Dish Network End-user Demand Letters
(Dark Angel Lawsuit)
Dark Angel Lawsuit information:
Dish Network v. Justin Tabish/Dark Angel Defendants
Supreme Court of British Columbia
The herein information is provided by A_Z_A, originally posted elsewhere by me on September 4, 2010.
Dish Network LLL, EchoStar Technologies LLC and NagraStar LLC
Justin Tabish, Justin Tabish d.b.a. www. dark-angel. ca, John Doe, Jane Doe and other persons unknown who have conspired with the named Defendants
NOTICE OF CLAIM
The defendant Justin Tabish is an individual residing at **** T****** Avenue, Sechelt, British Columbia. At all times, Tabish carried on business in his own right and/or as one or more of the following:
( a ) www .dark-angel. ca; and
( b ) www .darkangel. com.pa
(collectively, the "Websites").
Tabish is the owner, operator, and directing mind of the Websites and was actively involved in and/or had personal knowledge of their unlawful activities, as described herein, and as such is personally liable for their acts and omissions.
For covenience, Tabish and the Websites are referred to collectively as the "Dark Angel Defendants".
The Dark Angel Defendants' primary business is to sell, distribute, provide, traffic in and offer for sale, or participate in the sale, distribution, provision, trafficking in and offering of illegal subscription services to DISH Network Programming.
The Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe and other persons unknown (collectively, the "Co-Conspirators") are persons, the identity of whom is unknown to the Plaintiffs but known to the Dark Angel Defendants, who have aided or abetted the Dark Angel Defendants in carrying out their business undertaking and/or unlawfully received or decoded DISH Network Programming obtained through the Dark Angel Defendants, and who have otherwise conspired with the Dark Angel Defendants as set out herein.
SUMMARY OF THE DARK ANGEL DEFENDANTS & CO-CONSPIRATORS' ILLEGAL CONDUCT
The Dark Angel Defendants and the Co-Conspirators
( a ) sold, distributed, provided, trafficked in, marketed, and offered for sale "private blocker software", which previously enabled end-users to steal DISH Networking Programming;
( b ) established and operated, or assisted in establishing and operating, the IKS servers available via the Websites (the "Dark Angel IKS Servers"), which distribute Control Words to enable end-users to steal DISH Network Programming;
( c ) sold and offered for sale through the Websites subscriptions to the Dark Angel IKS Servers, with a variety of DISH Network Programming packages;
( d ) designed, developed, manufactured, sold, or participated in the design, development, manufacture and sale of "iCEBOX" piracy devices, that are intended to and may be used to obtain access to Control Words through the Dark Angel IKS Servers to enable end-users to steal DISH Network Programming using DISH Network receivers modified for piracy purposes;
( e ) created and distributed piracy software and satellite hardware modified for piracy purposes, including by developing IKS Server hardware, that includes an internal computer and multiple Access Card readers, thereby creating a self-contained IKS Server configuration with all required components built into one "box";
( f ) operated the Websites to disseminate software, information, and instructions to facilitate the theft of DISH Network Programming'
( g ) made available for download from the Websites piracy software files and how-to guides for piracy;
( h ) solicited others to provide "TSOP" images of DISH Network receivers and to activate subscriptions to support the operation of the Dark Angel IKS Servers, thereby inducing them to breach their Residential Customer Agreements with DISH Network; and
( i ) assisted, aided, and abetted other persons in carrying out piracy activities to steal DISH Network Programming. (Document 1: S-105265-Notice of Civil Claim-07232010)
Chicken scratch,they need to look within their own people before being a pond leach.
Okay this is my ideas..... wait until Google bust out with some Boob tube,,, they gots all da mula.... no Let me ref-raze this,,NO FOKIN ONE fools with Google unless they allow it,, they are the shelf ahead!
Copy that NASA?Beep....
I don't know about this court document....
