Welcome to our Telecom Piracy Resource Center - TV Signal Piracy Defense Law Firm - 

We handle cases of Cable and Satellite TV piracy and IPTV dealing with Joe Hand Promotions, G&G Closed Circuit, Dish/Nagrastar, Innovative Sports Management, DBA Innovative Sports Management, J&J Sports Production and similar companies.  Call us to discuss at (877) 276-5084

 

September 2022 Legal Updates:  There is some word through the grapevine that Joe Hand promotion may be filing lawsuits in California for theft of its pay-per-view boxing programs by not paying the commercial fee to broadcast such fight at a restaurant, bar, tavern, sports club, golf club, or another commercial venue.  Click on the podcast below for a quick update.  If you are sued in California, you need a California lawyer.  Someone who is local, on the ground, and able to appear in court for you.  Out-of-state lawyers typically try to hold themselves out as nationwide firms, but they have no local boots on the ground and are not able to show up in court on a moment's notice.  We offer affordable fee structures, so if you received a summons, complaint, or notice of infringement from Joe Hand lawyers, call us at (877) 276-50-894 to discuss.

August 2021 Updates

We are still seeing many cases of illegal fight broadcast being pursued by companies like G&G Closed Circuit Events, J&J Sports, and Joe Hand Promotions.  The global health crisis has done little to step on the brakes of this area of law, and settlements are still as aggressive as ever.  However, some telecom attorneys will look at financial hardships such as loss of business due to Covid mandates, loss of employees, customers, etc.  Call us to discuss at (877) 276-5084 if you received a letter or telephone call demanding payment and/or threatening legal action.

September 2020 Updates - Joe Hand getting aggressive, and Covid-19 is no deterrent to them.

Here is what we see now.   If you are being threatened with a large settlement for illegal broadcasting of a boxing match or soccer game, call us for a free initial consultation.  We can be reached at (877) 276-5084.  

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00382	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith, Jr. et al	Tennessee Eastern District Court	08/26/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00640	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Simpson et al	Tennessee Middle District Court	07/22/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00638	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Saman et al	Tennessee Middle District Court	07/22/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00311	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Little et al (TV2)	Tennessee Eastern District Court	07/14/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00308	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Hashem et al (TV2)	Tennessee Eastern District Court	07/14/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00310	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Patel et al (TV2)	Tennessee Eastern District Court	07/14/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00312	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Pitner et al (TV2)	Tennessee Eastern District Court	07/14/2020
	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (pla)	3:2020cv00313	Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Huff et al (TV2)	Tennessee Eastern District Court	07/14/2020

 

Introduction

So you just received a letter telling you that your company illegally broadcast a paid commercial fight and showed it at your restaurant, club, sports bar, barber shop, golf club, tavern or nightclub without paying for the proper commercial license.  Now, what do you do?  If the letter is to be believed, you could face over $100,000 in potential (enhanced) damages and have to pay their costs and attorney fees.  This can be a very frightening situation for the small business owner.

Having dealt with many Plaintiff attorneys in this niche area of federal telecommunications and copyright law, I can tell you they can be VERY aggressive and do not have a big heart for the “sorry I didn't mean to upset your client” plea or "are you kidding me we didn't make any money" pitch. 

Instead, they will be seeking money damages, usually in the five-figure range ($10,000 or more, sometimes as high as $50,000 or even more). 

This blog discusses one potential defense to consider, the so-called "internet defense."  This is where the TV signal broadcast is not received through either satellite (section 605) or cable (section 553) transmissions but rather via an internet protocol.  Currently, this is NOT what the statutes are aimed at prohibiting as the laws were written many years ago. 

Attorney Steve TIP 2021:  Note that there has also been a law recently enacted to CRIMINALIZE streaming internet piracy.  No lawyer or law firm should ever threaten you with criminal liability.  This is considered UNETHICAL.  

Watch Attorney Steve explain unauthorized broadcast law in this video

VIDEO:  here is a video discussing in general what's going on in these types of legal cases.  Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to our legal channel and join over 30,000 people who love our legal videos!!!  We have surpassed THREE MILLION VIDEO VIEWS!!

