$15,000 damages assessed for UFC 170 Piracy

contributing to this site’s archived posts addressing battle sports piracy, reasons for judgement were released just recently by the us district Court, SD West Virginia, Charleston Division, assessing damages for the industrial piracy of UFC 170.

In the recent situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Harrison) the accused displayed UFC 170 in a industrial establishment without paying industrial sub licencing charges to the Plaintiff.  The expense would have been $1,300.

The Plaintiff acquired default judgement as well as requested $60,000 in damages although the Court rejected this request as being disproportionate.

In assessing statutory damages at $5,000 as well as improved damages at $10,000 district judge Thomas E. Johnston provided the complying with reasons:

In this case, awarding a per-patron rate of $100 for every of the seven patrons present during the broadcast is insufficient, as Joe Hand’s provable losses are at least $1300, the amount of the sublicense fee. Similarly, the Court discovers that a statutory damages award restricted to the equivalent of the sublicense charge would have bit deterrent impact on future piracy. The Court discovers statutory damages in the amount of $5000 is just payment for Defendants’ infraction of section 605. This amount takes into account what appear to be repeated violations of the statute on the part of Defendants, as suggested by Club Infinity’s Facebook advertisements. However, provided that Club Infinity does not appear to have obtained considerable monetary gain with its unlawful activity, the Camiseta Sanfrecce Hiroshima Court discovers that awarding the statutory maximum of Camiseta Rangers FC damages is extreme as well as would produce an unjustified disparity with similar cases…

Enhanced penalties frequently bear a relation to the amount of the statutory award. See, e.g., Lawhon, 2016 WL 160730, at *2 (awarding improved damages equal to three times the statutory damages); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Upstate Recreation, No. 6:13-2467-TMC, 2015 WL 685461, at *9 (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2015) (awarding two-and-one-half times the statutory award in improved damages); J & J sports Prods., Inc. v. Romenski, 845 F. Supp. 2d 703, 708 (W.D.N.C. 2012) (awarding overall damages equal to treble the sublicense fee). When determining extra damages, other courts have thought about factors such as: “(1) repeated violations over an prolonged period of time; (2) considerable unlawful monetary gains; (3) considerable actual damages to plaintiff;

(4) defendant’s marketing for the meant broadcast of the event; as well as (5) defendant’s charging a cover fee or charging premiums for food as well as drinks.” Wing Spot, 920 F. Supp. 2d at 668 (quoting Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Rodriguez, No. 02 CIV. 7972 (SHS), 2003 WL 548891, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2003)).

Joe Hand explains by affidavit that these factors are somewhat restricted in their utility. (See Aff. of Joe Hand Jr., President, at ¶ 14.) While that may be true, the Court has no evidence that the circumstances of this situation depart from the norm, save perhaps for evidence suggesting that Club Infinity had some history of intercepting Joe Hand’s satellite broadcasts in a likewise unlawful manner. Joe Hand points to no other aggravating factor that would warrant an remarkable improved damages award. as well as if the Court focuses its interest on the five factors delineated above, only the first, as mentioned earlier, is especially noteworthy. The other factors are neutral or even evaluate against an increased award of improved damages. With regard to the fifth factor, for example, Mr. Shifflett attests that he was not charged a cover charge at Club Infinity on the night of the Broadcast. (Shifflett Aff. at 1.) The Court likewise notes that any type of attempt on the part of Club Infinity to draw in patrons by showing the broadcast appears to have been unsuccessful. apart from Club Infinity’s staff, Mr. Shifflett observed only seven patrons present that night. Thus, although improved damages are appropriate whether Defendants’ conduct resulted in fantastic monetary gain or not, the Court discovers that $50,000 is excessive. consistent with the deterrence goals of § 605, as well as as a means of penalizing Club Infinity’s repeated violations, the Court awards improved damages equal to two times the statutory damages, or Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Alemania $10,000. This results in overall damages of $15,000 against Defendants.

Share this:
Twitter
Facebook

Like this:
Like Loading…

Related

$1,000 in damages awarded for UFC 172 PiracyOctober 30, 2016In “piracy”
UFC PPV Piracy damages assessed below expense of ProgramApril 19, 2016In “piracy”
$60,000 demand Rejected for UFC 173 Piracy – damages assessed at $8,242January 12, 2017In “piracy”