J&J Sports Productions, Incorporated v. Mandell Family Ventures, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8423
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- FCA §553 and §605 live-broadcast piracy dispute concerning the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Hatton fight aired December 8, 2007.
- GAPC, owned by Defendants, received Time Warner Cable (TWC) commercial cable service and paid for the PPV broadcast.
- J&J sued Defendants alleging §553 and §605 violations for receiving/displaying the broadcast without proper licensing.
- GAPC displayed the fight in its Dallas restaurant during business hours but did not charge entry; TWC authorized the receipt.
- District court granted summary judgment to J&J for damages and fees; court of appeals reverses and remands for further proceedings.
- Court evaluates whether §553 safe harbor applies and whether §605 can apply to cable-wire receipt of a broadcast.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §553(a)(1) safe harbor applies to GAPC | J&J argues GAPC’s receipt falls outside the safe harbor since J&J held the license for the closed-circuit broadcast. | Mandell/GAPC contend GAPC was authorized by TWC to receive the broadcast and thus protected by the safe harbor. | Yes, GAPC’s receipt can be protected if authorized by a cable operator; dispute exists as to authorization scope. |
| Whether §605 applies to the Defendants’ receipt of cable services | J&J argues §605 covers wire transmissions and thus applies to GAPC via TWC’s cable system. | Defendants contend §605 covers only radio, not cable, transmissions; §553 governs cable contexts. | §605 does not apply to receipt of cable communications; §553 governs here. |
| Whether §553 liability is defeated by evidence of TWC authorization | J&J contends authorization by TWC is insufficient to shield GAPC from §553 liability because licensees must be properly licensed to distribute the broadcast. | Defendants argue TWC’s authorization and GAPC’s payment for PPV show lawful receipt; no theft. | Material fact disputes exist regarding TWC’s authorization scope and license status, precluding summary judgment on §553. |
| Whether district court’s summary judgment in favor of J&J under §605 was appropriate | J&J maintains §605 could apply if broadcast originated via satellite before cable retransmission. | Defendants urge §605 inapplicable to wire/cable receipts; §553 controls. | Reversed; §605 does not apply to the Defendants’ receipt of cable communications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Cablevision v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1996) (discussed as approach some circuits take regarding §605 reach)
- Charter Communications Entm’t I v. Burdulis, 460 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2006) (§605 has distinct radio scope; cable is §553 domain)
- TKR Cable Co. v. Cable City Corp., 267 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2001) (demarcation between wire and radio; §605 vs §553 framework)
- Norris v. United States, 88 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1996) (supports wire vs radio interpretation within FCA)
- J&J Prods. v. Schmalz, 745 F. Supp. 2d 844 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (supports §553 safe harbor application to certain commercial recipients)
- Prostar v. Massachi, 239 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2001) (statutory standing/time-bar considerations in FCA §553/§605)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory interpretation: when plain, enforce text as written)