QUICK TIP:  What to do if you get a notice of infringement letter (LAWYER UP)!!!

1. Don't panic (these things happen - it is another business issue you just have to deal with - we can help)
2. Don't CALL them or EMAIL them (they will be taking notes and may “spin” what you are telling them).  Worse you could violate the #1 rule in piracy defense.   Don't put things in writing that can be used against you, such as an admission to broadcasting piracy.
3. Call us for a free initial consultation (we can provide a general idea of what you are looking at).
4. Don't spoil evidence (meaning, destroy laptops, servers, or other evidence), if you end up having to defend against a federal court lawsuit, this can come back to bite you when they ask questions at a deposition under oath about what happened to any evidence you had in your possession. 
5. Don't talk to other people (for example, the cook at your restaurant or a waiter or server). They could become witnesses against you in a court of law.

Overview - unauthorized, illegal broadcast of UFC fights

The main gist of these types of intellectual property actions is that there is a boxing or other championship fight, martial arts, or soccer game Pay-Per-View, that is being shown commercially at your bar, restaurant, nightclub, lounge, sports bar, tattoo parlor, hookah bar or some other commercial establishment. 

Typically, you have to pay for the proper “commercial” license if you want to have the legal right to publicly display the fight in a commercial business (typically, a thousand to several thousand of dollars, depending upon your legal occupancy level for your establishment).   If you don't, and you advertise the event on your Facebook page (which is typical), you can be found out a retired police or internet investigator may come to look your establishment over, and take pictures on the night of the fight, and present a signed affidavit to the IP boxing or combat law firms so they can pursue "anti-piracy" enforcement efforts - which some of their distributor contracts with their promoters may require them to do (and to split in part the fees recovered).

For example (a common problem), if you only have the “residential” (non-commercial) license, some people mistakenly believe they can take their laptop into the business establishment, plug it in with an HDMI cable to the TV's, and broadcast the fight for your customers and patrons.  Some companies might charge a "cover" or have "drink premiums."  This can lead to enforcement actions by one or more of the above-referenced companies.

Potential Plaintiff Attorneys:  a letter may come from the law firm of Jekielek & Janis, LLP (UFC).  Another letter you might get comes from the Riley Law Firm in Pasadena, California.  Both of these IP firms are very skilled and experienced and will usually pursue rather high legal demands.  Factor this in with the fact that they are not afraid to go to court, and you need to make sure you are being very calculating in your settlement approach and response.

This blog talks about one UFC case that was brought in San Diego and explains how the DEFENDANT WON on motion for summary judgment arguing, in essence, that their actions were not actually against the law.

NOTE:  The law is in a constant state of flux, and can highly depend on judge and jurisdiction, so you need to check to see if this is good persuasive law in your area.

The "Internet Defense" in Boxing Piracy Cases Explained

What if you are using an Amazon (Firestick), (or ESPN app, Fubu, DAZN or another device that works via internet protocol and access the internet through a WiFi account) you might be asking yourself, did I violate the law?  Is this against the law? Below are a few cases that discuss the "internet defense" in these types of cases and how it might help.

NOTE:  This is general legal information only and not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice.  There are many factors to consider in a signal piracy case.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Michael E. Cusi et al.

Here is one case where a Defendant prevailed on a motion (MSJ) to get the case kicked out.

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL E. CUSI, RAQUEL REGNO, and RAYMOND REGNO, individually and d/b/a THE STRONGHOLD CROSSFIT & BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU; and CGC BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU, INC., an unknown business entity d/b/a THE STRONGHOLD CROSSFIT & BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU

Plaintiff was sued by Joe Hand Promotion and in affirmative defense, raised the defense that there was no commercial broadcast and simply a private viewing in a private residence. 

They sought (a smart move if you did not violate the law and are being wrongfully accused) and recovery of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, for vindicating the public interest. 

