‘Lifetime’ Pirate IPTV Boxes Available for Free on Amazon Cost Men $1.25 Million * TorrentFreak

People deciding to purchase a pirated IPTV device, perhaps even for the first time, have essentially three options.

The first method involves purchasing an “empty” Android device from a retailer, then entering a minefield that the retailer doesn’t understand, hoping to buy a pirated subscription without getting scammed.

The second, increasingly popular option is to purchase a device with a built-in subscription, from a friend, a friend of a friend, or from people willing to sell them through websites or openly on social media.

Shooting fish in a barrel

According to a lawsuit filed by DISH Network and Sling TV in May against California residents Marcelino Padilla and Danny Contreras, Facebook was the sales platform of choice. Platforms like Facebook are increasingly being used to sell pirated IPTV, which is convenient for both sellers and buyers. For DISH investigators, this could be seen as a positive.

The complaint accused Padilla and Conteras of violating the companies’ rights under the DMCA by “trading” in illegal streaming services that, at least in part, made available content illegally obtained from their legal streaming services.

The fact that these devices were being sold under Padilla’s real name, alongside photos of large boxes containing decoders ready for sale, seems unnecessarily risky in the current climate. But here we are.

Showing high sales reduces sales in the long run

Spending evenings delving into the intricacies of copyright law may not be for everyone, but Omi’s fate in the Hellcat is hardly inaccessible.

Growing interest in certain devices

Lawsuits like this are certainly nothing new. DISH and Sling have been filing similar complaints for several years, seeking damages under the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.

Recently, however, there has been an increase in lawsuits against people selling a specific type of decoder. Their features make them easy to sell and attractive to buyers.

In its complaint, DISH focuses on “services,” but in reality, those services are inextricably linked to the devices that customers physically purchase.

“Defendants sell the Services for a one-time fee of approximately $350.00. Padilla’s Facebook posts emphasize that after the first payment is made, there are ‘no monthly fees’ (unlike legitimate pay-TV services, such as those provided by Plaintiffs, which charge a monthly subscription fee),” DISH notes.

“Padilla’s ads emphasize steering users away from legitimate subscription-based television services such as those provided by Plaintiffs, stating, for example, “No Monthly Fees” and “Quit Cable TV Forever.”

One upfront fee, no monthly subscription

The brands of devices sold by the defendants – Tanggula, vSeeBox and SuperBox – have become increasingly well-known over the past few years. The Facebook groups through which they were offered – Vsee, Super Box, Superbox Support & Sales, Superbox Support and Tanggula TV Box – leave little to the imagination.

At $350 per unit, the price is certainly high compared to other similarly powered devices on the market. However, with these broadly similar set-top boxes, there is no requirement for a separate IPTV subscription that needs to be renewed every month.

Buyers simply need to follow a few basic instructions (the following are from the retailer’s ad) and their device will instantly activate and display almost all available content.

Activate Tanggula box before launching TangTV for the first time. Go to APP “TAStore” (Home -> APP -> TAStore), click “Activation”, then click “Tang TV” and “Tars TV” to download. You can download Tang TV directly from APP “TAStore” without downloading via links. Also after factory reset, they can also download Tang TV directly in “TAStore”

Devices with similar functionality, sold under different brand names, caused a public scandal in Taiwan in 2021. On Friday, a California court ruled that 500 set-top boxes sold by Padilla theoretically cost him damages of about 10 times their purchase price.

Final judgment and order

In a July 5, 2024 judgment, the court found defendants liable for violations of Section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA for trafficking in illegal streaming services available through the vSeeBox and Tanggula devices. Damages were assessed at $2,500 under Section 1203(c)(3)(A) for each of the 500 services/devices sold by Padilla.

While Danny Contreras was not awarded any damages, Padilla’s settlement came to a cool $1,250,000, at least on paper. The terms of the judgment and accompanying injunction were reached by agreement, and while the plaintiffs will have no qualms about inflicting significant pain, it’s possible that the information will play a role in keeping the amount of damages owed low.

Meanwhile, the terms of the injunction strongly suggest that those looking for a pre-loaded decoder in California will now have to look elsewhere. That gives you something to think about.

Next day delivery?

The devices Padilla sells aren’t particularly rare or anything special. The built-in subscription sets them apart from most devices on the market, which could be a big plus for some.

What may be more surprising is the fact that they can be easily purchased on Amazon in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and most European countries.

In light of Padilla’s $1.25 million bill, the sale of these devices on Amazon may seem a bit troubling; perhaps different rules apply to them than to everyone else.

In reality, different rules do apply and in this case, leaving aside technical-legal issues, it all comes down to intention.

While the devices are simply being sold on Amazon, it could be argued that they are not illegal until the user activates the subscription package. If we compare this to the sales in California, the same could be true; at least if everything were not undermined by the irrelevant issue of devices being deliberately and openly sold for infringing purposes.

Finally, the question of the subscription – is it really lifetime? It probably all depends on what “lifetime” means, and that part is rarely explained. In fact, a YouTuber recently revealed that he received similar devices in exchange for a review, but things didn’t go according to plan.

After encountering network activity that worried him, his opinion was not very flattering. As a thank you, the devices he received as gifts were remotely disabled. A disappointing result, but on the other hand, the network shenanigans stopped.