United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff J &J Sport Productions Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Jamie A. Craley and Harry E. Craley, individually and collectively as Jamie's Courtside Sports; and JHC of York, Inc., an unknown business entity of Jamie's Courtside Sports (hereinafter collectively "Defendants") for violations of various federal copyright laws. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants unlawfully intercepted and displayed for the purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage "Star Power": Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Victor Ortiz, WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program (hereinafter "Program"). The Plaintiff further alleges that it had exclusive rights to distribute the Program. The Defendants have failed to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint and default has been entered by the Clerk of this Court. (Doc. 15). Thus, the Plaintiff now moves this Court to enter default judgment against the Defendants, requiring them to pay the Plaintiff the following amount of damages: maximum statutory damages of $10, 000 under 47. U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II); maximum enhanced damages of $100, 000 under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii); and $8, 200 in damages for conversion of Plaintiff's property. For the reasons articulated herein, we shall enter judgment against the Defendants in the amount of $20, 000.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 55 a district court may enter default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend against a lawsuit. "Where a court enters a default judgment, "the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true." DirectTV, Inc. v. Pepe , 431 F.3d 162, 917 (3d Cir. 2005). Thus, "[a]t the time of entry default, the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint are deemed admitted." 10 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 55.11 (3d ed. 2000).
By contract, Plaintiff secured the right to distribute the Program, telecast nationwide on September 17, 2011 via closed-circuit television. (Doc. 1, ¶ 21). The Plaintiff encrypted the Program and made it available to Plaintiff's customers who paid a license fee. ( Id ., ¶ 22). Thus, an entity could only lawfully access the Program if they contracted with the Plaintiff. ( Id ., ¶ 12).
On September 17, 2011, investigator Marisa Hardy observed the unlawful exhibition of the Program at the Defendants' commercial establishment on ten televisions. (Doc. 16-3, 2). She completed three separate head counts of patrons at the bar between 12:10 and 12:18A.M (98, 77, and 34 patrons, respectively). Id . Defendants charged customers a $3.00 cover charge in order to enter the bar while the Program was being shown. Id . Defendants did not have a license for the Program. (Doc. 1, ¶ 11).
Based on the investigator's observations, Plaintiff proceeded to commence legal action against the Defendants. (Doc. 1). As referenced above, Defendants failed to answer Plaintiff's complaint which resulted in the Clerk entering default against the Defendants. (Doc. 15).
Because default has been entered against the Defendants based on their failure to respond, the only issue left to address is the amount of damages the Plaintiff may recover from the Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful interception and exhibition of the Plaintiff's Program. Prior to providing our reasons for the amount of damages Defendants owe Plaintiff, we shall supply a brief summary of the federal copyright laws underpinning Plaintiff's claim. 7 U.S.C. §605, et seq . ¶ 47 U.S.C. § 605 provides:
No person having received any intercepted radio communication... knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. 47 U.S.C. § 605.
The purpose of the statute is to provide prosecutors and civil plaintiffs with the tools needed to combat piracy of protected communications. See U.S. v. Scott, 783 F.Supp. 280, 382 (N.D. Miss. 1992). Piracy has plagued the cable industry with millions of dollars of lost revenue each year. Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. House Report no. 98-934, 5 U.S. Cong. News. Accordingly, the federal copyright laws impose severe penalties on people or entities who intercept, receive and/or broadcast protected communications.
Pursuant to §605, an aggrieved party may, at its discretion, recover either actual or statutory damages after proving a successful §605(a) claim. 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C). If the aggrieved party elects to recover statutory damages then they may recover "a sum of not less than $1, 000.00 or more than $10, 000.00, as the Court considers just" for each violation. 47 U.S.C. § 604(e)(3)(C)(i)(II). Additionally, if a court determines that a violation was committed "willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100, 000 for ...