Sky’s investigation into the activities of David Dunbar reportedly began in Ireland during November 2024. Investigators had become aware of a social media account selling so-called ‘dodgy boxes’ and with assistance from an anonymous tip provided by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, Sky was able to connect the dots.
Papers filed at the High Court describe Dunbar as operating under the brand ‘IPTV is Easy.’ As a reseller, Dunbar “sells IPTV subscriptions to his customers, and to sub-sellers who sell subscriptions on his behalf, for a cut of the profit,” a Sky investigator explained.
Sky Obtains Orders to Secure Evidence and Restrain Assets
After obtaining relatively rare yet powerful orders from the Court on May 16, Sky aimed to take Dunbar by surprise, search his home, and shut his operation down. When Sky’s legal representatives arrived unannounced at Dunbar’s home on May 21, Dunbar was advised that he could go to prison if he failed to comply.
Despite the warning, Dunbar refused to allow Sky’s legal representatives inside unless a police officer was present. Since this was a civil matter, police wouldn’t be involved unless things got out of hand, so that was that.
Failure to Comply With High Court Orders
No access meant no search could be carried out, evidence couldn’t be secured, and access to Dunbar’s email accounts was effectively denied. Cloud storage instances couldn’t be secured to prevent deletion either, along with other measures detailed in the order, all of which went unsatisfied.
When Sky’s legal representatives returned later in the day, Dunbar’s position hadn’t changed, but he did understand “the consequences of his ongoing refusal.” With nothing further to be gained, Dunbar was again reminded of his “very clear obligations” not to “destroy, tamper, or interfere with any assets or evidence.”
Sky’s monitoring of a Telegram channel used for ‘IPTV is Easy’ customer support found it had 543 members. By the afternoon of May 21, the channel had disappeared and the ‘IPTV is Easy’ app was no longer operational. Sky concluded that Dunbar was likely taking steps to “hide or destroy evidence of his IPTV service.”
Defendant Admits Non-Compliance
When Dunbar later appeared in Court, he accepted that he’d failed to comply with the High Court’s orders, acknowledged that was a serious matter, and said that he was “extremely anxious to purge my failure to comply.” His suggestion that only after receiving legal advice from his own solicitor did he realize the gravity of the situation, was “inconsistent” with statements made by those who attempted to execute the orders, the Court noted.
Information concerning the IPTV is Easy business, including whose streams it sold, appear to have been addressed in part. Whether any responses provided any useful intelligence seems unlikely. As presented below, that type of information would’ve likely been collected already as part of the investigation.
According to Dunbar, after he sought advice from MBM on Discord concerning the unwelcome visit from Sky, he was “immediately blocked, removed from all groups mentioned and both my and my customer’s [sic] access to the panel and the service was immediately cut off.”
High Court Judgment
In his judgment dated August 20th, Justice Mark Sanfey provides a detailed overview of the investigation, how the business operated and, of course, his asssessment of whether Dunbar was guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the orders issued in May.
While a guilty decision was never really in doubt, the Judge was very thorough and gave Dunbar credit when he felt that was warranted, although never likely to tip the scales to the extent needed.
Nevertheless, on a different day things could’ve been a lot worse. Justice Sanfey said that sending Dunbar to prison would “confer no tangible benefit on the State, which will be put to the expense of funding the defendant’s stay in prison.”
Overall, Defendant Will Be Sufficiently Punished
In arriving at his decision to impose a fine instead, the Judge balanced various factors. These included the possibility of Dunbar losing his job, and the specter of Ireland’s tax inspectors taking an interest to discover the whereabouts of their share of any undisclosed funds.
The fact that Dunbar failed to defend the civil case against Sky, and as a result now owes the company at least €500K in damages and legal fees, led the Judge to conclude that, on balance, Dunbar had been punished enough.
“[W]hile the defendant must be regarded as the sole author of the misfortune which has come his way due to these proceedings, the court is not insensible to what must be an enormous level of upheaval, upset and stress caused to the defendant and in particular to his family by virtue of the exposure of his activities by the plaintiff,” Justice Sanfey notes.
“Taking all of the circumstances of the matter into account, I consider that the imposition of a fine on the defendant is sufficient punishment, and I will impose a fine of €30,000 on the defendant, to be discharged by 31 October 2025.
“The defendant has come very close indeed to being sent to prison; future contemnors in similar circumstances should consider that they may not be so fortunate, as every case depends on its own facts,” the Judge concludes.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Powered by WPeMatico