But just so you know:
British Columbia Supreme Court
There is NO case related to the post... IT IS FAKEDPHP Code:
In fact, guys, do a search by yourselves and look for “DIXX XXXXXRK” and the only case (and just one, at least in my search) is:
and as you can see... the wording on this post is WAY different to the real case I mentionPHP Code:
I bet it's faked.
Last edited by bigkbox; 01-12-2011 at 05:02 PM.
On another site , a member has posted the demand letter (dated 12/10) he has gotten from DN regarding his use of the Dark Angel IKS service.
They have his CC receipts and email confirmations of his payment and codes that were sent to him.
The demand letter is for the usual $3500. amount.
He is currently weighing his options but in my opinion the paper trail is just to much for him to beat this one.
We'll see where it goes.
Piratecardblues is a very interesting site to see.Some might want to check it out.
Problem with Dish Network (Echostar)? You’re in the right place.
Page last revised 03/03/1 For cable piracy issues, go to /www.pirateboxblues.com/
For RIAA or MPAA lawsuits, go to.piratecopyblues.com/
If your problem involves the “UNAUTHORIZED EXHIBITION” of a sporting or other event, click here.
From the Law Office of Gary Ruff:
Have you received a satellite TV company letter claiming you have purchased an “Illegal Satellite Signal Theft Device and/or other correspondence under the caption of “Satellite Signal Theft” or “Modified Receiver”? Or, are you being sued? If so, this site is presented for your information.
One preliminary note: As xxxectv (xxxect TV) has been at the forefront of civil litigation in this area, all of the cases herein involve them. You should understand however, that the author offers defense representation against all satellite providers; including of course, Dish Network (Echostar).
As to Echostar (Dish Network), their anti-signal theft initiatives had, until recently, primarily taken two forms: prosecution of both sellers and resellers of devices and prosecution of end users who have submitted or returned unlawfully modified receivers to Echostar. Recently, however, they are doing electronic monitoring in order to detect unlawful IKS server activity.
This page is divided into two sections:
“Important News” and “General Information”
Important News – From the Law Office of Gary Ruff - all the news your editor considers to be important.
Aug 9, 2005- DTV wins appeal, establishing DTV’s right to claim enhanced damages against end user for assembly or modification of device(s). See Directv v. Robson
June 14, 2005- DTV loses end user case. See Directv v. Deskin
May 16, 2005- DTV wins appeal re: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 claim. 4th Circuit reverses lower court’s dismissal. See Directv v. Nicholas
Oct 23, 2004- DTV appeals summary dismissal of end user case. See Directv v. Minor
June 15, 2004- 11th Circuit dismisses DTV’s 18 U.S.C. § 2512 claim. This is a significant, but very limited, appellate decision against Direct TV. The Court decided that DTV has no civil right of action against those who simply possess pirate devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512. See Directv v. Mike Treworgy [It is important to note that this decision has no effect upon DTV’s right to prosecute civil claims against those who unlawfully intercept their signal or traffic in devices.]
June 3, 2004- Judge has discretion in awarding damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520. See Directv Inc. v. Michael Brown. [It should be noted this is an 11th Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) case. This issue remains unresolved in both the 2nd and 3rd Circuits (New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Virgin Islands. That is: some judges make awards pursuant to the section (perhaps because they believe it mandatory); some do not.
Mar 3, 2004- Beware of high statutory damage claim DTV (and Echostar) has recently made pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). Echostar (and occasionally Directv) now take the position that a modification of the “access card” is a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4). If you study 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) you will see that the minimum statutory damages for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) is $10,000.00, while minimum statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) is $1,000.00. Although I believe this claim can be successfully defended on the merits, you must now be extremely careful not to permit a case against you to go into default. That is: if a Complaint against you contains this claim, you absolutely must Answer and defend.
Feb 25, 2004- Well respected jurist dismisses Directv’s “2512” claim in Northern District of California- Download a copy
Jan 23, 2004- DTV win in South Carolina. After deliberating for only two hours jury finds that three defendants unlawfully intercepted DTV’s signal. Download a copy of newspaper article
Dec 30, 2003 District of Minnesota brings scholarly and succinct clarity to the perplexing issue of whether or not DTV has a right of civil action for “the manufacture, distribution, possession of …intercepting…devices”: Download a copy of DTV v. Bertram .
