Important reasons for judgement were released earlier this month limiting the scope of the laws most often used to prosecute commercial Pay Per View piracy.
In the recent case (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc v. Spain) the Defendant, who operated a martial arts gym, purchased UFC 169 and displayed the program “at a social gathering that was taking place at the establishment outside the normal operating hours.” The Defendant paid the residential fee and displayed the program via the Internet using an Xbox device.
The Plaintiff sued arguing that as a commercial establishment the Defendant needed to pay the commercial sub licencing fee. The lawsuit was struck down with the Court noting that the Defendant lawfully purchased the program but more importantly noting the legislation the Plaintiff relies on cannot be relied on in a piracy prosecution where the program is obtained via internet stream. In dismissing the lawsuit Senior District Judge Stephen McNamee provided the following reasons:
The Court finds that Sections 605 and 553 are inapplicable in this case. These statutes, originally enacted in 1934, were intended to prevent pirate interception of radio, satellite, and cable signals. Here, Defendants purchased the Program from UFC.tv, an authorized distributor of the Program. Even if sections 605 and 553 did extend to Internet streaming, there is no evidence of unauthorized signal reception or interception, nor is there evidence that the Program was used for an unauthorized purpose despite being shown at a non-residential venue. Plaintiff does not meet its burden of proof under either statute. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24.
According to the contract between UFC and Defendant, Defendant is the “exclusive distributor of commercial closed circuit television of the Events” but does not have the exclusive rights to show the Program over the Internet.[5] (Doc. 32-4 at 10.) UFC retains the rights to show this and other similar programs “via any and all means and modes of pay-per-view television, Internet, wireless, broadband, and all other means or modes . . .” (Id. at 11.) If anything, issues of breach of contract and licensing may exist, but those are matters beyond the scope of this lawsuit. Therefore, because the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the Internet defense is valid, Defendants are entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
i don't get it, he showed it to gym mmbers and streamed it to the internet?
He bought the residential PPV. Joe Hand argued since it's a gym they needed to pay the commercial rate and sued seeking tens of thousands.
Judge threw it out saying they bought it fair and square but more importantly said the statute Joe Hand was using (which they rely on in basically all their piracy lawsuits) is inapplicable if defendant is displaying via Internet (instead of cable or satellite)
i don't get it, he showed it to gym mmbers and streamed it to the internet?
He bought the residential PPV. Joe Hand argued since it's a gym they needed to pay the commercial rate and sued seeking tens of thousands.
Judge threw it out saying they bought it fair and square but more importantly said the statute Joe Hand was using (which they rely on in basically all their piracy lawsuits) is inapplicable if defendant is displaying via Internet (instead of cable or satellite)
The company that has the UFC's commercial PPV broadcasting distribution rights. Basically they sell the PPV's to bars. They are very aggressive against perceived piracy and often sue asking for tens of thousands from Defendants. This case is going to be harmful to their business interests.
MMA Playwright - So bars can get the PPV on the internet and broadcast it to the entire bar without paying the commercial rate?
The article says the defendant "displayed the program “at a social gathering that was taking place at the establishment outside the normal operating hours.”
So I'm thinking that the "after normal operating hours" part is pretty important. We're talking about a select, limited crowd watching the stream. A bar would have to purchase the commercial version to show it during normal hours, even if it was an internet stream.
MMA Playwright - So bars can get the PPV on the internet and broadcast it to the entire bar without paying the commercial rate?
The article says the defendant "displayed the program “at a social gathering that was taking place at the establishment outside the normal operating hours.”
So I'm thinking that the "after normal operating hours" part is pretty important. We're talking about a select, limited crowd watching the stream. A bar would have to purchase the commercial version to show it during normal hours, even if it was an internet stream.
To elaborate, if a bar did stream it from the Internet without paying the judge's ruling in this case would not let Joe Hand use the piracy statute that they like to rely on. They would still be able to sue but probably for conversion and the damages they would be entitled to would be far less then is allowed in the legislation that they normally use
i don't get it, he showed it to gym mmbers and streamed it to the internet?
He bought the residential PPV. Joe Hand argued since it's a gym they needed to pay the commercial rate and sued seeking tens of thousands.
Judge threw it out saying they bought it fair and square but more importantly said the statute Joe Hand was using (which they rely on in basically all their piracy lawsuits) is inapplicable if defendant is displaying via Internet (instead of cable or satellite)
Damn... that ruling could open up a floodgate of issues for Joe Hand. What is too stop any commercial establishment from now buying via UFC.com and not paying for the commercial sub licensing fee? Seems like they stand to lose a ton of $$.
MMA Playwright - So bars can get the PPV on the internet and broadcast it to the entire bar without paying the commercial rate?
The article says the defendant "displayed the program “at a social gathering that was taking place at the establishment outside the normal operating hours.”
So I'm thinking that the "after normal operating hours" part is pretty important. We're talking about a select, limited crowd watching the stream. A bar would have to purchase the commercial version to show it during normal hours, even if it was an internet stream.
Yea or nay Erik?
Actually, while the "outside of operating hours" defense may have held up here, it was irrelevant because the statute they were using in their litigation doesn't apply to internet streams. So, yes, this could mean that any establishment could pay only the $60 UFC.tv fee and display the event to its customers, provided no other statutes apply. I imagine this ruling will be appealed as it sets a disastrous precedent for the PPV model.
Perhaps they should have just left these poor people alone instead of trying to ruin their lives for watching sports with their buddies. Now they have a mess on their hands. "Good, fuck 'em"
