J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Brownfield
4:17-cv-00188
N.D. Okla.Sep 1, 2017Background:
- Plaintiff J & J Sports held exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights to the May 2, 2015 Mayweather–Pacquiao fight broadcast, which was encrypted and available only by sublicense.
- Three separate investigators observed the Program being shown at defendants’ establishment, Nara Cafe, without a sublicense; each paid a cover charge of $10 or $15.
- Investigator counts of patrons varied: initial counts ~32–40; another reported an uncountable standing-room crowd on four screens; a later count recorded 85–92 patrons on two TVs.
- The appropriate sublicense fee for an establishment of that size would have been $3,000.
- Defendants were served by publication, failed to appear or answer, and the clerk entered default; plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking $110,000 in damages plus fees and costs.
- The court found the piracy willful and for commercial gain and awarded statutory and enhanced damages (less than plaintiff requested) plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 605 by exhibiting the encrypted broadcast without a sublicense | J & J argued defendants intercepted and publicly exhibited the Program without authorization, charging cover fees and profiting | Defendants did not appear or contest the claims | Court found a violation of § 605; default judgment entered against defendants |
| Whether the violation was willful and commercially motivated | Plaintiff argued the showing was deliberate and for private financial gain (cover charges, large crowd) | No opposing argument (default) | Court found the violation willful and for commercial advantage, permitting enhanced damages |
| Appropriate amount of statutory damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(i) | Sought maximum statutory damages per violation ($1,000–$10,000) and asked for maximum award | No response | Court awarded $7,500 in statutory damages as just and compensatory |
| Amount of enhanced damages under § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) | Sought maximum enhanced damages (up to $100,000 per violation) given willfulness | No response | Court awarded $10,000 in enhanced damages as sufficient deterrence and punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported authority with a reporter citation was cited in the opinion (the opinion relied on prior unpublished district-court decisions).