Oct 9, 2003 An observation on the “class action” against DTV: Briefly put, the civil RICO class action against Direct TV alleges that the “Demand Letter” campaign, based upon insufficient and uncorroborated evidence, is tantamount to organized extortion, forcing people to pay enormous penalties that are unrelated to Directv’s actual damages. (You can download a copy of the Complaint , as filed in the Central District of California.) Apparently, all of this has not been lost on DTV. I note that memberships of record at pirate websites (DTV has seized records from several former sites) are occasionally being set forth to corroborate their allegations as to “device” purchases- and they appear to be consistent in following up the demand letters with lawsuits (even when marginal cases are involved). Accordingly, your editor is compelled to the conclusion that Direct TV has taken a decision that the best defense is a good offense (which in this case it probably is). Certainly, the issuance of threatening “Demand Letters” without a demonstration of DTV’s willingness to follow-up and prove their position in court would make their legal defense of the civil RICO class action considerably more difficult.
Sept 4, 2003 Defendant’s motion to dismiss DTV’s complaint for “failure to state a claim” is denied. DTV is to have the opportunity to prove its case. Download DTV v. Cardona.
July 31, 2003: DTV re-dux. Judge in Karpinsky case (immediately below) reinstates dismissed DTV case. Based upon evidence introduced by DTV that another Karpinsky with the same address purchased a DTV compatible system from Radio Shack, the judge reconsidered and vacated the dismissal; thereby reinstating Direct TV’s case against Karpinsky. Download DTV v. Karpinsky II (sic)
July 16, 2003: DTV revisits the “Big Apple”; this time winning an award of $5,500 for damages and attorney fees for a one “device” case (if indeed this was a “device”). Download DTV v. Hamilton II (sic)
June 17, 2003: Judge summarily dismisses DTV case against non-subscriber who purchased two (2) “Smartcard Recovery Systems”. Download DTV v. Karpinsky
June 11, 2003: Settlement alert- use extreme caution. Direct TV has made recent and major changes in the terms of their proposed SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (which issues from their office in El Segundo, California). It is clear to me that these changes have three goals: to effectively eliminate any class action claim the end user may have; to change the location for any future judicial proceeding against you from the state where you reside to California (a major logistical advantage to DTV); and they have modified their terms to make it much easier to recommence prosecution of you (even if the settlement sum has been paid in full). The current boilerplate of the agreement expresses important points in inscrutable legalese. Considerable legal training is required to fully understand it.
June 6, 2003: Closed end-user cases in Middle District of Florida, including default judgment for Directv for $30,825.00 (inclusive of attorney fees) for a three “device” case. Download decision , which demonstrate how easily (and without a hearing) a plaintiff can secure a default judgment against you; even if the default judgment is inconsistent with the law- which this one is.
May 07, 2003: Published end-user case- DTV debut in the “Big Apple”. Download DTV v. Hamilton
April 1, 2003: DTV prevails in class action lawsuit: class action suit against DTV’s “end user” letter campaign is dismissed pursuant to Motion to Dismiss made pursuant to California “Anti-SLAPP Law” (“SLAP” is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in California Superior Court. Download decision
You should know that a successful lawsuit against an individual for in home unauthorized decryption can potentially result in a judgment for $10,000.00 (and possibly very much more if the pleading requests damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II)) for each violation, plus mandatory attorney fees and full costs. Importantly, the relevant statutes set forth both civil and criminal penalties. As a lawyer with considerable experience in defending signal-theft cases, and with the understanding that I have oversimplified the issues a little bit, I offer you the following observations:
Two preliminary notes:
The referenced U.S.C. sections herein demand careful reading: among other things, they are a composite of both criminal and civil violations and actual and statutory damages. Fortunately, the LII (legal information institute) sets forth the statutes in an indented fashion that is inclined to make the task of reading easier (at least visually). Your editor expresses his gratitude to them for their public service in permitting “links”.
