Piracy of Cotto v. Alvarez Leads to $49,825 Judgement

In a judgement on the steeper side of industrial piracy awards reasons for judgment were just recently released by the us district Court,  W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division, awarding over $49,000 complying with piracy of a boxing pay per view program.

In the recent situation (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. AIH Alamo Ice House) the accused establishment displayed Miguel Cotto v. Canelo Alvarez telecast (“the Program”) on November 21, 2015  without paying the Plaintiff suitable sub-licencing fees.  The establishment had a capability of 370 people as well as the licence would have expense $8,200.

The Plaintiff sued a number of defendants.  prior to trial one accused settled for $15,000.  The Plaintiff got judgement against staying defendants as well as the court purchased statutory damages of $10,000, improved damages of $30,000 as well as legal charges of $9,825.  The Court likewise purchased that the defendants cannot decrease their liability by the $15,000 already paid by the co-defendant.  In reaching this decision district judge Xavier Rodriguez offered the complying with reasons:

…Here, the establishment in concern had a capability of 370 people. Docket no. 35-8. To purchase seeing rights as well as lawfully broadcast the Program for this number of people, Defendants would have been needed to pay $8,200. Docket no. 35-4 at 1. When calculating the amount of statutory damages, “[t]he Court discovers it sensible to treble what would have been the expense had accused complied with the law.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garcia, 546 F. Supp. 2d 383, 386 (W.D. Tex. 2008). This figure includes monetary cost savings resulting from the infraction of the communications Act, “as well as any type of revenues Camiseta Everton FC made of food as well as drink sales connected with clients who stayed as well as viewed the fight.” Id. Therefore, since the amount Defendants would have paid had they lawfully bought the rights to the event was $8,200, the trebling of this amount would be $24,600. The statute caps damages under this section at $10,000. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i). Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $10,000 under this section.

Section 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) enables for improved damages when the statute is violated “willfully for the functions of direct as well as indirect industrial advantage or personal gain.” 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii). The Court previously discovered that Defendants “willfully intercepted or got communication of the Program or assisted in such actions by unauthorized transmission or receipt.” Docket no. 36 at 7. Further, “[b]ased on the restricted techniques of intercepting closed circuit broadcasting . . . as well as the low probability that a industrial establishment might intercept such a broadcast simply by chance, however, courts have held [such] conduct . . . to be willful as well as for the functions of direct or indirect industrial advantage or personal monetary gain.” Entm’t by J&J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enters., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769, 776 (S.D. Tex. 2002). The Court should balance the requirement to punish unlawful piracy with the requirement to keep damages at a level that will not cause an insurmountable monetary burden. See id. at 775-76 (reviewing several calculation techniques as well as elements courts think about when assessing statutory damages under § 605). The Court discovers damages for a willful infraction in the amount of $30,000 suitable based on the location as well as willful actions by Defendants.

The statute enables an aggrieved celebration who prevails to recuperate full costs as well as sensible attorney’s fees. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii). Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Jamie King to establish the sensible as well as required attorney’s fees. Docket no. 35-15 at 3. Based upon the affidavit as well as the time spent preparing this case, the Court awards sensible attorney’s charges in the amount of $9,825. The Court declines to award attorney’s charges as well as costs for future appeals.

As to the concern of private Defendants’ liability, the Camiseta Southampton FC Court complies with other courts’ reasoning as well as discovers the staying Defendants—Alamo Ice House, Jaime Luis Gonzales, Raymond Fuchs, as well as Charles Robison—are jointly as well as severally liable for the whole of damages awarded. See Cmty. television Sys., Inc. v. Caruso,284 F.3d 430, 436 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[W]e believe section 605 is sensibly construed to produce joint as well Camiseta Sao Paulo FC as a number of liability among those discovered liable for a single award of damages attributable to the purchase as well as installation of a single descrambler device.”).

The Court likewise discovers the staying Defendants are not entitled to an balance out as to damages based on Plaintiff’s previous settlement with accused Kieschnick. Under Texas’s one complete satisfaction rule, “a plaintiff is entitled to only one healing for any type of damages suffered.” Coastal agricultural Supply, Inc.v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 759 F.3d 498, 508 (5th Cir. 2014). A “nonsettling accused may insurance claim credit rating based on the damages for which all the tortfeasors are jointly liable,” however not for punitive damages. Id. at 508-09. For the one complete satisfaction guideline to apply, however, there should be a “single, indivisible injury.” Id. at 509. Plaintiff demonstrates that the settlement amount paid by Kieschnick was paid for “in consideration of a release, among other considerations, that covered much more than that which is before this court,” including cause No. 5:16-CV-1238-FB in the united states district Court for the Western district of Texas, “other past claims, if any, including those unknown, as well as other negotiated consideration outside the declares as well as defenses particularly plead in this case.” Docket no. 38 at 4. Accordingly, the Court discovers the one complete satisfaction guideline does not apply to Kieschnick’s settlement agreement, as well as the staying Defendants are liable for the whole of the damages awarded in this Order.

Share this:

Like this:
Like Loading…


$20,000 in damages purchased for Piracy of Cotto v. AlvarezJuly 3, 2018In “piracy”
$10,000 In damages purchased for industrial Piracy of Cotto v. AlvarezJune 26, 2018In “piracy”
$8,800 in damages awarded For industrial Piracy of Cotto v. AlvarezJanuary 30, 2020In “piracy”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *