SportsBay Has Been Ordered to Pay $500,000 in Piracy Damages - Get Information from Trusted Internet Sources

The once-popular SportsBay streaming service has been sentenced to pay DISH Network close to $500 million in piracy damages.

The limits of material streaming and intellectual property have been regularly explored in the digital age, leading to numerous litigation across the globe.

In 2021, DISH Network, Sling TV, and the owners of four unauthorized sports streaming websites engaged in a highly publicized legal dispute. A settlement of this court issue awarded over $500,000,000 in damages recently.

Table of Contents

A brief history of the SportsBay case

DISH Network and Sling TV filed a copyright complaint in July 2021 against SportsBay.org, SportsBay.tv, Live-NBA.stream, and Freefeds.com’s unidentified owners.

The main complaint was that these websites had illegally violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by streaming DISH’s programming while getting through the company’s security measures.

The Complaints

The complaint alleges that these operators violated the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) and 1201(a)(2) by circumventing security measures and by providing technologies that made it possible to do so.

In addition to a permanent injunction, control over the defendants’ domain names, and severe penalties of up to $2,500 for each DMCA breach, DISH and Sling requested a number other remedies.

District Judge Charles Eskridge granted DISH permission to serve subpoenas on several third-party service providers by September 2021 in order to identify these anonymous operators.

All of the websites listed in the complaint disappeared after this change.

The defendants’ names

Two guys from Buenos Aires, Argentina were identified as the owners of the SportsBay websites by DISH’s subsequent investigations and information from the third-party service providers.

The PayPal accounts that Juan Barcan and Juan Nahuel Pereyra used to make payments for domain and hosting services allowed for their identification.

Then DISH sought outside aid to formally represent them under the Hague Convention.

Pereyra was the only one for whom the delivery was successful. While Barcan received service via a Gmail account linked to the disputed domain names.

Both guys remained silent, which prompted DISH to request a default judgment.

Mechanism of the Offense

The defendants’ approach was at the heart of DISH’s defense. On the SportsBay websites, the procedure started when a consumer clicked on a channel.

By doing this, Freefeds.com content would be embedded within the website, which would then establish a connection to Sling’s server and download encrypted programming.

Furthermore, in order to receive the decryption keys needed to enable viewing of the Sling material, the Freefeds.com iframe would connect to the Live-nba.stream server.

DISH emphasized that the Live-nba.stream website was used to decrypt the content each time a user accessed Sling programming through these URLs.

Over a period of six months, the site registered approximately 2.5 million visitors from the U.S., which translates into considerable potential damages when each of these occurrences is considered a DMCA violation.

The Finding

Based on the minimal statutory damages for each breach, DISH proposed damages totaling $493,850,000.

District Judge Charles Eskridge concurred and issued a significant ruling. He issued a lifetime injunction barring the defendants and anybody connected to them from getting over any security measures put in place by DISH or Sling.

More notably, he granted DISH the required $493,850,000 in damages for the serious DMCA infringement against the two named defendants.

Final Reflections

The implications of copyright infringement in the digital age are highlighted by this case. Content providers are attentive and ready to defend their intellectual property rights in light of the quick technological advancement.

The judgment highlights the serious financial and legal repercussions of such behavior, acting as a deterrent to potential infringers.

Consult the formal legal papers (PDF) and the analysis of TorrenFreak for more details.

DISH Network has previously targeted IPTV services, so this is not entirely unexpected.

DISH sues operators of Nitro TV

Primestreams IPTV is being sued by DISH

Kentucky Media Box Suing DISH

Options for Legal IPTV Streaming

Unverified IPTV services, apps, websites, or add-ons may not have the necessary licensing, according to IPTV Wire.

We quickly inform our users if and when an IPTV service is determined to be unlawful, and we update reports on our website like this one to reflect that information.

In conclusion, every content accessible through both free and paid IPTV services belongs to the end user.

For more information on the legality of IPTV and everything you need to know before streaming, see our comprehensive guide below.

IPTV: Is it legal? View This

Check out the following choices for IPTV providers that are 100% legitimate and legal:

fuboTV

One of the most well-liked paid legal IPTV services, particularly among sports fans who cut the cord, is fuboTV.

The best part is that new customers may sign up for a 7-Day Free Trial on fuboTV! This implies that you can try the service without hassle.

Three distinct options are available for this IPTV service, with the most popular one costing $69.99/month for more than 115 channels and DVR.

Review of fuboTV

Google Play Store: fuboTV

Philo

For people who like watching news and entertainment channels, Philo is a good choice. With this plan, you get unlimited DVR and more than 60 channels for $20 per month.

For new customers, Philo also provides a 7-Day Free Trial, just as fuboTV! When selecting an IPTV service, this is a requirement.

Google Play Store: Philo