FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 1
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Effective: [See Text Amendments]
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 47. Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs
Chapter 5. Wire or Radio Communication (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter V-A. Cable Communications
Part IV. Miscellaneous Provisions
§ 553. Unauthorized reception of cable service
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service;
"assist in intercepting or receiving" defined
(1) 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.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the
manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case
may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system
in violation of subparagraph (1).
(b) Penalties for willful violation
(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) of this section willfully and for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not
more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent
offense.
(3) For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1) of
this section, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be
deemed a separate violation.
(c) Civil action in district court; injunctions; damages; attorney's fees and costs; regulation by
States or franchising authorities
(1) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) of this section may bring a civil
action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The court may--
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 2
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent
or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section;
(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and
(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an
aggrieved party who prevails.
(3)(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with
either of the following clauses:
(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the
violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken
into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party
aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be
required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other
than the violation; or
(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations involved
in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.
(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for
purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may
increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an
amount of not more than $50,000.
(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to
believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce
the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(D) Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or
enforcing laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception
of any cable service or other communications service.
CREDIT(S)
(June 19, 1934, c. 652, Title VI, § 633, as added Oct. 30, 1984, Pub.L. 98- 549, § 2, 98 Stat.
2796, and amended Oct. 5, 1992, Pub.L. 102-385, § 21, 106 Stat. 1498.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1984 Acts. House Report No. 98-934 and Statements by Legislative Leaders, see 1984 U.S.Code
Cong. and Adm.News, p. 4655.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 3
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
1992 Acts. Senate Report No. 102-92 and House Conference Report No. 10- 862, see 1992 U.S.
Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1133.
Amendments
1992 Amendments. Subsec. (b)(2). Pub.L. 102-385, § 21(1), increased penalties from $25,000
fine or imprisonment for maximum of 1 year to $50,000 fine or imprisonment for maximum of 2
years for first offense, and from $50,000 fine or imprisonment for maximum of 2 years to
$100,000 fine and imprisonment for maximum of 5 years for any subsequent offense.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub.L. 102-385, § 21(2), added par. (3).
Effective and Applicability Provisions
1992 Acts. Amendments by Pub.L. 102-385 effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28
of Pub.L. 102-385, set out as a note under section 325 of this title.
1984 Acts. Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly
provided, see section 9(a) of Pub.L. 98-549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.
CROSS REFERENCES
Unauthorized acts as violations of criminal law, see 18 USCA § 2511.
LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES
Ownership regulatory policies in the U.S. telecom sector. Henry Geller, 13 Cardozo Arts
& Ent.L.J. 727 (1995).
LIBRARY REFERENCES
American Digest System
Telecommunications
449.5(1), 449.10, 449.15, 494.1, 498.
Key Number System Topic No. 372.
Corpus Juris Secundum
CJS Telecommunications § 222, Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 4
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
ALR Library
195 ALR, Fed. 565, Applicability of 47 U.S.C.A. § 605, Prohibiting Unauthorized Interception
of Radio Communications, to Sale and Use of Cable Decoding Equipment.
164 ALR, Fed. 139, Construction and Application of Provision of Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2520) Authorizing Civil Cause of Action by Person
Whose Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communication Is...
87 ALR, Fed. 177, Availability of Sole Shareholder's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against SelfIncrimination to Resist Production of Corporation's Books and Records--Modern Status.
61 ALR, Fed. 809, Federal Legal Problems Arising from Subscription Television or "Pay Tv"
Broadcast Over the Air.
85 ALR 3rd 895, Right of Injured Party to Award of Compensatory Damages or Fine in
Contempt Proceedings.
15 ALR 2nd 500, Effect of Fraud to Toll the Period for Bringing Action Prescribed in Statute
Creating the Right of Action.
169 ALR 315, Comment Note.--Duty in Instructing Jury in Criminal Prosecution to Explain and
Define Offense Charged.
Encyclopedias
Am. Jur. 2d Larceny § 67, Telephone or Cable Television Service.
Am. Jur. 2d Telecommunications § 190, Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service.
Forms
2B West's Federal Forms § 1833, Unauthorized Reception of Cable Services.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Telecommunications § 37, Notice -- of Proposed Rulemaking -Broadcast Assignments.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Telecommunications § 43, Order -- by Federal Communications
Commission -- Terminating Rulemaking Proceedings.
