Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Voodoo

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    288
    Satfix Buxs
    888
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 187x in 64 Posts
    Items Ipad
Gift received at 01-02-2020, 03:09 AM from orchidgirlCheetos
Gift received at 01-02-2020, 03:09 AM from orchidgirlhelicopter
Gift received at 01-02-2020, 03:09 AM from orchidgirlCrown Royal
Gift received at 01-02-2020, 03:09 AM from orchidgirlSome beer
Gift received at 01-02-2020, 03:09 AM from orchidgirlMonitor
Gift received at 12-30-2019, 11:42 PM from orchidgirlPizza
Gift received at 12-30-2019, 11:42 PM from orchidgirlATV
Gift received at 12-30-2019, 11:42 PM from orchidgirl
Message: just because

    Default Voodoo

    just surfing the net and came across this
    Said it was posted yesterday

    C/P

    DISH Sues Canada-Based Pirate IPTV Provider ‘Voodoo IPTV’

    TV broadcaster DISH Network has filed a lawsuit in a Texas court targeting the operators of Canada-based 'pirate' IPTV supplier Voodoo IPTV. The lawsuit names four Ontario residents as defendants along with fifth individual said to reside in Nepal. A further 11 'Doe' defendants are said to have created DISH accounts in order to capture and rebroadcast its programming.

    IPTVTV broadcaster DISH Network has filed more lawsuits against ‘pirate’ IPTV providers and resellers than any other company in the world. Depending on how the services operate, the company either brings cases under the Copyright Act or the Federal Communications Act (FCA).

    This week DISH won a $3.3 million default judgment against pirate IPTV reseller Boom Media and its operators John and Debra Henderson. The case was actioned under the FCA and before the judge’s ink was dry, DISH was in court again filing a similar lawsuit against Voodoo IPTV and its alleged operators.

    “The Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service is, and has been, retransmitting the DISH Programming without authorization from DISH. The DISH Programming was received from DISH’s satellite television service without authorization,” the complaint alleges.

    Unlike many other cases filed by DISH, the defendants in this matter aren’t based in the United States. Cren Motasaki, Atta Ur Rauf, Rafayet Alam and Pepin Woolcock are all said to be based in Ontario, Canada. A fifth defendant, Sajan Kyubi Shrestha, is reportedly a resident of Nepal while the locations of 11 ‘Doe’ defendants are yet to be determined.

    Filed in a Texas court this week, the complaint alleges that Motasaki is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of Voodoo IPTV and has overall decision-making power. He is said to have a history of involvement with piracy-related activities and was identified as a member of the WorldofIPTV.com forum having made posts in an Xtream Codes-related thread.

    Alam (aka Rafa Abdul) is reportedly in charge of sales at Voodoo, with DISH claiming that he operated CDN.tm which hosted VOD content for the JadooTV service, including DISH programming.

    Woolcock, a programmer and developer for Voodoo, reportedly controls another domain offering IPTV services while Shrestha, who has the same role at Voodoo, is said to run four piracy-related repos on Github including Stalker, Xtream-Codes-2.2.0-Nulled, and eurekatv.

    Rauf is said to be the person who manages sales and finance at Voodoo while several others are accused of being the sources for some of its content.

    “Defendants Does 1-11 are one or more persons responsible for eleven DISH subscription accounts that were created with false information and used to receive DISH’s channels for retransmission on the Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service without authorization. An Internet Protocol (‘IP’) address located in Toronto, Canada was used to access at least seven of these eleven DISH subscription accounts,” the complaint reads.

    DISH says that all defendants act in concert to steal its programming and as a result requests relief that holds them jointly and severally liable. The company says that the court has jurisdiction over the defendants because they have purposefully directed their conduct towards the United States while causing injury there.

    “Upon information and belief, Defendants sold subscriptions to approximately 50,000 users of the Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service, many of whom are located in the United States,” DISH notes.

