contributing to this site’s archived situation summaries of battle sports piracy judgements, reasons were released last week by the us district Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division, assessing damages of $20,000 for the industrial piracy of Cotto v. Alvarez.

In the recent situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Chavez) the accused displayed the pay per view boxing program in a industrial establishment without paying the industrial sub licencing fee.  The expense would have been $4,200.  In Camiseta Leicester City discovering overall damages of $20,000 were appropriate in these circumstances district judge Ann Aiken provided the complying with reasons:

Following the traditional approach, the Court considers the losses as well as revenues resulting from defendants’ unlawful interception. In this case, it would be impossible to Camiseta Bayern Munich determine the full degree of the revenues acquired by defendants; however, plaintiff indicates that defendants’ expense to lawfully permit the Program would have been $4,200. Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Default J. at 13. The Court shall base the award of statutory damages off of the expense of the licensing charge had the defendants lawfully bought the Program. The Court Camiseta Nagoya Grampus discovers that the circumstances of this situation validate awarding plaintiffs request of damages in the amount of $5,000 against each defendant, for a overall of $10,000.

In determining whether the interception was dedicated willfully, courts normally think about the complying with factors with respect to improved damages: “repeated violations over an prolonged period of time; considerable monetary gains; considerable actual damages to plaintiff; defendants’ marketing for the meant broadcast of the event; defendants charging a cover charge; or charging premiums for food as well as drink.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14763, *12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2015).

Here, plaintiff provides no evidence in the record of prior violations, considerable earnings by defendants or a cover fee fee. Nevertheless, plaintiff establishes that defendants’ unlawful act of intercepting the Program triggered the plaintiff considerable damages. Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Default J. at 13. Plaintiff provides evidence that defendants advertised the Program at their location. Pl.’s Aff. Ex. B at 13. Moreover, plaintiff declares that defendants increased food as well as drink prices, as well as thus, an inference can be drawn that defendants meant to boost business as well as entice a larger crowd. Pl.’s Comp. ¶ 14.

Taking these factors into consideration, defendants willfully took an affirmative action to illegally intercept plaintiffs Program, as well as plaintiff is entitled to get improved damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). However, I see no reason justifying plaintiffs request of improved damages in the overall amount of $20,000. The Court discovers an award of damages in the overall amount of $10,000 adequate to deter defendants as well as others from committing similar acts in the future. Accordingly, the Court awards improved statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 against each defendant, for a overall of $10,000, in addition to the $10,000 awarded under section 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

Share this:
Twitter
Facebook

Like this:
Like Loading…

Related

$10,000 In damages ordered for industrial Piracy of Cotto v. AlvarezJune 26, 2018In “piracy”
Piracy of Cotto v. Alvarez Leads to $49,825 JudgementOctober 15, 2017In “piracy”
$8,800 in damages awarded For industrial Piracy of Cotto v. AlvarezJanuary 30, 2020In “piracy”