Am. Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Telecommunications § 72.1, Complaint, Petition or Declaration -- by
Owners of Television Shows and Motion Pictures -- Against Website -- Violation of the Cable
Communications Policy Act -- Splitting and Retransmitting Signal...
Treatises and Practice Aids
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 5
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition §
Reception of Cable Service.
72:992, Action for Unauthorized Interception or
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 72:1021, Enforcement of Franchisee's Cable Television
Access Rights.
13A Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. §
Administrative Augmentation.
3531.13, Standing-- Congressional and
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Attorney fees 15
Commercial advantage or financial gain 7
Communication service offered over cable system 3
Damages 14
Damages - Private financial gain 14b
Damages - Willful conduct 14a
Depositions 12
Disclaimer 8
Discovery 13
Injunctions 17
Jury trial 16
Knowledge and intent 6
Law governing 1
Limitations 9
Manufacture or distribution 5
Pleadings 11
Private financial gain, damages 14b
Retroactive effect 2
Sufficiency of evidence 10
Violations within section 4
Willful conduct, damages 14a
1. Law governing
Use of unauthorized cable television descrambler did not violate statute prohibiting unauthorized
interception of radio communications; once satellite transmission reached cable system's wire
distribution network, only applicable statute was one prohibiting unauthorized reception of cable
service. Kansas City Cable Partners ex rel. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Espy,
D.Kan.2003, 250 F.Supp.2d 1296, 195 A.L.R. Fed. 803. Telecommunications
1251
Cable Act provision, barring interception or receipt of cable television service without specific
authorization of cable services provider, did not create affirmative duty on part of seller of
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 6
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
converters/descramblers capable of unscrambling premium programming to inform cable service
providers that it was making sales in area. U.S. v. United Imports Corp., D.Neb.2000, 165
F.Supp.2d 969. Telecommunications
1256
Communications Act section prohibiting unauthorized interception or reception of cable services
is sole statutory remedy for interference with transmission of signals over cable television
system; section prohibiting unauthorized publication or use of communications governs only the
interception of satellite or radio transmission through the air and does not regulate the unlawful
interception of communications which are sent over a cable network. TWC Cable Partners v.
Cableworks, Inc., D.N.J.1997, 966 F.Supp. 305. Telecommunications
1251
Scope of Communications Act section prohibiting unauthorized receipt or use of
communications in radio form is limited to interdicting the interception of cable television
signals while they are being transmitted via radio wave, while section prohibiting unauthorized
reception of cable services prohibits unauthorized interception of cable signals transmitted over
wire. TCI Cablevision of New England v. Pier House Inn, Inc., D.R.I.1996, 930 F.Supp. 727.
Telecommunications
1251
2. Retroactive effect
Amendment to Cable Communications Policy Act could be considered in cable television
company's action to enjoin installation of second outlets, although amendment was made after
action was commenced, where alleged violation of Act was ongoing. Manhattan Cable
Television, Inc. v. Cable Doctor, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1993, 824 F.Supp. 34. Telecommunications
1244
3. Communication service offered over cable system
"Communication service offered over cable system" in provision of Cable Communications
Policy Act prohibiting interception of communications services offered over cable system has
same meaning as phrase "communication service provided over cable system to cable
subscribers" in amended provision of Act providing extent to which cable franchising authorities
and federal and state agencies may regulate rates for provision of cable service. Manhattan
Cable Television, Inc. v. Cable Doctor, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1993, 824 F.Supp. 34.
Telecommunications
1251
4. Violations within section
Single purchase of pirate decoding device did not constitute conspiracy between purchaser and
seller of device under Cable Communications Policy Act (CCPA). Comcast Cable
Communications v. Adubato, D.N.J.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 684. Telecommunications
498
Theft of cable television services, through use of unauthorized descrambling device, violated
statute proscribing unauthorized interception of cable transmissions, but not statute proscribing
unauthorized interception of radio transmissions, for purpose of calculating damages, even
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 7
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
though intercepted programs had been transmitted to cable operator via radio from satellites;
programs were being transmitted by cable at point of interception. Charter Communications
Entertainment I, LLC v. Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16. Telecommunications
1253
Cable television system operator was entitled to maximum assessment of $50,000 enhanced
damages against seller of cable television descramblers for violation of the Cable
Communications Act, where sellers deliberately sold, marketed, and distributed illegal cable
descramblers, making substantial profits in doing so. Comcast of Illinois, X, LLC v. Platinum
Electronics, Inc., D.Neb.2004, 336 F.Supp.2d 957. Telecommunications
498
Material issues of fact, as to whether owner of bar intentionally established his business as
residential account when arranging for cable television service, precluded summary judgment
that he violated federal statutes prohibiting intentional interception of cable services and
unauthorized use of interstate communications by radio, by paying residential instead of
commercial rates for showing of closed circuit boxing match in pub. Garden City Boxing Club,
Inc. v. Stone, D.Del.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 447. Federal Civil Procedure
2519
Cable television service subscriber, who used "pirate" decoder to access programing without
paying for it, was liable for unauthorized reception of service. Kansas City Cable Partners ex rel.
Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Espy, D.Kan.2003, 250 F.Supp.2d 1296, 195 A.L.R.
Fed. 803. Telecommunications
1251
Restaurant owners who intercepted and displayed closed circuit broadcast of boxing event
without authorization were liable for theft of satellite communication and theft of cable
communication. King Vision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Spice Restaurant & Lounge, Inc.,
D.Kan.2003, 244 F.Supp.2d 1173. Telecommunications
1251
Issue of material fact as to whether satellite television system operator's splicing into cable
television system operator's wiring constituted "interception" of cable operator's signal precluded
summary judgment on cable operator's action for violation of statute proscribing such
interceptions. CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Westchester Terrace at Crisfield Condominium,
S.D.N.Y.2002, 235 F.Supp.2d 243. Federal Civil Procedure
2519
For a cable operator lawfully permitted to broadcast a fight to residential customers to allow its
services to be used to permit commercial establishments to tap-in to the broadcast without paying
satellite broadcaster which held the exclusive right to broadcast the fight commercially was not
an authorization that cable operator could give, under anti-piracy provision of the
Communications Act, or otherwise.
National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner
Entertainment Co. L.P., S.D.N.Y.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 466. Telecommunications
1440
Owner or manager of bar would be found liable for willfully intercepting and rebroadcasting
professional boxing match that was broadcast on cable and satellite, for purposes of direct or
indirect commercial advantage, where bar owner could not have intercepted the broadcast
innocently or by mistake, as he advertised the event before it took place and did not order or pay
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 8
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
for receiving the broadcast, the broadcast was decoded or unscrambled by some device used by
the bar owner, and bar patrons paid cover charge to enter bar on night of the broadcast.
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Scott E's Pub, Inc., E.D.Wis.2001, 146 F.Supp.2d 955.
Telecommunications
1251; Telecommunications
1304
Individual's unauthorized reception of cable television operator's programming over six years
through use of unauthorized decoder constituted single violation of statute prohibiting
unauthorized publication or use of communications or statute prohibiting unauthorized reception
of cable service, rather than multiple violations based on each monthly cable billing period and
each pay-per-view program. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Lokshin,
E.D.N.Y.1997, 980 F.Supp. 107. Telecommunications
1251
Unauthorized installation of second outlet service violates provision of Cable Communications
Policy Act prohibiting unauthorized reception of any communication service offered over a cable
system. Manhattan Cable Television, Inc. v. Cable Doctor, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1993, 824 F.Supp. 34.
Telecommunications
1251
Subscriber to cable television services was shown to have tampered with cable converter boxes
in violation of statute prohibiting interception of cable television and services; subscriber
operated cable converter boxes with private "firmware" which allowed interception and receipt
of premium channels for which subscriber had not paid. American Cablevision of Queens v.
McGinn, E.D.N.Y.1993, 817 F.Supp. 317. Telecommunications
1251
Cable television converter which permitted cable television users to utilize remote channel
control and to view on one cable channel while recording on another channel, but which did not
permit user to receive cable channels without acquiring basic cable service, to unscramble
premium cable programming, or to unscramble or decode protective or security devices
employed by cable companies, was not a pirating device designed and/or manufactured to assist
a user to tap into cable television broadcaster's system in violation of Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984, or Communications Act of 1934; thus manufacturer, distributor, and retailer
of converter was entitled to summary judgment. Shenango Cable TV, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.,
W.D.Pa.1986, 631 F.Supp. 835. Telecommunications
1251
Individuals violated Federal Cable Communications Policy Act section [47 U.S.C.A. § 553] by
their unauthorized sale, provision of instructions for installing, and actual installation of
converters, decoders or other cable television equipment, coupled with their specific knowledge
or intent that such equipment be used to intercept cable television distributors' protected
transmissions. Storer Communications, Inc. v. Mogel, S.D.Fla.1985, 625 F.Supp. 1194.