The remarks on this page are addressed only to satellite signal theft cases.
In essence, either Directv’s or Echostar’s lawsuit is saying this: You acquired and used pirate devices to engage in unauthorized reception of our encrypted signals; it’s illegal; we suffered economic injury; we want damages, and we want a court to tell you to stop it.
Signal theft from Directv (and varying with the means deployed, Dish Network) is about the “access card” or “CAM”, which is a programmable computer chip imbedded in a card (generally referred to as a “smart-card”). Satellite service providers change or modify their data streams (and their corresponding “access cards”) with some regularity. For example: to date, DTV has deployed five different generations (designated by DTV as “periods”) of “access cards” and corollary data-streams. At present, DTV has taken down its “Period 3” (“Hu Card”) data stream, leaving its “Period 4” stream (and a later “Period 5” version), which as of the date of this revision (08/01/07) continues to be a significant challenge to the hacking community. Data-stream switchovers are an initiative that is calculated to defeat piracy.
Although it should be regarded as outdated as to the specific technology deployed, the following still remains of value as an aid to understanding the law. Accordingly, your editor has both indented it and set it forth in smaller font:
I believe it improves understanding to divide unauthorized initiatives into two classes: “primary initiatives” and “secondary” or “supportive” initiatives. I consider the following to be “primary initiatives”:
The use of access cards that have been programmed (without authorization) to decrypt encrypted signals. This programming had been done professionally or by the end-user through the use of various devices such as: “loader” or “programmer” (“reader-writer”).
Substitutes for the “access card” such as:
“Emulation”, which requires the use of three devices (“emulator board”, card-reader, and computer with two serial ports) to “emulate” what the access card's microchip does. Or, in the Echostar venue, devices that simulate the access card, such as the “Atmega”
In order to understand a “supportive initiative”, you need first to know that signal providers use electronic initiatives known as ECM’s (Electronic Countermeasures) to disable unauthorized cards and software. A “supportive” initiative is an effort to rehabilitate an access card that has succumbed to an ECM. This is the application for devices such as the “unlooper” and “boot-loader”. As some “unloopers” can be utilized to read/write “access cards”, they can also be utilized for the card-reading function of the emulation process.
In any event, I make the distinction between “primary” and “secondary” initiatives for the following reason: As to damages, “duration” of illegal activity (the length of time for which unauthorized reception continued) is a major issue. If the court determines that unauthorized reception took place, it will then greet the issue of damages (what this is going to cost you). The delivery of a “primary initiative” device will frequently (but not necessarily) mark when the unlawful activity commenced (which means that it tends to limit “duration”). On the other hand a court determination of unauthorized reception involving a “secondary initiative” device (implying an effort to rehabilitate a debilitated device) carries with it an inference of unlawful reception that occurred before the “secondary initiative” device arrived, therefore making the commencement of the “duration” period open ended.
Title 47 U.S.C should not be confused with Title 18 U.S.C. They are separate titles; each with it’s own set of civil and criminal penalties; and importantly, each with a differing Statute of Limitations period and differing means for calculating the accrual thereof.
The 18 U.S.C. sections referred to in the correspondence from Directv are within sections commonly referred to as the “Wiretap Act” (including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 2512; 18 U.S.C. § 2520) The “Wiretap Act” is a lengthy piece of legislation which provides both criminal and civil penalties for surreptitious interception of certain communications, including satellite communications, and for the distribution or possession of associated equipment or devices.
The idea that Direct TV has no right of civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (“the manufacture, distribution, possession of …intercepting…devices”) is winning wide, but not universal acceptance*. See Directv v. Mike Treworgy . However, the viability of Direct TV’s right of civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (unauthorized interception or use of the signal) is not disputed. Very importantly: even if unauthorized reception can be proved, there is not necessarily identity between the number of “pirate access devices” in issue and the “device” count which may be a determining factor in (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)) civil damages.