The Plaintiff was represented by Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, P.C. of Pasadena, a prolific filer of these types of lawsuits.

Here are some snippets from the Court's Order on a motion to dismiss, granting Defendant the win on an apparent "internet defense":

• This action arises out of events involving the broadcast of an “Ultimate Fighting Championship” program at Stronghold CrossFit & Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (“Stronghold CrossFit”) on April 21, 2012, at 2176 Chatsworth Boulevard, San Diego, California 92107
• In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts four claims:
• (1) Violation of 47 U.S.C. section 605,
• (2) Violation of 47 U.S.C. section 553,
• (3) Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and
• (4) conversion
• California anti-SLAPP discussed: Finally, the Plaintiff moves under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 to strike the Defendants' counterclaim. Section 425.16(b)(1), which addresses Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), provides, A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 4.25(b)(1). California anti-SLAPP motions are available to litigants proceeding in federal court. Thomas v. Fry's Elecs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1206, 1206 (9th Cir. 2005). However, Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion must be denied because it is directed at Defendants' counterclaim, which presents a federal constitutional question. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] federal court can only entertain anti-SLAPP special motions to strike in connection with state law claims.”). With respect to attorney's fees and costs, the Court finds that although Plaintiff overreached on the applicability of the anti-SLAPP statute to Defendants' counterclaim, such overreach does not rise to the level of frivolity. Thus, each party is to bear its own fees and costs associated with litigating the motion.
• Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate because Sections 605 and 553 do not apply to programs received and displayed over the internet. Defendants contend that they purchased the Event over the internet, so that their actions cannot be governed by statutes designed to combat interceptions of satellite or cable signals. Plaintiff contends that the type of internet service determines whether liability exists under Sections 503 or 605.
• Plaintiff states, “[w]hat Defendants fail to address is how they accessed the internet.  The signal came from somewhere.” 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 Ultimate Fighting Championship event via the internet.  See discussion below.
• Even assuming that Plaintiff is correct that the type of internet service determines whether liability exists under Sections 503 and 605,4 Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence tending to demonstrate the type of internet used by Defendants. Moreover, as the discovery phase of the case is complete, Plaintiff cannot produce admissible evidence to support a necessary fact to support its claims under Sections 553 and 605. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court authorization. The defendant produced evidence demonstrating that it had cable internet. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's Section 605 claim, as Section 605 only covered “radio” (i.e., satellite) signals.
• The Court enters summary judgment in Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's federal statutory claims.

Defenses in Joe Hand and G&G Closed Circuit Cases

This shows that there are potential defenses to boxing piracy lawsuits and having a local IP lawyer review your potential options is likely your best bet. Don't be bullied by an attorney who tries to tell your actions subject you to fines, fees, and potential incarceration.  Have your case reviewed first by an experienced TV signal piracy law firm.

Remember, these federal statutes came BEFORE the internet, so likely Congress did not contemplate internet streaming as a means of downloading and watching UFC championship or boxing fights. 

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:  If you watched a fight via a stream and the discovery period closes without Plaintiff making this finding, a MSJ might be the appropriate move.  But again, it costs money to get to this point, and many small business owners may choose to pay a settlement as opposed to contesting this point and "rolling the dice" so to speak.

Other cases discussing the illegal broadcast "Internet Defense."

As noted above, the anti-broadcast piracy statutes (section 605 (Satellite) and section 553 (cable) do not seem to squarely prohibit piracy that takes place, for example, via a mobile application over the internet (ex. through the use of DAZN live streaming sports app). 

NOTE:  One should not rely on this defense in "going for it and just showing the fight because there is a potential defense", but if you are curious, there are some other cases that discuss or reference use of the internet (as opposed to cable or satellite transmission) to broadcast sports events.

• Zuffa, LLC v. Kamranian, 2013 WL 1196632 (D. N.D. March 25, 2013). Here, a sports bar streamed an Ultimate Fighting Championship event via the internet without authorization. The defendant produced evidence demonstrating that it had cable internet. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's Section 605 claim, as Section 605 only covered "radio" (i.e., satellite) signals.
  