Telecommunications
1251
Individual defendant's unauthorized reception of cable programming services from cable
television operator through unauthorized connection was violation of federal statutory provision
governing unauthorized publication or use of communications and of provision governing
unauthorized reception of cable service, where signals to operator's programming were all
transmitted over the air from orbiting satellites to operator's cable head-end. International
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 9
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Cablevision, Inc. v. Cancari, W.D.N.Y.1997, 960 F.Supp. 28. Telecommunications
1251
Default judgment would be entered in favor of a cable television provider in its action under the
Federal Communications Act against a pro se defendant who allegedly purchased, distributed,
and used pirate cable television descramblers; the defendant failed to respond to the complaint,
failed to respond to discovery or appear on court ordered dates for his deposition, failed to
appear for a court conference which was specifically set for after work hours to address his
concerns, and failed to respond in any way to the motion for a default. Cablevision Systems
New York City Corp. v. Torres, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22078938, Unreported. Federal Civil
Procedure
2415
Pursuant to allegations of cable company, which was granted default judgment, business operator
violated two provisions of Cable Communications Policy Act that prohibited unauthorized
interception and reception of cable programming services by displaying boxing event without
cable company's authorization, given that intercepted programming was sent to cable company
via over-the-air transmissions and then retransmitted to cable company's customers through its
cable wiring. Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Sanchez, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL
21744089, Unreported. Telecommunications
1440
Damages for restaurant's violation of Communications Act sections, prohibiting unauthorized
use of wire or radio communications and unauthorized reception of cable services, that occurred
when it received and broadcast pay-per-view boxing event without authorization, would only be
assessed pursuant to section prohibiting unauthorized use of wire or radio communications;
recovery under both sections of Act was impermissible. Top Rank Inc. v. Tacos Mexicanos,
E.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21143072, Unreported. Telecommunications
1253
5. Manufacture or distribution
Proof of actual interception or reception of cable service is not required for a conviction for
unauthorized reception of cable service if there is proof of willful manufacture or distribution of
equipment intended for unauthorized use in the interception or reception of cable communication
service. U.S. v. Beale, D.Me.1988, 681 F.Supp. 74. Telecommunications
1256
6. Knowledge and intent
Seller of cable television descramblers intended to assist cable television system operator's
customers in intercepting operator's programming service without purchasing it, in violation of
the Cable Communications Act prohibiting the interception or assistance of others in intercepting
communications services offered over a cable system; seller intended to enable purchasers to
receive and unscramble programming services offered by operator without notifying the operator
and without paying for the services, and seller did not engage in any other business. Comcast of
Illinois, X, LLC v. Platinum Electronics, Inc., D.Neb.2004, 336 F.Supp.2d 957.
Telecommunications
1256
Individual's conduct in intercepting and receiving cable television operator's private cable
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 10
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
telecommunication signals through use of unauthorized decoder was "willful" within meaning of
statute prohibiting unauthorized reception of cable service, as required for award of enhanced
damages to operator under statute, where individual took measures to purchase and install
unauthorized decoder, notwithstanding prohibition in his cable subscription agreement with
operator. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, E.D.N.Y.1997, 980 F.Supp.
107. Telecommunications
1253
Manufacturing and selling of cable television programming signal decoding devices is not per se
illegal under Communications Act, and to be in violation of Act, defendants must have acted
with specific knowledge or intent that the decoding devices they manufactured and/or sold would
be used for the unauthorized interception of cable programming. Intermedia Partners Southeast
General Partnership v. QB Distributors L.L.C., D.Minn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1274.
Telecommunications
1251
Material issues of fact, as to whether barber shop proprietor knew he was renting shop to third
persons for purposes of showing pay per view boxing match without compensating holder of
rights to televise match, precluded summary judgment that proprietor violated Cable
Communications Policy Act by exhibiting pirated broadcast. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.
Albino Dragone, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21878816, Unreported. Federal Civil Procedure
2519
7. Commercial advantage or financial gain
Subscriber to cable television services was not liable for willful violation of prohibition of
interception of cable television services for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain absent showing that subscriber had intercepted signal in place of business or for
private financial gain. American Cablevision of Queens v. McGinn, E.D.N.Y.1993, 817 F.Supp.
