![\"iptv-ss\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/iptv-ss.png\")
Incorporated in Georgia, YuppTV USA Inc. markets itself as one of the world\u2019s largest internet-based TV and on-demand platforms for South Asian content. Most of the company\u2019s subscribers are described as \u201cnon-resident individuals.\u201d<\/p>\n
Filed at a federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, YuppTV\u2019s copyright complaint begins by naming Canada-based Harpreet Singh Randhawa as the operator of one or more IPTV services, sold under multiple brand names. Those services allegedly infringed YuppTV\u2019s rights in the United States and beyond.<\/p>\n
Specifically, YuppTV claims that content for which it holds (or held) United States and Canadian licenses, has for years been illegally broadcast into homes in both countries by Randhawa\u2019s platforms. <\/p>\n
The complaint bundles the services together under the heading \u2018Boss IPTV Platforms\u2019 with the wider operation labeled the \u2018Boss IPTV Cartel\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/boss-iptv-cartel-platforms.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nThe complaint says the services use common \u2018pirate tactics\u2019 including rebranding, renaming, closures and expansion \u201cto evade detection and legal enforcement.\u201d None of the nine domains appear functional at the time of writing.<\/p>\n
YuppTV says that its expensive investigation of Randhawa and his \u201cillicit business activities\u201d pre-dates 2020.<\/p>\n
\u201cThroughout the course of this investigation, YuppTV observed Mr. Randhawa wielding his vast enterprise to infringe repeatedly upon YuppTV\u2019s licensed rights,\u201d the plaintiff writes.<\/p>\n
In March 2021, YuppTV filed a complaint with police cyber-crime investigators in Faridabad, India. The company informed police that Randhawa used a company called Rhysley Pvt. Ltd to perpetuate infringement of YuppTV\u2019s content, leading to a headline-making<\/a> police raid.<\/p>\n Six people were arrested including Sumit Sharma, an alleged director of Rhysley Pvt, and Harminder Sandhu, an alleged key employee of Calgary, Canada-based company, Server Center Ltd. Allegedly owned and operated by Randhawa, Server Center is described as an \u201cintegral part\u201d and the \u201costensible parent company\u201d of \u201cRandhawa\u2019s criminal enterprise.\u201d<\/p>\n What became of the raids four years ago is unclear, but Randhawa\u2019s name wasn\u2019t among those mentioned when the six individuals were arrested back in 2021. YuppTV\u2019s lawsuit positions Randhawa as the lead defendant along with Rhysley Pvt. Ltd, Server Center Ltd, and 2144644 Alberta Ltd, a company linked to Server Center due to Randhawa sitting on the boards of both.<\/p>\n News reports covering the 2021 raids had already linked Datacamp to Randhawa\u2019s piracy operation. The company was described as a vendor but beyond that, evidence of infringement, if indeed any existed at all, was not made public. <\/p>\n Four years later, Datacamp and several other companies reportedly used by Randhawa\u2019s IPTV services, appear as defendants in YuppTV\u2019s complaint. <\/p>\n Under the heading \u201cDatacamp Knowingly Provides Boss IPTV Platforms with the Means to Continue Pirating\u201d<\/em> the complaint provides a detailed overview of Datacamp\u2019s services, highlighting the \u201chigh efficiency and peak performance\u201d provided by Datacamp\u2019s geographically distributed network of datacenters.<\/p>\n \u201cBoss IPTV Platforms, as unauthorized IPTV streaming services, depend on third-party CDNs to deliver Pirated Content to their subscribers. Boss IPTV Platforms could not operate without these CDNs,\u201d the complaint reads.<\/p>\n The details span several pages, with numerous features available to any Datacamp customer framed as mechanisms through which the Boss Platforms were able to infringe the plaintiff\u2019s rights more efficiently, with optimizations that \u201cmaterially increase the quality\u201d of the pirate streaming product.<\/p>\n Many years of so-called \u2018repeat infringer\u2019 lawsuits in US courts means the general parameters are broadly understood. When copyright holders repeatedly send DMCA takedown notices for infringing content, but that content isn\u2019t removed and action isn\u2019t taken against repeat infringers, webhosts and ISPs face potential lawsuits that attempt to hold them liable.<\/p>\n YuppTV\u2019s complaint follows broadly the same framework. After highlighting CDN features that prevent or inhibit the ability to send DMCA notices directly to Boss IPTV\u2019s \u2018origin\u2019 servers, YuppTV says that correspondence sent to Datacamp starting in 2020 nevertheless requested the removal of infringing content.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough DataCamp undertook some steps to address YuppTV\u2019s complaints regarding the Pirated Content, it has failed to enact measures sufficient to curtail Boss IPTV\u2019s infringement,\u201d the complaint explains.<\/p>\n \u201cAs a result of DataCamp\u2019s refusal to take appropriate measures to stop copyright infringement, Boss IPTV Platforms continue unhindered as DataCamp customers. Boss IPTV Platforms continue to purchase increasing amounts of bandwidth from DataCamp.