Dish Network L.L.C. v. World Cable Inc.
893 F. Supp. 2d 452
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- DISH Network, EchoStar, and NagraStar sue World Cable, Premium Hosting, Statewide, Sohail, Malik, and Rasul for DMCA, Communications Act, and NY law claims.
- Court reviews Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss DMCA and Communications Act claims and Plaintiffs’ Rule 15(a) motion to amend.
- Plaintiffs allege a World Cable IPTV rebroadcasting scheme using EchoStar receivers and NagraStar smart cards to decrypt DISH signals.
- DISH allegedly owns exclusive rights to certain South Asian channels; defendants purportedly re-broadcast these channels via World Cable.
- A court-seizure order recovered several EchoStar receivers; some were not surrendered and others were moved to unauthorized locations.
- The court grants in part the amendment and dismisses certain federal claims while preserving others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMCA 1201(a)(1) amendment futility | DISH argues new allegations cure defects and support circumvention | World Cable contends amendments are futile and improperly framed | DMCA(a)(1) claims dismissed; amendment denied |
| DMCA 1201(a)(2) amendment futility | DISH contends World Cable boxes enabled circumvention | World Cable argues no enabling device or trafficking proved | DMCA(a)(2) claims dismissed; amendment denied |
| First sentence §605(a) amendment futility | DISH seeks liability of non-communications personnel | World Cable rejects liability of non-communications personnel | First sentence §605(a) claim dismissed; amendment denied |
| Third sentence §605(a) and §605(e)(4) amendment granted | DISH argues third sentence and §605(e)(4) applicable | World Cable argues absence of interception and other issues | Amendment to add third sentence §605(a) and §605(e)(4) granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; no bare conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; factual allegations required)
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) (DMCA protection; circumvention not mere use of decrypted material)
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F.Supp.2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (anti-piracy provisions and technological measures supporting DMCA claims)
- Chamberlain Grp. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (circumvention and access terms under DMCA; statutory interpretation guidance)
- National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner Ent. Co. L.P., 217 F.Supp.2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (intermediary liability under § 605(a) for divulging or transmitting content)