317. Telecommunications
1251
Even if businessman obtained cable television "black boxes" device that would permit users to
view programs broadcast on premium channels without paying for services in good faith did not
absolve businessman of liability under Cable Communications Policy Act provision prohibiting
unauthorized reception of cable services for his decision to sell box to recover his costs, where
sale of box was concededly unauthorized and indisputably knowing and intentional violation of
law, despite that businessman had not made any other sale and did not make profit. International
Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1993, 997 F.2d 998. Telecommunications
1251
8. Disclaimer
Corporation and its owners violated Communications Act sections governing unauthorized
publication or use of communications and unauthorized reception of cable service by
manufacturing, modifying, selling, and distributing converter-decoders to cable television system
operator's subscribers, knowing, having reason to know, and intending that their devices would
be used to intercept and receive cable television services and programming without operator's
authorization, and fact that disclaimers were enclosed with shipments of descramblers which
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 11
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
advised customers to contact their local cable television provider and advise it of their purchase
and use of device did not exculpate them from otherwise illegal conduct. Time Warner Cable of
New York City v. Freedom Electronics, Inc., S.D.Fla.1995, 897 F.Supp. 1454.
Telecommunications
1251
Cable television decoding device seller possessed requisite intent to assist in piracy of cable
signals as required for liability under statute governing unauthorized reception of cable service,
despite seller's printed disclaimer; decoders sold by seller had sole substantial purpose of
interception and descrambling of cable television operator's signals, and contention that
customers purchased seller's decoders to avoid relatively small rental fees on decoders was
unpersuasive. Time Warner Cable of New York City, a Div. of Time Warner Entertainment Co.,
L.P. v. Cable Box Wholesalers, Inc., D.Ariz.1996, 920 F.Supp. 1048. Telecommunications
1251
Evidence of exculpatory language in defendants' contracts with customers, whereby customers
declared under penalty of perjury that descrambling devices would be used only with proper
authorization from cable company officials, did not serve to negate defendant's guilty intent, but
only provided evidence of affirmative defense. Oceanic Cablevision, Inc. v. M.D. Electronics,
D.Neb.1991, 771 F.Supp. 1019.
9. Limitations
Three-year statute of limitations borrowed from the Copyright Act, rather than two-year statute
of limitations applicable to theft of cable services under New York law, applied to claims
brought by satellite broadcaster, which held the exclusive right to broadcast boxing match,
against cable broadcaster for violation of anti-piracy provisions of the Communications Act.
National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., S.D.N.Y.2003, 255
F.Supp.2d 307, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1777. Telecommunications
498
Pennsylvania cable piracy statute's two year limitations period, rather than the Copyright Act's
three year limitations period, applied to sports programming licensee's action under piracy
provisions of the Federal Communications Act (FCA) against owner and operator of bar at which
unauthorized closed circuit telecast of boxing match was allegedly exhibited; Pennsylvania
statute was directly analogous to the FCA's piracy provisions, and neither practicalities of
litigation nor federal policy or law were frustrated by such application. Kingvision Pay-PerView, Corp., Ltd. v. 898 Belmont, Inc., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2004, 366 F.3d 217, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1786.
Federal Courts
424
Cable Communications Policy Act provisions proscribing manufacturing and distributing
"pirate" cable television decoding devices were subject to Copyright Act's three-year statute of
limitations, rather than state statute of limitations for conversion. Time Warner Cable Nat. Div.
v. Bubacz, N.D.W.Va.2001, 198 F.Supp.2d 800.
