In the latest piracy prosecution against a commerccial establishment for displaying a UFC PPV without paying the commercial sub licencing fees US District Judge Hailk found damages at 2 times the cost of the licenncing fee were a fair punishment. In reaching this conculsiion the court reasoned as follows:
By imposing only minimal statutory damages or only requiring Defendant to pay the licensing fee he should have previously paid, Defendant would have no motivation to refrain from continuing the unauthorized conduct. In addition, this conduct harms Plaintiff’s business and decreases profits. Considering the need to deter future similar conduct and that the commercial sub-license fee alone in this case would have been $1600, the Court finds that a flat penalty of two times the license fee, or $3200, is a just amount under the circumstances, and is comparable with awards in similar cases. See Bonvillain,2013 WL 5935208, at *2 (E.D.La.,2013) (J.Africk) (finding award of approximately twice the license fee to be a “just amount under the circumstances”)…
Joe Hand was seeking statutory damages of up to $10K and also enhanced damages of up to $100K, in rejecting enhanced damages the court noted as follows:
Considering Plaintiff’s evidence, the small size of the crowd viewing the Program, and the fact that there is no evidence that Defendant, Rival, was a repeat offender, the Court…declines to award enhanced damages.
Question: Did Zuffa sit by idly, as Joe Hand tried to sue people/businesses for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in previous cases? Or is Zuffa totally aloof of Joe Hand's legal claims?
Regarding this decision, good on the judge. Joe Hand sounds like sleezeballs.
Question: Did Zuffa sit by idly, as Joe Hand tried to sue people/businesses for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in previous cases? Or is Zuffa totally aloof of Joe Hand's legal claims?
Regarding this decision, good on the judge. Joe Hand sounds like sleezeballs.
Zuffa's litigation strategies are very similar to Joe Hands. I would expect they are fully aware of and support Joe Hand's appraoch to piracy prosecution.
thatonedude - Makes sense then. I'd say that one of the fairest rulings I've seen for something like this, imo.
Agreed, it is fair. I don't support piracy but equally I'm no fan of heavy handed prosections seeking tens of thousands in damages when the real loss if far more modest.
Judgements such as this one strike a fair balance of the interests at play.
For those interested in this subject, a further decision was released today upholding a fine approximatley 2x the cost of the licence. Joe Hand argued this was too modest a judgement and would not deter piracy. US District Judge Davila disagreed noting $2K is a 'sizable' amount for many small businesses. In upholding this award the Court provided the following reasons:
Plaintiff believes the amount of damages awarded is insufficient to compensate it and to deter signal piracy, either in general or as to this specific defendant. The court disagrees. The amount awarded compensates Plaintiff for the amount of its loss — the $950 cost of the license — and was scaled to the minimal facts presented to justify anything more than that.
As to deterrence, Plaintiff recognizes that specific deterrence was considered in determining the damages amount and requires no additional discussion. For general deterrence, it simply does not follow that a total award which exceeds the cost of purchasing a license creates some “perverse incentive” to break the law. Lawful conduct would still be less expensive than unlawful conduct — by half the price when all is said and done. Furthermore, $2,150 is a sizable amount not only for Defendant, but also for the other small businesses who are routinely sued in this court for this particular type of conduct. Thus, to the extent general deterrence is a recognizable goal for damages under § 553, it was adequately fulfilled here. No error has been shown.
I don't like heavy handed civil judgements either especially when some of these cases involved not for profit orgs and establishments that were not charging a cover to see the UFC.
However 2x the price does not seem like much of a deterrent to those who willfully break the rules.
The thing I really don't like about piracy or not paying the correct price for an event is not so much the money taken away from Zuffa and their big business partners (which is still wrong) but the revenue it takes from other local establishments that decided they could not afford to show the UFC or did show the UFC but paid the correct amount putting them at a financial disadvantage against their competition who decided to break the rules.
Unseen - I don't like heavy handed civil judgements either especially when some of these cases involved not for profit orgs and establishments that were not charging a cover to see the UFC.
However 2x the price does not seem like much of a deterrent to those who willfully break the rules.
The thing I really don't like about piracy or not paying the correct price for an event is not so much the money taken away from Zuffa and their big business partners (which is still wrong) but the revenue it takes from other local establishments that decided they could not afford to show the UFC or did show the UFC but paid the correct amount putting them at a financial disadvantage against their competition who decided to break the rules.
Unseen - I don't like heavy handed civil judgements either especially when some of these cases involved not for profit orgs and establishments that were not charging a cover to see the UFC.
However 2x the price does not seem like much of a deterrent to those who willfully break the rules.
The thing I really don't like about piracy or not paying the correct price for an event is not so much the money taken away from Zuffa and their big business partners (which is still wrong) but the revenue it takes from other local establishments that decided they could not afford to show the UFC or did show the UFC but paid the correct amount putting them at a financial disadvantage against their competition who decided to break the rules.
Good comment and VU.
These lower judgements usually are seen in cases where the prosectuion presents cookie-cutter evidence and no compelling facts of commercial gain from showing the PPV. In the Lorenzana case, there were a total of 8 patrons in the establishmetn watchign the PPV.
I agree a balance needs to be struck to deter people from Piracy. I like to highlight these judgements because the high court awards often receive headlines but the frequent and more modest awards are ignored creating a false impression about the civil consequences for piracy.