  
• G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC vs. Catherine Samusick (Central District of California 2020).  This is a key case that recognized the so-called "internet defense" (which really just seems to suggest it is not against the law to use the internet to access paid boxing fights).  As the court noted in its ruling on summary judgement:

"Defendant Catherine Samusick a/k/a Cathy Jean Samusick is an owner, and/or operator, and/or an individual with dominion, control, oversight and management of the commercial establishment doing business as Gold Brique a/k/a/ Gold Brique Inn."

"Defendant Catherine Samusick a/k/a Cathy Jean Samusick is also the individual specifically identified as the owner on the City of La Mirada Business License issued for Gold Brique a/k/a/ Gold Brique Inn. (Id. ¶8.) On Saturday, September 16, 2017, the evening that the program was displayed, plaintiff's investigator Victor S. Pattarroyo observed the program exhibited at Gold Brique a/k/a/ Gold Brique Inn."

"The program included the main event prizefight as well as fight commentary and under-card bouts. The defendant displayed the program at issue “using an Amazon Firestick which is an internet streaming device capable of receiving TV programming through the internet."

The court discussed the two statutes (Satellite/radio) and (Cable) and found no violation of either and dismissed the case and refused to hear the other two (State law) counterclaims (Conversion and B&P 17200).

The court held:

"A. Violations of Title 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553 The defendant argues that, in this case, “the signal for the fight program in question was received over the internet” and therefore, “there was no cable or satellite signal that was intercepted, received, or exhibited.” The defendant further argues that, “[a]s such, there is no case for TV signal piracy, and therefore defendant must be granted summary judgment in her favor.”1 The Court finds that this internet defense is dispositive and will therefore limit its discussion to this issue. 47 U.S.C. section 605 provides:

(a) Practices prohibited . . . No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) 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 contained therein) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto..."

Clearly, the court felt this section was not violated.  Then, it turned to the Cable statute and noted:

"47 U.S.C. section 553 prohibits a person from “intercept[ing] or receiv[ing] or assist[ing] in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system.” Cases involving violations via cable broadcast are governed by § 553 while communications received via satellite broadcast are governed by § 605.2 See e.g., Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kennedy, 2012 WL 832543, *4 (N.D.Ohio March 9, 2012); J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Man Thi Doan, No. C-08-00324 RMW, 2008 WL 4911223, *2 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2008)."

Plaintiff could not prove a violation of either, noting:

"The Court finds that the above statutory language is unambiguous and does not support an interpretation that includes signals besides radio, satellite, and cable. Further, although the internet has been in wide usage since the mid-1990s, the legislature has not extended the reach of the statutes to include transmissions via the internet and it is not the purview of the district court to insert itself and make this determination."

The court continued:

"Accordingly, the Court declines to extend the interpretation of the relevant statutes to include unauthorized broadcasts via the internet. Other courts within the Ninth Circuit have reached similar conclusions. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Spain, Case No. 2:15-cv-00152-PHX-SMM (D.Ariz. Aug. 5, 2016, Dkt. No. 39) (In granting the defendants' summary judgment motion, the court found that sections 605 and 553 did not extend to internet streaming. The court reasoned that, “Sections 605 and 553 are inapplicable in this case. These statutes, originally enacted in 1934, were intended to prevent pirate interception of radio, satellite, and cable signals.”); see also Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cusi, 2014 WL 1921760, *3, n.4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (In granting summary judgment for the defendants the court stated it was, “skeptical that feeds received over the internet from a third party violate Sections 553 or 605.”).  Thus, because the Court finds the internet defense to be valid and there are no genuine issues of material fact, the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

This is a very important case to be aware of, especially if your business is in California.  The Plaintiff telecommunications piracy lawyers will not raise the defense for you, that you can be sure of.

But, if, for example, you streamed the martial arts, boxing or soccer matches, for example, (via an application like DAZN, ESPN app, Fubu, or an Amazon Firestick or similar internet access device), you may have a good defense, depending on your jurisdiction, but must also consider whether any state law cases may follow (ex. for intellectual property "conversion" which is another cause of action we see raised from time to time). 

Other cases to reference / review

• Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Shelley L. Spain, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00152-SMM;

• Zuffa, LLC v. Justin.tv, Inc., 838 F.Supp.2d 1102 (D. Nev. 2012);
  
  
• Ark Promotions, Inc. v. Justin.tv, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 541, 549 (cited by the court in the Cusi case);
  
  
• Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. vs. Jacob Evans Albright d/b/a Miners Ranch Saloon, (June 4, 2013 Eastern Dist. of CA) recognizing the "internet defense";

• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. vs. Jade Thompson;
  
  
• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Manzano (2008) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84931;
  
  
• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Man Thi Doan (N.D. Cal. 2008) WL 4911223;
  
  
• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Steve Sang Ro (2010) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21425; 

Some other (potentially contrary cases) to consider

• G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Gonzalez Ruiz, 2019 WL 1976486 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (no internet defense).  "The program, a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez, was shown "in a delayed manner from the Internet by using a smart phone connected to the projection television" in the bar."  The court in Jaschkowitz granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff that the defendant's actions violated section 605.
  
  
• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Jaschkowitz, No. 5:14-CV-440-REW, 2016 WL 2727015 (E.D. Ky. May 6, 2016):
  
  
• J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Vega, 2016 WL 4132290 (W.D.Ark. Aug. 2, 2016),("a straightforward reading of the statutes' pertinent text leads this Court to conclude that it is irrelevant whether the signal in this case was sent over the Internet. The statutes here say nothing one way or the other about the Internet; rather, they are explicitly concerned with whether unauthorized communications were sent or received “by wire").

Joe Hand Promotions and others may bring case as a "Copyright Infringement" case

Despite of whether or not an "internet defense" can succeed against a PPV Plaintiff, you also have to consider whether other laws have been violated, for example, copyright law.  In this case, the 553 and 605 claims may be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, but what if other federal and state law claims were alleged?

Under copyright law, technically, you are making a "public display" of the PPV fight or soccer match and this can be deemed to fall under the umbrella of federal copyright infringement because only the exclusive copyright holder has that right.  NOTE:  IN THESE CASES, ALSO SEE WHO OWNS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ENFORCE THE COPYRIGHTS VIA ANTI-PIRACY EFFORTS.  THIS IS A POTENTIAL "STANDING" ISSUE.  In my experience, I see that after a promotion agreement is signed, the copyright is also assigned (but it does not appear to be all rights, just an assignment of territorial rights, and for example, only for commercial establishments less than 500 occupancy (fire marshall).  

Sample Allegations in Complaint

Here is a sample of one complaint I reviewed (not filed, but sent to me as a demand letter) which shows the copyright claim being made:

21. Pursuant to the contract, Plaintiff entered into subsequent agreements with various entities in the State of California, allowing them to publicly exhibit the Program to their patrons.

If you received a Joe Hand Promotions, G&G Closed Circuit Events or J&J Sports Production demand letter alleging piracy of a PPV boxing match, call us for a free initial consultation. 

We have helped many companies across the United States defend in these types of cases which carry substantial fines and penalties and even pose the risk of criminal jail time (not typical however). 

Call us at (877) 276-5084.  We offer low flat rate fees for most defenses cases.

We have been in business since 2004 and have excellent client reviews

You can also send us an email through our contact form.

Our fees to represent your company

We offer low FIXED flat-rate fees (PREDICTABLE) for non-litigation cases and we have extensive federal court experience and a track record of success in this area.  We have appeared in over 200 federal court cases - mostly in California or Arizona.  We are admitted to all the California federal courts including the Northern District of California (San Francisco, Silicon Valley, San Jose), Central District (Orange County, Los Angeles, Hollywood), Eastern District (Fresno, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Redding) and Southern District (San Diego, Oceanside, La Jolla areas).

Check out our client Avvo reviews here.