reasons for judgement were released this week by the united states district Court, S.C. California, upholding a moderate damage evaluation in a situation of piracy of a PPV product.
In this week’s situation (Joe Hand Promotions v. Khan) the accused operated a industrial establishment as well as was sued for airing a PPV program without paying the industrial licencing fees. He was discovered liable as well as ordred to pay $750 in conversion damages as well as a additionally $1,000 in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e) (e)(3)(c)(i)(II).
Displeased with this evaluation the Plaintiff sought to change the judgement. The movement was rejected with the Court noting an absence of any type of aggravating aspects justifying a departure from the assessment. In upholding the evaluation the Court verified the complying with reasons:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s movement to change Judgment. Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in awarding $1,750 in damages, comprised of $750.00 Camiseta Racing Club de Avellaneda in conversion damages as well as the statutory minimum of $1,000 under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e) (e)(3)(c)(i)(II). Plaintiff contends that improved statutory damages must have likewise been awarded.
The concern of whether to award improved damages is within the court’s discretion. See Kingvision Pay Per View, LTD v. Ortega, 2002 WL 31855367, *2 (N.D.Cal. 2002) (reasoning that in evaluating whether to award improved damages, courts can think about aspects such as repeated violations, the intent to revenue as well as actual revenue originated from the violations). Here, Plaintiff Camiseta RB Leipzig contends improved damages are called for for two reasons.
First, Plaintiff counts on other situations that awarded improved damages. however those situations are factually distinguishable. In Kingvision v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347(9th Cir. 1999), the $80,400 award was based on the bar’s “repeated willful violations.” Id. at 350. Therefore, a higher damage award was called for to deter accused from future violations. In contrast, right here accused was a very first time offender, as well as there is no evidence suggesting a higher damage award is needed to deter accused from committing future violations. Moreover, in Kingvision, the Ninth Circuit remanded the situation “so that both sides might be heard on the proper amount of any type of reduction in the judgment.” Id. at 352. The remand suggests that the damage award was as well high.
Plaintiff likewise cites J & J sports productions Inc. v. Olivares, 2011 WL 587466 (E.D.Cal. Feb 9, 2011), where a lot more than 60 patrons were checking out the program. In contrast, Defendant’s establishment had far fewer patrons during the program. Additionally, since accused did not fee an entrance charge or promote the program, there is no evidence suggesting that accused meant to revenue as well as really profited from the violation.
Next, Plaintiff argues that the award focused as well heavily on certain deterrence at the cost of general deterrence. however as explained in the order, under the scenarios of this case, the Court is mindful that a larger award may put accused out of business. See Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d at 350 (reasoning that, “[d]epending on the circumstances, a low five figure judgment may be a rigid fine that deters, while a high five figure judgment puts a bar out of business”). Therefore, the Court discovers that the damage award of $1,750 is reasonable.
For theses reasons, Plaintiff’s movement to change judgment is DENIED
UFC 174 PPV Piracy results in $25,000 JudgementMarch Camiseta Manchester City 9, 2015In “piracy”
$32,500 Piracy settlement reached complying with likely UFC PPV PiracyMay 19, 2016In “piracy”
UFC PPV Piracy damages examined below expense of ProgramApril 19, 2016In “piracy”