    The complaint alleges that ‘device codes’ (aka IPTV subscriptions) were sold on various websites including IPTVVoodoo.com, VoodooTV.in, and BuyIPTVOnline.net. At the time of writing only the latter is still available, offering monthly subscriptions at US$15 or CAD$20 up to US$75 or CAD$100 for six months.

    Voodoo IPTV subscription
    As the image above shows, processors including PayPal are used to buy and sell the Voodoo service and DISH indicates it has identified at least three connected email accounts that were also used to pay for computer servers running the Voodoo platform.

    “Defendants’ sale and distribution of Android TV Boxes and Device Codes [subscriptions] for accessing the Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service assists end users to receive the DISH Programming or the content therein, without having authorization from DISH and for the benefit of the Voodoo IPTV end users, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a),” the complaint notes, adding:

    “Defendants sell and distribute Android TV Boxes and Device Codes used for accessing the Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). The Android TV Boxes and Device Codes are knowingly provided by Defendants for purposes of enabling customers access to the servers that are used to stream the television programming on the Voodoo IPTV pirate streaming service, including the DISH Programming.”

    In addition to a permanent injunction, DISH predictably requests a damages award to compensate for the activities of Voodoo in the United States.

    Statutory damages of between $1,000 and $10,000 are available for each violation of Section 605(a) and up to $100,000 if the violation was committed willfully and for financial gain.

    Section 605(e)(4) allows for statutory damages up to $100,000 for each violation which at least on paper has the potential to push any damages award into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to fat-cat For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,875
    Satfix Buxs
    1,549,553
    Thanks
    5,782
    Thanked 9,973x in 3,570 Posts
    Items Crown Royal
Gift received at 11-09-2019, 09:07 PM from Putski
Message: Have a couple drinks on me..Sword

    Default

    They should avoid any trips to the states when the borders open...lol

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nobodyspecial For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Int'l Space Station
    Posts
    1,145
    Satfix Buxs
    6,979
    Thanks
    1,859
    Thanked 692x in 412 Posts
    Items Vintage truck
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlTractor
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlTree
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlMonitor
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlCheetos
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlhelicopter
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlCamaro
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirlCrown Royal
Gift received at 03-13-2020, 01:26 AM from orchidgirl

    Default

    Whoa! Even Nepal? High up on Everest
    Peace & Love

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Maestro701 For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    So why did they not file in Canada ? The defendants are surely not going to respond not that they would if it was filed in Canada necessarily either.


    They will then have to get a US Judgment, come to Canada to apply to enforce it in Court here something there should succeed on but its extra steps. Maybe the Court is open in Texas versus not for filing an Action in Ontario ? or they think they will get a much bigger Judgment uncontested from the US Court than Canada ? US Judgment versus Canadian, that alone is worth considerable more.


    The Canadian and or Nepal defendant could raise a jurisdiction issue claiming Dish does not have jurisdiction over them. Usually these guys don't bother to respond. Is Voodoo still operating ? Guess so. If Dish gets aggressive and pushes this to a conclusion their assets are fragile if they have any.




    GS2

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    88
    Satfix Buxs
    965
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 76x in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobodyspecial View Post
    They should avoid any trips to the states when the borders open...lol
    Doesn't matter. They are doing "business" in the US and thus have "substantial contacts" with the jurisdiction that allow a US court to proceed against them.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to MarvinGardens For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    88
    Satfix Buxs
    965
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 76x in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    So why did they not file in Canada ?
    GS2
    It's almost always better to file in a jurisdiction closest to the the Plaintiff.

    It's far less expensive and the court's are friendlier to one of their own.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to MarvinGardens For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarvinGardens View Post
    It's almost always better to file in a jurisdiction closest to the the Plaintiff.

    It's far less expensive and the court's are friendlier to one of their own.


    Dish has an extensive past record of filing in Canada with a success rate around 99%. As far as expensive depends on the law firm they engage but filing fees are probably about the same. These actions are rarely defended so it usually proceeds to default.