*The variations in case law and differences in the interpretation of federal statutes can be credited to the organization of the federal court system into three levels: Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and District Courts; a Circuit Court having appellate jurisdiction only over the District Courts within the Circuit. By way of relevant example, take the Bertram case: Bertram was decided in the District of Minnesota, which is in the Eighth Circuit. If DTV elects to appeal the decision, the appeal will be heard by the Eighth Circuit. If the Eighth Circuit affirms, the precedent will be binding on all District Courts within the Eighth Circuit, but not the other Circuits. Only the Supreme Court can bring uniformity to all of the various Circuits- and very few cases are accepted for review by the Supreme Court.
47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) provides statutory damages of $10,000.00 to $100,000.00 per violation (per device) for manufacture, modification or distribution of devices. Please mark it well that in the “Title 47” venue, “distribution” damages are available without the need to prove unauthorized reception of the signal. Moreover, the statutory test for distribution is disassociated from the making of a profit. Here follows the actual excerpt from the statute:
Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) [editors note: together with a right of civil action for the damages referenced above]
Although they are latecomers to civil litigation against end users, Echostar (Dish Network) typically does not claim pursuant to Title 18; their end-user claims generally are made pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act §§ 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1)
A decision as to whether to seek an immediate discontinuance based upon error or insufficient evidence; await a lawsuit; settle; or having been sued, to litigate or settle, is driven by three basic considerations:
An understanding of your legal position, which requires a competent professional evaluation of the factual circumstances associated with your individual situation;
if a decision to settle is taken, in return for the settlement sum you will receive a “release”- the importance of the terms of which cannot be over emphasized;
the settlement sum, which is negotiable- if in fact settlement is recommended.
In any event, this is what I do. If you elect to become a client it will be my pleasure to both advise and represent you in accordance with the terms of my Retainer Agreement. This Agreement can be downloaded below.
[As end-user cable cases and end-user satellite lawsuits are close cousins (although there are significant distinctions which, generally speaking, make a satellite case more complicated than a cable case) you may find the information available at our sister site .pirateboxblues.com/ to be instructive.]
The Law Office of Gary Ruff presents the preceding as a public service. Gary is experienced in defending against cable and satellite TV company claims for signal theft, including unauthorized decryption and illegal or unauthorized possession of decoding equipment. His experience and familiarity with the subject, together with “economies of scale”* permit him to provide these services for very reasonable fees.
If you are anywhere in the U.S.A, contact Gary Ruff. He knows what to do.
* For example: the vast majority of necessary court papers, discovery demands, and motions used in defending these claims are already in our computers. When that is the case, we don’t have to charge you to research and write a new document; instead, we charge you considerably less to edit and submit the one in our files.
[good read] cheers
Last edited by kya100; 01-13-2011 at 04:02 PM. Reason: edit
Excellent information in the lawyers post but it is comparing apples to oranges. The post refers to use of modified boxes. The letter sent out refers to those that bought service through Dark Angel's PS. Not sure if that lawyer can help anyone in that position.
To become a VIP Member the cost is $6.00 for 3 month. Please Help to support the Site
Please do not PM (private message)me or any of the support staff with hardware or setup Problems. We will not answer them.
Please post these in the forums. This way the information is shared by all and help can come from many. We support each other.
"modified boxes" also covers some fta boxes that can be used with DA or iks or such not just a "card' implemented box that's why lawyers get the big bucks but also that's why provider's get their's, but good to know somebody is tryin to keep up with the prov.s [cheers]
Last edited by kya100; 01-14-2011 at 08:01 PM. Reason: edit
Thas right,"modified boxes" includes even fta stb's with third party software,doesn't have to be hardware modification or even dongle added.
never heard of Piratecardblues but like the mainstream iks private is poppin up every where [jmo but be careful what you check into] if other mem'shave info on this would be great to hear [cheers] for the up