what Videotron alleged. Now that could be interesting if that happen. Go Comcast go lol

GS2

Yes and you should know this. In order to prove culpability under DMCA or RCA the plaintiff must show they have taken measures to protect their content. That is why you always see DN describing ecm's etc in the complaint.

Article 18 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language.
Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works
03-10-2015, 04:19 AM
alex70olds

It will still cost more to defend yourself more than ten fold what the settlement would be. Those that have tried a defense usually make the mistake of using council that is unfamiliar with federal court procedures. They key would be to get the EFF to assist in the defense.
03-10-2015, 04:05 PM
jvvh5897

If you leave your keys in your car, in some states if the car is driven away by someone else it is not theft.

In some places you can get free legal aid. It costs little to go to court. It obviously can cost a lot to not bother to do so.
03-10-2015, 06:15 PM
Gunsmoke2 - GS2

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex70olds

Yes and you should know this. In order to prove culpability under DMCA or RCA the plaintiff must show they have taken measures to protect their content. That is why you always see DN describing ecm's etc in the complaint.

Article 18 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language.
Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works

First I am talking about end user Sat cases that we have as I assume you are. What I know is their programming is encrypted. What I know by law as far as the DMCA your circumventing their security encryption and receiving their copyrighted programming without making payment to them. RCA also talks about encrypted programming with no changes since 1991. I hardly think any court will say they have not taken required steps under the law.

Quote:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar LLC (collectively, “DISH Network”) filed this action against Defendant Mourad Latreche (“Defendant”) for unlawfully circumventing DISH Network’s security system and intercepting encrypted, copyrighted, subscription-based DISH Network satellite television programming. Defendant accomplished this in part by subscribing to a pirate television service called NFusion Private Server (“NFPS”). This service provided Defendant with the control words or “keys” that are needed to decrypt DISH Network’s satellite signal and view DISH Network programming without having authorization from and without making payment to DISH Network.

In my opinion I strongly believe an end user would not be successful in saying I circumvented their security because I found a way to do it. Its like saying your defense in robbing the bank is you were able to by pass their security so tough beans.

So is it your opinion an end user would be successful with a defense their security encryption was not good enough therefore I am allowed to circumvent it and am not liable. ?

GS2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page