    But like I said with filing in the US they will then have to bring their Judgement to Canada and make an application to a Canadian Court to enforce their foreign Judgment. That is an extra expense and not a given but most likely successful. They must have some reason but they certainly have file a ton of cases in Canada against Canadian defendants. There might not be much Canadian IPTV cases adjudicated in Canada and they felt it was an easier route even with that extra legal step.





    GS2

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    So why did they not file in Canada ? The defendants are surely not going to respond not that they would if it was filed in Canada necessarily either.


    They will then have to get a US Judgment, come to Canada to apply to enforce it in Court here something there should succeed on but its extra steps. Maybe the Court is open in Texas versus not for filing an Action in Ontario ? or they think they will get a much bigger Judgment uncontested from the US Court than Canada ? US Judgment versus Canadian, that alone is worth considerable more.


    The Canadian and or Nepal defendant could raise a jurisdiction issue claiming Dish does not have jurisdiction over them. Usually these guys don't bother to respond. Is Voodoo still operating ? Guess so. If Dish gets aggressive and pushes this to a conclusion their assets are fragile if they have any.




    GS2



    In their filings the Canadian defendants claim the intend on doing that.



    Defendants,2 who are Canadian residents and citizens,
    intend to file a Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2),

    DISH alleged
    personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2), however, Defendants threaten to file a
    Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.


    I have not seen or don't recall one Canadian defendant successful with that. I do recall once but later reverse on appeal. Plaintiffs are going after PayPal records. They likely will succeed maybe not in everything they ask but a good portion. I say that just based on previous decisions.




    GS2

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,088
    Satfix Buxs
    1,210,388
    Thanks
    1,217
    Thanked 2,354x in 853 Posts
    Items boat
Gift received at 03-01-2020, 07:05 PM from orchidgirl
Message: Well you need one!!Tree
Gift received at 01-25-2020, 09:26 PM from orchidgirlhelicopter
Gift received at 01-25-2020, 09:26 PM from orchidgirlVintage truck
Gift received at 01-25-2020, 08:02 PM from orchidgirlDish
Gift received at 01-20-2020, 05:08 AM from orchidgirl
Message: Forgot a couple lol...DeeSome beer
Gift received at 01-20-2020, 05:08 AM from orchidgirlPinkfloyd
Gift received at 01-17-2020, 06:23 PM from orchidgirlBurger
Gift received at 01-08-2020, 02:11 AM from orchidgirl
Message: Just because

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsmoke2 - GS2 View Post
    In their filings the Canadian defendants claim the intend on doing that.







    I have not seen or don't recall one Canadian defendant successful with that. I do recall once but later reverse on appeal. Plaintiffs are going after PayPal records. They likely will succeed maybe not in everything they ask but a good portion. I say that just based on previous decisions.





    GS2
    Not sure how paypal evidence could stand up in court bring a cracker with you no not a white guy
    a hacker/cracker they will show the judge how easy it is to crack paypal i was on a site where someone posted
    a 1000 legit paypal accounts thats an everyday occurrence.
    Expert configmaker loli lolix open bullet ini files sentry mba ini files black bullet
    api hitman .txt config multi tool mac grabber
    Expert combo list maker emailassword userassword user:user
    Expert sqli dumper

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Highwayman For This Useful Post:


  19. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    There never has been a problem in Court with records supplied by PayPal. I hardly doubt someone would bring in a hacker to try to discredit records supplied by PayPal. If anyone ever did that, a hacker would have show evidence that the records entered in Court was obtained by hacking and were altered. No Judge in my opinion would ever accept how easy it is to hack, only evidence that the records were not legit.


    However perhaps your comment was made and to to be taken in a joking way.



    GS2

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  21. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    This case ended March 9th with the defendants except one of them, who I guess they never found being from Nepal, all agreed to a Permanent Injunction. However, one of them, the main defendant, Cren Motasaki, mysteriously was not named in the first & only amended complaint filed 5 months later. Thus its my speculation he is suspect as to what he may be up to. His name does not seem to appear anywhere after the initial filing of the first complaint yet below he was described in the complaint & the article as over seeing the day to day operations, having the decision -making power which is key plus living in the US. Below I included how they described him in the initial complaint, yet you will notice he was not included as a defendant in the amended complaint. I have attached both complaints.