Cable Communications Policy Act provisions proscribing unauthorized interception and telecast
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 12
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
of pay-per-view television programs were subject to Copyright Act's three-year statute of
limitations. Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Boom Town Saloon, Inc., N.D.Ill.2000, 98
F.Supp.2d 958. Telecommunications
1252
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) search of corporation suspected of selling "pirate" cable
television decoders, and seizure of such decoders, did not put cable television operator on notice
that it was one of the companies being victimized by piracy, so as to start running of two-year
limitations period for operator's action under Cable Communications Policy Act against pirate
corporation. CSC Holdings, Inc. v. J.R.C. Products, Inc., N.D.Ill.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 794,
reversed 309 F.3d 988, rehearing denied. Limitation Of Actions
95(3)
Cable television operator's claims against cable television decoding device seller and seller's
officer under statute governing unauthorized reception of cable service accrued on date operator
acquired actual knowledge of damages caused by seller and officer two months prior to bringing
action against seller and officer and, thus, claims were not barred by Arizona one-year statute of
limitations, despite contention that operator should have been aware of seller's conduct earlier
because of defendants' widespread magazine advertising of decoders for sale; there was no
evidence that operator knew or should have known prior to its actual discovery that decoders
sold by seller were modified to enable purchasers to intercept operator's cable signals. Time
Warner Cable of New York City, a Div. of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Cable Box
Wholesalers, Inc., D.Ariz.1996, 920 F.Supp. 1048. Limitation Of Actions
95(3)
Action brought by licensee, which owned commercial sales rights for transmission of boxing
broadcast, alleging that establishment wrongfully intercepted and exhibited broadcast in
violation of Federal Communications Act (FCA) would be subject to three-year limitations
period set forth in Copyright Act, as application of state limitations period would undermine
national scope of FCA, both Copyright Act and FCA protected proprietary rights in context of
cable transmissions, and statutes had similar remedial structures; abrogating Joe Hand
Promotions, Inc. v. Lott, 971 F.Supp. 1058. Prostar v. Massachi, C.A.5 (La.) 2001, 239 F.3d
669. Telecommunications
1252
10. Sufficiency of evidence
Ample evidence supported district court's finding that defendant assisted "in intercepting or
receiving" cable transmissions without authorization by building and selling television cable
converters or "descramblers" which enabled customers to receive additional cable channels
without paying required fees to the company. U.S. v. Coyle, C.A.4 (Va.) 1991, 943 F.2d 424.
Telecommunications
1257
Owner of device capable of unscrambling coded cable television signals violated
Communications Act prohibitions barring interception of unauthorized programming; there were
invoices showing sale of device to owner by company providing equipment to avoid payment of
program fees, device had no other function, and failure of owner to defend suit was evidence of
liability. CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Kelly, E.D.N.Y.2005, 374 F.Supp.2d 303. Telecommunications
1251
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 13
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Fact issue existed as to whether buyer of illicit cable television converter-decoders, which could
permit buyer to receive cable television company's premium programming offerings without
subscribing to those offerings, had used purchased devices, precluding summary judgment for
buyer in company's action against buyer alleging piracy under Communications Act; purchase
alone permitted inference of use, if fact finder disbelieved buyer's explanation that he had stored
devices and never used them. Cablevision of Connecticut, L.P. v. Noferi, D.Conn.2005, 371
F.Supp.2d 110. Federal Civil Procedure
2519
Cable television company did not present sufficient evidence that it would suffer irreparable
harm if temporary restraining order did not issue ex parte to prevent alleged decoded cable
television device distributor from advertising and selling decoders on his website, where
company discovered distributor's activities over two and one-half years earlier, but did not
investigate the matter at that time, and even after confirming that distributor was likely engaging
in illegal activity, company waited almost four months to commence action under Cable
Communications Policy Act (CCPA). Comcast of Illinois X, LLC v. Till, E.D.Wis.2003, 293
F.Supp.2d 936. Telecommunications
1253
Evidence, in cable operator's suit against seller of cable descrambling decoders, supported
determination that seller distributed devices designed for unauthorized receipt of cable
programming services with intent of assisting others in receipt of cable programming services
without authorization of cable company or any other cable operator, for purposes of private
financial gain. Columbia Cable TV Co., Inc. v. McCary, D.S.C.1996, 954 F.Supp. 124.
Telecommunications
1252
Evidence established that owner of commercial bar was liable to cable television broadcasting
company for violating sections of Cable Communications Policy Act prohibiting unauthorized
reception of cable service and unauthorized publication or use of cable communications; bar's
satellite system contained pirate chip which allowed it to unscramble encrypted broadcasts
although it was not authorized to do so, and cable broadcast of boxing match was displayed in
bar. Home Box Office v. Gee-Co Inc., E.D.Mo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 436. Telecommunications
1299
11. Pleadings
Federal criminal law, Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, appeared to proscribe conduct
alleged in two specifications and described in providence inquiry and, thus, misconduct was not
punishable at trial by court-martial under Hawaii statute and Federal Assimilative Crimes Act,
but reversal was not required since elements of correct statute were otherwise covered and
variance did not mislead accused to his prejudice and did not affect his substantial rights;
accused was charged with knowingly distributing cable television device and knowing that it
would be used to obtain cable television service without payment of applicable charges. U.S. v.