\u201d<\/p>\n Copies of the DMCA notices sent to Datacamp appear alongside the complaint, with a suggestion they represent the full set. A representative sample notice is shown here, and the remainder are linked below. Assuming these are indeed the originals, and haven\u2019t been altered for any reason, issues are immediately apparent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The presence of the letter \u2018X\u2019 multiple times in every URL may be a sign that complete URLs weren\u2019t known to YuppTV. That wouldn\u2019t necessarily be a problem if the infringing content could be identified by different means, but whether this alternative format was considered sufficient by the recipients isn\u2019t made clear. <\/p>\n If the infringing content couldn\u2019t be identified, that might raise questions of whether the notices were valid. In the complaint, YuppTV insists that it sent \u201cproper notices\u201d under the DMCA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The URLs listed in the notices concern channels which presumably delivered a succession of copyrighted works (TV shows) for which YuppTV held or holds appropriate licenses. There\u2019s no strict requirement for notices to identify each and every work allegedly infringed but identifying at least one should be sufficient to meet the base requirement of \u201cidentify the work infringed\u201d. The provided DMCA notices mention channels but no specific copyright works. <\/p>\n The notices state that YuppTV has the right to \u201ctake anti-piracy actions\u201d on behalf of other named companies, presumably the exclusive rightsholders. YuppTV claims to hold a non-exclusive license<\/em> under Indian copyright law, to transmit, distribute, and publicly perform the content in the United States. Registration with the United States Copyright Office \u201cis not a prerequisite to filing a copyright infringement action\u201d the company adds. There could be implications for not doing so, however.<\/p>\n \u201cDataCamp did nothing to stop the infringement. The Boss IPTV Platforms continue to use the DataCamp CDN to commit copyright infringement as of March 2025 with DataCamp\u2019s affirmative knowledge of the infringement,\u201d the allegations conclude.<\/p>\n Similar allegations are made against other intermediaries\/service providers.<\/p>\n Based in Ontario, Canada, Allstream Business, Inc. reportedly offers dedicated servers \u201cthat host most of the domain websites for the Boss IPTV Platforms.\u201d The primary data center for the Boss IPTV Platforms reportedly use Allstream\u2019s dedicated servers for channel encoding and video-on-demand (VOD) creation.<\/p>\n Further claims include Allstream servers hosting Boss IPTV\u2019s customer management platform and a chat system used for customer service. A team in India reportedly use Allstream servers for tasks including backups. DMCA notices were reportedly sent in 2018-2019 but Allstream \u201cfailed to remove or block the Protected Channels.\u201d <\/p>\n As a result, YuppTV concludes that just like Datacamp, Allstream cannot rely on safe harbor protection.<\/p>\n The complaint alleges that the Boss IPTV platforms purchased Infomir\u2019s \u2018MAG\u2019set-top boxes and sold them to subscribers of the pirate services. The Ministra Pro middleware is mentioned several times in the complaint in a manner that suggests importance, but little of substance beyond that. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n The following statement suggests that the basis for the claim against Infomir is the supply of regular set-top boxes and a failure to terminate that business.<\/p>\n \u201cInfomir and Infomir LLC had the capability of cancelling its contractual relationship with the Boss IPTV Platforms and the Boss IPTV Cartel, and thus refusing to manufacture the \u2018MAG set-top boxes\u2019 with the preinstalled \u2018Ministra Pro\u2019 middleware.\u201d <\/p>\n Nothing in the complaint indicates that Infomir received any notifications from YuppTV, much less that its actions were \u201cwillful, malicious, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of YuppTV.\u201d<\/p>\n Count I: Direct Copyright Infringement 17 U.S.C. SS 106<\/a>(1),(4)<\/strong> Harpreet Singh Randhawa, the Boss IPTV platforms, 2144644 Alberta Ltd., Server Center Ltd, Rhysley Pvt. Ltd, Vois Inc. <\/em><\/p>\n Count III: Contributory Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n DataCamp, Allstream, Allstream USA, Infomir.eu and Infomir, LLC<\/em><\/p>\n Count IV: Vicarious Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 501<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n DataCamp, Allstream, Allstream USA, Infomir.eu and Infomir, LLC<\/em><\/p>\n * Count II contains a naming error present in the original complaint<\/em><\/small><\/p>\n YuppTV requests a permanent injunction against all defendants, maximum statutory damages or defendants\u2019 profits attributable to the alleged infringement, attorney\u2019s fees, and a statement signed under oath \u201cdetailing the manner in which they have complied with the judgment of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n The complaint and copies of the DMCA notices are available here (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nDatacamp (CDN77) Named as Defendant<\/h2>\n
Failure to Terminate Repeat Infringers<\/h2>\n
DMCA Notices Allegedly Ignored<\/h2>\n
![\"yupptv-DMCA-1\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/yupptv-DMCA-1.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\n![\"proper](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/proper-dmca1.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nNote:Similar URLs found online appear in this format: http:\/\/IP address\/port number\/email address\/unknown string\/123456?token=[value]<\/small><\/div>\n<\/p>\nAllstream Business Inc. (Canada)<\/h2>\n
Infomir and Infomir LLC (Ukraine, United States)<\/h2>\n
![\"ministra-login\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/ministra-login.png\")
The basis for YuppTV\u2019s claim against Infomir is far from clear. Even with an especially broad view of what type of conduct may amount to contributory infringement, nothing really stands out based on the information provided.<\/p>\n![\"infomir\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/infomir.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nClaims Against Each Defendant<\/h2>\n
\nCount II: Violation of the Digital Millennium Protection* Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. S 1201<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n