    First initial lawsuit 34.
    05/15/2020 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0541-24667380) filed by NagraStar LLC, DISH Network L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ferguson, Stephen) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

    Cren Motasaki has a history of engaging in piracy-related activities that impact Plaintiffs. Motasaki is a member of Worldofiptv.com and has made posts in the Xtream codes auto installer thread. Motasaki used the email address [email protected] to make and receive payments for piracy-related devices. Motasaki used the email address [email protected] to purchase streams of television programming


    From the article
    Filed in a Texas court this week, the complaint alleges that Motasaki is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of Voodoo IPTV and has overall decision-making power. He is said to have a history of involvement with piracy-related activities and was identified as a member of the WorldofIPTV.com forum having made posts in an Xtream Codes-related thread.

    10/02/2020 40 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rafa Abdul, Does 1-11, Atta Ur Rauf, Sajan Kyubi Shrestha, Pepin Woolcock filed by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC.(Ferguson, Stephen) (Entered: 10/02/2020)



    03/01/2021 47 NOTICE of Dismissal as to Does 1-11, Sajan Kyubi Shrestha by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC, filed. (Hagan, Chad) (Entered: 03/01/2021)

    03/02/2021 48 ORDER granting 47 Notice of Dismissal as to Does 1-11 and Sajan Kyubi Shrestha. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(gclair, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2021)

    03/03/2021 49 Agreed MOTION for Permanent Injunction by DISH Network L.L.C., NagraStar LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/24/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order - Agreed Permanent Injunction Against Defendants Rafa Abdul, Atta Ur Rauf and Pepin Woolcock)(Hagan, Chad) (Entered: 03/03/2021)

    03/09/2021 50 AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS RAFA ABDUL, ATTAUR RAUF & PEPIN WOOLCOCK (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 03/09/2021)




    GS2
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Gunsmoke2 - GS2; 03-24-2021 at 05:06 AM.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gunsmoke2 - GS2 For This Useful Post:


  23. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    982
    Satfix Buxs
    1,199,135
    Thanks
    14,665
    Thanked 3,835x in 904 Posts
    Items Soccer
Gift received at 12-23-2019, 05:52 PM from orchidgirlYacht
Gift received at 12-23-2019, 05:52 PM from orchidgirl
Message: lolhelicopter
Gift received at 12-23-2019, 05:52 PM from orchidgirlthe travel gnome
Gift received at 12-23-2019, 05:52 PM from orchidgirlCamaro
Gift received at 12-23-2019, 05:52 PM from orchidgirlFootball
Gift received at 10-22-2019, 12:15 AM from orchidgirl
Message: Here you go!!Paris
Gift received at 10-22-2019, 12:15 AM from orchidgirl

    Default

    companies like dish do court shopping so when they file they already have the judge in the hip pocket, they are suppose to file in court where their main business is, florida use to be their favorite spot

  24. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    617
    Satfix Buxs
    10,094
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked 532x in 257 Posts

    Default

    I get it DN is the enemy but I hardly doubt they have the judge in their pocket nor know what judge it will be assigned to the case in advance.

    What do they have is money for high quality lawfirms in every State, a strong case, usually with credible evidence, and Defendants with weak to little defense with lack of funding to mount a legal challenge. It is a Goliath v David situation.

    They do not need to file in the city where their main business is, besides they conduct business in every State. They correctly file where the Defendants are located. Imagine if they filed in Denver and the Defendants were in NYC. Those Defendants would complain about extra costs to defend especially if they were defending themselves without a lawyer.

    The above is not popular but I don't write to be. I write to try to give what I believe is more accurate as people should be better informed if they are going to put themselves at legal risk.



    A plaintiff generally can sue in any judicial district in which the defendant resides or does business, or in any district in which the events that led to the lawsuit occurred.



    GS2
    Last edited by Gunsmoke2 - GS2; 03-26-2021 at 12:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •