SmoothStreams (SSTV) IPTV Shutdown: Legal Drama Unfolds

By iptv.legal , in News , at December 19, 2023

The once-popular SmoothStreams (SSTV) IPTV operation is now facing a $71,100 court order for damages before the copyright case has begun.

In July 2022, a notable event in the digital media landscape occurred when SmoothStreams IPTV went offline.

This action was not a random occurrence but a consequence of legal actions initiated by several major companies in the media industry.

The Coalition Against SmoothStreams

The takedown was led by a coalition of heavyweight media corporations, including Bell Media, Rogers Media, and various Hollywood studios under the umbrella of MPA-Canada.

They had collectively filed a copyright infringement complaint at Canada’s Federal Court, setting in motion a series of legal proceedings that would have significant repercussions for the IPTV service provider.

The Raid and Seizure

On July 14, 2022, a pivotal moment in this saga occurred. Armed with an injunction and an Anton Piller order – a legal provision that permitted the search and seizure of evidence – the plaintiffs executed a raid.

They targeted premises associated with the defendants, which resulted in the confiscation of critical equipment, including receivers, encoders, and numerous servers from three different locations.

Resistance and Non-Compliance

The Anton Piller order granted extensive powers to the plaintiffs but also encountered significant resistance, particularly concerning its stringent demands.

Defendants Marshall Macciacchera and Antonio Macciacchera, identified as operators of SmoothStreams, were required to disclose intricate details of the service’s technical and financial operations.

However, compliance was partial at best, with Marshall failing to fully adhere and Antonio outright refusing to engage with the order.

Contempt of Court Proceedings

As both defendants faced contempt of court proceedings, Antonio Macciacchera’s case advanced more rapidly.

Associate Judge Benoit Duchesne initially brought forward ten charges against him, relating to breaches of the Anton Piller order.

Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton later found Antonio in contempt of four out of these ten charges.

Issues with the Charges

In reviewing the charges, Chief Justice Crampton noted discrepancies. For five of the charges, although evidence had been presented in earlier proceedings, the current hearing lacked sufficient evidence linking Antonio to the specified technical and financial information.

The final charge also collapsed due to a lack of evidence showing Antonio had concealed any items listed in the interim order.

Financial Repercussions and Legal Arguments

The plaintiffs, comprising Bell, Rogers, and various Hollywood studios, demanded a significant financial compensation from Antonio.

They sought CAD$121,124.74 (US$90,440), including legal fees, sales tax, and other disbursements.

Contrastingly, Antonio’s legal team suggested a markedly lower amount of CAD$10,000 (US$7,466), citing the failed charges and pending court-imposed penalties as justifications.

Court’s Ruling

In his decision, Chief Justice Crampton acknowledged the intricacies of the case, including Antonio’s persistent denial of involvement in SmoothStreams.

Despite the plaintiffs’ missteps in presenting evidence, the Judge noted that Antonio’s refusals to cooperate significantly hindered the legal process.

The Verdict

After considering the various factors, Chief Justice Crampton decided on a 25% reduction from the plaintiffs’ demand, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders.

The final ruling ordered Antonio Macciacchera to pay a lump sum of $94,906.19, including legal fees, sales tax, and reasonable disbursements.

Conclusion

This case sets a significant precedent in the realm of digital copyright law and highlights the complexities of enforcing such laws in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

It underscores the critical balance between upholding legal orders and ensuring fair and just proceedings.

The outcome of this case and its implications will likely be closely watched by industry experts and legal professionals alike.

For more information on this story, refer to the report from TorrentFreak.

Legal Streaming Options

IPTV Wire can’t determine whether third-party IPTV services, apps, websites, or add-ons hold the proper licensing.

If and when a streaming website is deemed illegal, we notify our users immediately and update reports on our website like this one to reflect that information.

In conclusion, the end-user is responsible for all content accessed through free streaming sites, apps, and paid services.

See our detailed guide below for more information on the legality of IPTV and everything you need to know before streaming.

Is IPTV Legal? Read This

For 100% verified and legal IPTV providers, see the options listed below: