Intellectual Property | Copyright Infringement | Technology | Software

J&J Sports v. Mandell Family Ventures, LLC case brief dealing with authorized broadcasts

Aug 3rd, 2017 | By | Category: Satellite TV Signal Piracy

Potential defenses in J& J Sports Productions Satellite Piracy Cases – Cable operator “authorized broadcast.”

J&J Sports Production Defense Law Firm


This blog discusses one case dealing with alleged theft of pay per view boxing fights distributed by J&J Sports Productions, Inc.  These cases can be very difficult to defend against, but here is a case brief dealing with a federal court of appeals (5th circuit) decision reversing summary judgement in favor of JJ, the Plaintiff in the case.  If you need help defending against charges of sports broadcasting piracy call us at the number above or below.

The case is J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Mandell Family Ventures, L.L.C., 751 F.3d 346, 347 (5th Cir. 2014).

Background Facts

According to the language of the decision:

“This case concerns the live broadcast of the Floyd “Money” Mayweather, Jr. v. Ricky Hatton WBC Welterweight Championship Fight (the “fight”) on December 8, 2007. The rights to broadcast the fight were held by various entities, including Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) and J&J. TWC was granted the rights to broadcast the fight by means of pay-per-view to only those venues “not accessible to the public in general.” The agreement granting TWC these rights contemplated that TWC might inadvertently broadcast the event to “commercial subscribers” and provided for a liquidated-damages fee to be paid by TWC under such circumstances. Conversely, J&J was granted the rights to broadcast the fight to only “commercial closed-circuit television exhibition outlets.”
Greenville Avenue Pizza Company (“GAPC”) is a restaurant in Dallas, Texas, which is owned by the Defendants. At all times relevant to this case, GAPC received commercial cable television services from TWC pursuant to a “Commercial Services Agreement.” On December 8, 2007, GAPC purchased the pay-per-view broadcast of the fight from TWC for $54.95 and displayed the fight in its restaurant during business hours. GAPC did not advertise the fight or charge an entry fee or any other fee to view the fight. Representatives of both GAPC and TWC attest that TWC authorized GAPC’s receipt of the broadcast. A representative of TWC described the authorization as an inadvertent error on its part.
On December 7, 2010, J&J initiated this action against the Defendants, alleging that they violated §553 and 605 by receiving and displaying the fight without first paying a licensing fee to J&J. At the conclusion of discovery, J&J filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, awarding J&J statutory damages of $350 and costs and attorney’s fees of $26,780.30. Defendants timely appealed.

 Federal Appeals Court rules there is a question of fact regarding whether or not the broadcast was “authorized” by a cable operator.

A.  Section 503 safe harbor – the court discussed exemption for liability 

Whether § 553’s Safe Harbor Applies – Section 553(a)(1) imposes civil and criminal liability for “intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system.” 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) (2006). But it includes an essential exclusion, often referred to as a “safe harbor,” that precludes the imposition of liability on the majority of cable recipients—customers of cable providers. This exclusion constrains the reach of the statute by exempting from liability those individuals who receive authorization from a cable operator:
‘No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.’

B.  Defendants contentions

According to the court documents:

“The Defendants maintain that they fall within this safe harbor. To support their argument, they provided evidence that GAPC:

(1) was a paying commercial customer of TWC;

(2) paid a separate fee for the pay-per-view broadcast of the fight;


(3) was authorized by TWC, a cable operator, to receive the broadcast of the fight.

J&J, however, contends that the Defendants’ conduct falls outside the safe harbor because, as the license holder for the closed-circuit broadcast of the fight, it did not authorize the Defendants’ receipt of the broadcast.   The district court appeared to accept J&J’s contention, holding that J&J only had to prove:

“(1) that the Event was Shown in Greenville Avenue Pizza


(2) that J&Sports did not authorize such exhibition of the Event.”

C.  Court ruling

The court after hearing both sides of the argument reached its decision:

“We conclude that this ruling misconstrues § 553(a)(1). The text of the statute unambiguously states that liability extends only to the receipt of cable services not authorized by a cable operator. Therefore, in order for a cable customer to ensure that it is not criminally or civilly liable under § 553(a)(1), it need only receive authorization from a cable operator for the cable services it receives.
J&J’s argument, in essence, is that a cable customer who receives such authorization may still face liability under § 553 unless it takes the additional step of ensuring that the cable operator itself is licensed to distribute the various broadcasts that the customer views.
Interpreting the safe harbor in this highly restrictive manner finds no support in the text of the statute. The statute does not hinge liability on the cable customer taking additional steps or the cable operator being licensed to distribute a broadcast: The exclusion from liability simply applies to those who receive authorization from a cable operatorSee J&J Prods., Inc. v. Schmalz, 745 F.Supp.2d 844, 851 (S.D.Ohio 2010)
Moreover, applying the safe-harbor provision in the manner J&advocates would expand liability under the statute to ends not encompassed by the text, holding liable cable customers who unknowingly receive broadcasts that the cable company was not licensed to distribute, even though they were authorized by the cable operator to receive the broadcast.  We interpret the statute in accordance with its plain language: liability under § 553(a)(1) does not extend to those who are “specifically authorized … by a cable operator ” to receive a broadcast. 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1).”

Does J&J Sports file lawsuits? 2017 Updates.

federal lawyer pay per view theft

VIDEO:  Click on the picture above to watch our video on this topic.  Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to our popular legal channel (which is now up over 3,500 subscribers) simply click on the Red “V”.

Contact a satellite / cable piracy attorney

If you receive a legal demand letter from a law firm accusing your business of violating federal law contact us at (877) 276-5084. 
The following two tabs change content below.
We are a business and civil litigation firm with a focus on copyright infringement cases involving illegal movie downloads (torrent cases such as London Has Fallen, ME2 Productions and Malibu Media defense), software audits (ex. Microsoft audits, SPLA, Autodesk audit notification letter, Siemens PLM defense, SIIA, Adobe and Business Software Alliance defense) and other software vendors threatening piracy and infringement. We also handle cases involving internet law, anti-SLAPP, media law, right of publicity, trademarks & domain name infringement, and we have a niche practice area handling California BRE licensing disputes, accusations, subpoena response, statement of issues and investigations. We have offices in San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, San Diego & Phoenix, Arizona and accept federal copyright and trademark cases nationwide. All content on our website is general legal information only and not a substitute for legal advice, and should not be relied upon. Decisions to hire counsel should not be based on advertising alone. Blogs, videos and podcasts are authored by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise noted. We can be reached at (877) 276-5084.

Latest posts by Vondran Legal - Civil Litigation firm handling Software audits, Copyright Infringement, Internet law, and general Business & Real Estate law (see all)

Comments are closed.