Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

IPTV Lawsuit With 19TB of Data & ONE TON of Print Discovery Heads For Trial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy Maxwell
  • Start date Start date
A

Andy Maxwell

usdoj.jpg
Almost half a decade ago, eight Las Vegas men were indicted by a grand jury for conspiring to violate criminal copyright law.

The U.S. government labeled Jetflicks and iStreamitAll as two of the largest pirate streaming platforms in the United States.

Disguised as an aviation service, Jetflicks allegedly offered a library of 183,285 pirated TV episodes. iStreamitAll allegedly made available more than 118,479 TV shows and 10,980 movies to its customers; at the time more content than Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime could muster.

Some Plead Guilty, Others Dig in​


Early on, Jetflicks programmer and iStreamitAll founder Darryl Julius Polo (aka djppimp) pled guilty to copyright infringement and money laundering; that earned him a 57-month sentence and a $1m forfeiture order.

Fellow Jetflicks programmer Luis Angel Villarino pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and was sentenced to one year and a day in prison.

The remainder, Kristopher Lee Dallmann, Douglas M. Courson, Felipe Garcia, Jared Edward Jaurequi, Peter H. Huber, and Yoany Vaillant Fajardo, dug in for the long haul. And what a haul that turned out to be.

COVID-19 Chaos​


Why this case has dragged on for so long isn’t easily explained. To say that personal issues played a role would be an understatement. COVID-19 played a role too, and also provided cover for numerous pre-trial release violations that led the government to conclude that at least one defendant, “may as well not be under any supervision at all.”

One defendant refused court-ordered drug tests, informing a pretrial services officer that nothing could be done to enforce compliance. Another found out that wasn’t actually the case and was detained at least twice for violations.

Then there were the allegations of illegal searches, effective denial of Miranda and Fifth Amendment rights, infliction of psychological stress due to the coercive tactics of the FBI, and motions to suppress evidence. Yet this barely scratches the surface when viewed from a whole case perspective.

Trial Scheduled for March 2024​


While it would be foolish to completely rule out the possibility of yet more drama unfolding between now and then, as things stand the case is scheduled for trial in Las Vegas starting March 4, 2024.

Due to the “nature of the case” and “the difficulties it presents” counsel for at least two defendants have filed motions seeking the appointment of co-counsel. An earlier filing on behalf of Dallmann provides context on the scale of what lies ahead.

“This case includes a voluminous amount of discovery and a lengthy docket sheet (i.e over 700 filings) in the Eastern District of Virginia. On April 15, 2022, the government provided defense counsel with approximately 423 gigabytes of data including at least 175,000 pages of print discovery (i.e. reports, photos, and spreadsheets),” it reads.

Heavyweight Discovery​


For theoretical scale, a single sheet of regular office paper weighs around 5 grams, so 175,000 sheets represents 1,929lb (875kg) of print discovery. Other material in the 423GB haul includes FD-302s (FBI interview report forms), investigation reports, bank records, imaging reports, merchant transactions, emails from six different full Google accounts, search warrants, subpoena materials, audio and video recordings, and web page images.

“Besides this data, the government provided another 18.68 terabytes of data including images of various electronics such as servers, phones, tablets, drives, and evidence obtained from Canada pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request,” the filing adds.

As previously reported, the U.S. requested access to this data in March 2018 under the US-Canada Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). The data was eventually handed over to the Department of Justice some 21 months later. It reportedly included reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, subscriber information documents, a list of tickets and messages pertaining to subscribers, plus five forensic images of servers located at OVH, a hosting provider in Canada.

Last September, Dallmann’s defense team reported that additional discovery-related requests were filed with the government in early 2023. A request made in February that year required the defense to supply their own hard drives in order to receive copies of the data.

“The government estimates it will take at least a couple of months to copy the data. The data requested contains 63.2 TB of storage.”

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
 
They are going to go after everyone eventually, not just anyone associated with an IPTV service, too much of a trail is being left behind compared to just downloading from a cloud service.
They won't go after subscribers, but that information will make it so much easier to prove damages and will be used to argue for stiffer convictions. Normally they use estimates to calculate "damages" for a case like this, but having hard numbers to introduce into evidence... these dudes are boned.

The first guy here is a great example: Almost five years in prison and a $1m forfeiture. That's a huge sentence compared to other busts and that's after he took a plea deal.
 
Oh yeah and they're doing it for more than just TV now too. The BBC's streaming service (iPlayer?) also falls in there. But it's kind of become a joke of an unenforceable law at this point. You read about people getting caught and fined for not paying the fee. But it's pretty hard to prove unless they catch you red handed and you aren't stupid about it.

"The TV is for the Xbox and I don't watch BBC online" and it's just kind of done.

I travel to the EU and UK regularly for conferences and work. So I know the situation all too well :P
 
Excuse me ... are you saying you have to have a license just to own and watch a TV in the UK ???? That is SO hosed.
 
@SL0TH
"Eventually" they will I stated, I don't think anyone can really predict the future on what they will do with user information.
I agree it will make it easier to convict the others when you have subscriber information but let's not forget in the UK they were going around to people homes and fining them for not having a license for TV. So, my point is, if they are going that far in some countries then never say never.
The tv licencing over here is a scam, just another tax. The only reason it started was because BBC was commercial free and needed to pay for their programmes somehow, then it spread covering all live tv to any programme watched on any station. Despite the other stations having commercials to support their programming. Some people have started to learn that the BBC TV licencing is wrong and shouldn't exist. I agree, even though I do not watch any live tv and I don't watch on demand. I have one tv in the home and that's supposed to be used for gaming, however, not much gaming gets done.

There is a massive witch hunt for IPTV pirates which does take a little worry off of other pirating stuff that is happening.

One defendant refused court-ordered drug tests
This I have an issue with....what the buggery has drug tests got to do with IPTV lol Makes no sense and seems pretty random in the grand scheme of things
 
Excuse me ... are you saying you have to have a license just to own and watch a TV in the UK ???? That is SO hosed.
Nope not own....you can own as many as you want but yes if you want to watch live or on demand you have to buy a licence
 
The tv licencing over here is a scam, just another tax.
I prefer the term "soft extortion" :P

Soft in that they won't do much if they catch you (it's just a fine) and extortion in that they'll still send Tony & The Gang out to "check-in on you" for not paying. So most people just pay, whether they have a TV or not, because they just don't want to be bothered.

Nope not own....you can own as many as you want but yes if you want to watch live or on demand you have to buy a licence
Yup, but like I said, most people willing to die on this hill just make sure to have a bluray player/game console/something plugged into each TV. It gives them very little room in terms of enforcement.

Honestly, they just need to get over it and do what the US has been doing with NPR, PBS, etc. Just give them some grants and be done with it, stop harassing every day people because the handful that genuinely don't own a TV don't think it's "fair".
 
Back
Top