In my continuous efforts to paper caselaw addressing UFC Pay Per view Camiseta FC Utrecht piracy allegations, reasons for judgement were released this week by the united states district Court in San Diego dismissing such a insurance claim against a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu gym.
In this week’s situation (Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. Cusi et al) the Plaintiff, Joe Hand Camiseta SSC Napoli Promotions, purchased as well as retained the special industrial exhibition licensing rights to UFC 145. They “marketed the sub-licensing rights to its industrial customers, including casinos, racetracks, bars, restaurants, as well as nightclubs”. The Defendant, Stronghold Crossfit & Brazilian Jitsu, bought UFC 145 as well as played it by means of Web at their facility. They did not pay for industrial exhibition licencing rights arguing “that the establishment functioned as a personal home at the time of the viewing.“
Despite this they were sued with allegations that they, as a industrial establishment, unlawfully intercepted as well as broadcast to its patrons satellite/cable programming. The Court dismissed the claim discovering there was no evidence that the Web broadcast utilized satellite or cord signals. In reaching this decision the Court supplied the complying with reasons:
Defendants contend summary judgment is proper since sections 605 as well as 553 do not apply to programs got as well as displayed over the internet. Defendants contend that they bought the event over the internet,[2] so that their actions cannot be governed by statutes created to battle interceptions of satellite or cord signals.
Plaintiff contends that the type of Web service figures out whether liability exists under sections 503 or 605. Plaintiff states, “[w]hat Defendants stop working to address is exactly how they accessed the Web . . . . The signal came from somewhere.” [Pl’s Opp. at 4.] To support this proposition, Plaintiff cites Zuffa, LLC v. Kamranian, 2013 WL 1196632 (D. N.D. March 25, 2013). There, a sports bar streamed an utmost battling championship event by means of the Web without authorization. The accused created evidence demonstrating that it had cord internet. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s section 605 claim, as section 605 only covered “radio” (i.e., satellite) signals.[3]
Even presuming that Plaintiff is right that the type of Web service figures out whether liability exists under sections 503 as well as 605,[4] Plaintiff has failed to create any type of evidence tending to Camiseta Valencia demonstrate the type of Web utilized by Defendants. Moreover, as the discovery phase of the situation is complete, Plaintiff cannot create admissible evidence to support a needed truth to support its declares under sections 553 as well as 605. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court enters summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s federal statutory claims.
It is regrettable that the Court did not have the chance to address the merits of the underlying dispute, that is, whether a BJJ fitness center that broadcasts a pay per view event without buying industrial licencing rights might be subjected to civil liability. The stark lesson remains, however, that UFC Pay Per view allegedly incorrectly broadcast at industrial establishments stay the target of aggressive civil litigation.
Advertisement
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
UFC Pay Per view Piracy claim against Martial Arts fitness center DismissedAugust 13, 2016In “piracy”
$32,500 Piracy settlement reached complying with likely UFC PPV PiracyMay 19, 2016In “piracy”
Internet checking out of UFC PPV Sidetracks Piracy ProsecutionSeptember 20, 2016In “piracy”