TorrentFreak Tanggula ‘Free Forever’ IPTV Boxes Keep Costing Sellers Big Money

[[WOI] NewsBot]

According to a recent report, two-thirds of pirate IPTV users in France have been consuming this way less than three years, suggesting a flow of new recruits, some with help from friends, others venturing out alone.

Quality and fundamental security issues aside, a device with pirate IPTV potential could cost less than $30, followed quickly by the first dilemma. Spend $10/$15 for a one-month subscription or $50 for an entire year? On one hand, there’s so much money to save, yet on the other, potentially three times that amount in losses to a predatory scammer.

Hoping to remove most of the early guesswork are suppliers offering set-top boxes at a fixed price of $200+ but with no additional costs, at least in theory. ‘Free forever’ is the premise, despite buyers already paying over the odds for both the device and the subscription. Nevertheless, not all experiences are bad, hence the number of lawsuits quietly building up against vendors.

Target Tanggula​

Search for ‘Tanggula’ on YouTube or indeed most social media platforms and positive reviews are plentiful. Whether that’s due to an exceptional product or the outwards effects of a pervasive affiliate scheme, is for potential customers to decide.

In a new lawsuit filed by DISH Network and Sling TV, a California federal court will have to decide whether a Hong Kong-based company and its alleged owner violated the DMCA and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), when it supplied Tanggula TV boxes to 3,684 customers in the United States.

The defendants are Strongtimes International Limited (Strongtimes), a private company registered in Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, and Liu Zihong, the alleged founder, owner, and director of Strongtimes based in Shenzhen, China.

The complaint states that Strongtimes is subject to personal jurisdiction because it contracted with California corporation, WIN.IT America, Inc. The U.S. company reportedly provided inventory management and order fulfillment services related to sales of pirate boxes and subscriptions to customers in California and the wider United States.

The plaintiffs effectively refer to one device containing one subscription as “a service”. They claim that Strongtimes used WIN.IT to ship 3,684 services to addresses in the United States, of which 671 were shipped to addresses in California. In the alternative, Strongtimes is alleged to have sold 3,684 services to U.S. customers.

Records in China indicate that Strongtimes is a manufacturer of computer products and consumer electronics, and is involved in assembly of printed circuit boards.

Defendant Liu Zihong​

The plaintiffs state that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Zihong as a primary participant in his company’s alleged violations of the DMCA and ECPA.

“Zihong was personally notified of his violations of the DMCA and ECPA and asked to cease and desist from selling, operating, participating in, or supporting the Services, but the Services have continued to operate. Zihong financially benefitted from the violations as the sole founder, owner, and director of Strongtimes,” DISH and Sling TV inform the Court.

The plaintiffs stress that a U.S. federal court may be the only venue where they’re able to defend their rights under the DMCA and ECPA. As non-residents, the defendants can be sued in any district and defend with “minimal” burden, the complaint notes.

Rebroadcasting Scheme​

In common with many similar lawsuits, the complaint states that DISH/Sling content is protected by DRM and the defendants traffic in “services” fueled by that content, accessible to customers via Tanggula set-top boxes.

The Widevine DRM and the protection it affords is circumvented using a specially developed computer program that emulates the behavior of a reverse engineered hardware device.

The computer program tricks Sling’s Widevine DRM server to grant access and provide a channel decryption key by making the server believe the request originated from a legitimate Widevine supported device that would keep the channel decryption key secured (though in reality the request came from the computer program mimicking the reverse engineered hardware).

The complaint notes that the defendants were notified of their violations of the DMCA and ECPA and asked to cease and desist. The services continued to operate.

Claims for Relief​

Count I: Violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2)

The plaintiffs state that Strongtimes violates section 1201(a)(2) by manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in the “services”. Each sale of the “services” constitutes a separate violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), for which Zihong is personally liable.

Carried out without authorization, the violations were willful, the plaintiffs add.

Count II: Violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1)

The plaintiffs claim that Strongtimes violates 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) by manufacturing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in the “services”. Each sale of the “services” constitutes a separate violation of 17 U.S.C. S 1201(b)(1). Due to the control exercised over the company, financial benefit derived, and failure to cease and desist, Zihong is personally liable for willful infringement.

Count III: Violations of the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c),(d), and 2520

Under §§ 2511(1)(c), anyone who intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, the contents of any electronic communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception, commits an offense.

Anyone who intentionally uses content knowing the information was obtained through interception, commits an offense under §§ 2511(1)(d).

The plaintiffs seek actual damages and defendants’ profits, or statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation (whichever is greater) for Counts I and II. For Count III, they request statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.

As part of a broad injunction, the plaintiffs aim to take control of the defendants’ domain names.

Since late 2023, DISH and Sling lawsuits have targeted U.S.-based sellers of Tanggula devices with the following outcomes:

DISH v. Marcelino Padilla (8:24-cv-01028) – $1.25m agreed judgment (pdf)
DISH v. Valenzuela (4:24-cv-00288) – $405,000 agreed judgment (pdf)
DISH v. Sentry, Inc. (9:23-cv-05074) – Confidential Settlement

Finally, another device sold with the same or similar “lifetime” subscription is featured in the video below. In the current climate, it makes for compelling viewing.


The complaint targeting Strongtimes and Liu Zihong is available here (pdf)

For those likely to have noticed that the defendant’s personal details in the new complaint appear to coincide with those of one or more well-known businessmen, the complaint does not address these apparent coincidences.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Continue reading...