Mitchell, NMCMR 1993, 36 M.J. 882, review granted 38 M.J. 322, affirmed 40 M.J. 270,
certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 635, 513 U.S. 1041, 130 L.Ed.2d 540. Military Justice
963;
Military Justice
1424
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 14
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Company providing cable television services sufficiently alleged violation of Communications
Act section prohibiting unauthorized interception or reception of cable services by defendant
allegedly engaged in business of modifying and selling pirate decoders, even though company
stated that converters had ability to "receive" unauthorized cable signals rather than to "interpret"
signals. TWC Cable Partners v. Cableworks, Inc., D.N.J.1997, 966 F.Supp. 305.
Telecommunications
1252
Allegations in cable television provider's complaint, that defendants had willfully and
intentionally assisted its customers in intercepting or receiving its premium communications
services by providing customers with descrambling devices capable of unscrambling its signals,
sufficiently alleged guilty intent on part of defendants to state claim against defendants under
Cable Communications Policy Act. Oceanic Cablevision, Inc. v. M.D. Electronics, D.Neb.1991,
771 F.Supp. 1019. Telecommunications
1252
12. Depositions
By appearing for deposition without objection in civil action, in which defendant was being sued
for fraud for alleged unauthorized sale of cable decoder equipment, defendant effectively waived
any right he had to limit deposition's use so as to prevent disclosure of deposition to United
States Attorney's Office in event of retrial of his criminal case after appeal of his criminal
conviction under Cable Communications Policy Act; time for filing motion to seal deposition
was before deposition commenced. Wisconsin Cable Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Gardner,
E.D.Wis.1988, 692 F.Supp. 1002. Federal Civil Procedure
1437
13. Discovery
Cable television corporation that brought prepetition action against Chapter 11 debtor for
allegedly selling signal decoders, in violation of Communications Act and New York law
governing cable television rates, in federal district court, was required to seek discovery relief in
bankruptcy court; however, Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction over debtor's appeal from
district court's postpetition order granting corporation certain rights of discovery and inspection
with respect to allegedly illegal decoder sales. Time Warner Cable of New York City, a Div. of
Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. M.D. Electronics, Inc., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1996, 101 F.3d
278, opinion after remand 112 F.3d 505. Bankruptcy
3046(1); Bankruptcy
3765
Expedited discovery and issuance of temporary restraining order ex parte was warranted, which
required alleged decoded device distributor to preserve all of his business records relating to sale
of decoders as well as any decoders that he presently possessed, and which prevented alleged
distributor from disposing of his assets or otherwise secreting any of his assets, in lawsuit under
Cable Communications Policy Act (CCPA), since company showed that other sellers of decoders
destroyed evidence and secreted assets and preservation of possible evidence of profits from
unlawful sales was necessary for company to fully pursue its claim. Comcast of Illinois X, LLC
v. Till, E.D.Wis.2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 936. Injunction
150
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 15
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Pursuant to Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, principals of corporation that
allegedly sold unauthorized cable services descrambling devices could not be compelled to
disclose their assets, make accounting of their purchase and sales of descrambling devices, and
disclose locations at which pertinent records or devices could be found under ex parte order
which authorized federal agents to enter corporation's place of business and seize records,
computers, and descrambling devices; because alleged conduct violated state and federal law,
information sought was potentially incriminating, and it was unlikely that principals would know
and assert right not to produce such information when faced with agents' forced entry and seizure
of other materials. Suppressed v. Suppressed, N.D.Ill.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 902. Witnesses
298
14. Damages
Statutory damage provision of Cable Communications Policy Act, establishing award of between
$250 and $10,000 "for all violations involved in the action," does not contemplate computation
of civil damages on per-violation basis, even though Act permits cumulative criminal sanctions.
General Instrument Corp. of Delaware v. Nu-Tek Electronics & Mfg., Inc., C.A.3 (Pa.) 1999,
197 F.3d 83, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1759. Telecommunications
1253
Violator did not have federal right to indemnification under Cable Communications Policy Act
and Communications Act; explicit language of pertinent statutes did not provide right to
indemnification or contribution, there was no indication of congressional intent to grant violators
such rights, remedies set forth in statutes were comprehensive, and no unique federal interests
existed to justify recognition of federal common-law right. Doherty v. Wireless Broadcasting
Systems of Sacramento, Inc., C.A.9 (Cal.) 1998, 151 F.3d 1129, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 48,
528 U.S. 813, 145 L.Ed.2d 43. Indemnity
64
Cable television company was entitled to award of damages of at least $250 as statutory damages
for violation of Cable Communications Policy Act by businessman who sold device used to
illegally intercept cable broadcast in violation of prohibition against unauthorized reception of
cable services, where district court did not find that businessman was not aware and had no
reason to believe that his act constituted violated of Act, and court observed that defendant
obviously had knowledge of business and clearly intended to violate law. International
Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1993, 997 F.2d 998. Telecommunications
1253
Cable television service provider was not entitled to recovery under provision in Cable
Communications Policy Act (CCPA) which provided for $100,000 in statutory damages, for
alleged conspiracy between purchaser of pirate decoding device and seller, since violation was
not for purposes of commercial advantage, or private financial gain other than purchaser
obtained service from provider through pirate decoder for use in his home without paying for it.
Comcast Cable Communications v. Adubato, D.N.J.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 684.
Telecommunications
1253
Statutory damage award for private home user's violation of statute proscribing interception of
cable television transmissions should be reasonable estimate of cable service provider's actual
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 16
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
damages, and should not include any component for punishment or deterrence. Charter
Communications Entertainment I, LLC v. Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16.
Telecommunications
1253
Appropriate rate of statutory damages arising from private individual's use of statutorily
prohibited electronic device to intercept cable television signal was $139 per month, where
individual paid cable company $6 per month for basic services, cost of enhanced services was
$80 per month, 10 pay-per-view movies would be $25 per month, and four pay-per-view
selections would be $10 per month. Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. v. Naranjo, D.Mass.2004,
303 F.Supp.2d 43. Telecommunications
1253
Cable television company did not show that failure to issue ex parte order, to authorize
company's agents to enter home of alleged decoded device distributor and seize his records and
property, would have rendered lawsuit under Cable Communications Policy Act (CCPA)
fruitless; although company did show that other sellers of decoders destroyed evidence, there
was relatively slight risk that distributor would violate court's order, relatively small amount of
harm that company would suffer in event of violation, and order would have implicated Fifth
Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights. Comcast of Illinois
X, LLC v. Till, E.D.Wis.2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 936. Telecommunications
1251
Appropriate damages for restaurant owners' unlicensed, willful interception of closed circuit
television exhibition of boxing match was $10,000 plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. King
Vision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Spice Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., D.Kan.2003, 244 F.Supp.2d
1173. Telecommunications
1253
Statutory damages under provisions of Communications Act of 1934 prohibiting piracy of
closed-circuit television signals were equitable in nature, and thus Seventh Amendment did not
require jury trial of action under Act. National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Prashad, S.D.Fla.1999, 76
F.Supp.2d 1359. Jury
14(1)
Award to cable television operator of statutory damages, as opposed to actual damages, under
statute prohibiting unauthorized reception of cable service was appropriate for individual's
conduct in intercepting and receiving operator's private cable telecommunication signals through
use of unauthorized decoder, in light of difficulty in determining extent of individual's
unauthorized use with any degree of accuracy. Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v.
Lokshin, E.D.N.Y.1997, 980 F.Supp. 107. Telecommunications
1253
Award of maximum statutory damages amount of $10,000 was appropriate for individual's single
violation of statute prohibiting unauthorized reception of cable service by intercepting and
receiving cable television operator's signals over six years through use of unauthorized decoder,
in operator's action against individual, where $9,000 was reasonable estimate of value of
programming that individual had received without proper payment. Cablevision Systems New
York City Corp. v. Lokshin, E.D.N.Y.1997, 980 F.Supp. 107. Telecommunications
1253
Individual defendant was liable to cable television operator for seven violations of federal
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 17
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
statutory provision governing unauthorized publication or use of communications and provision
governing unauthorized reception of cable service, due to defendant's unauthorized reception of
cable programming services through unauthorized connection, where defendant's unauthorized
reception spanned over period during which defendant would have had to make seven monthly
payments to receive operator's programming with operator's authorization. International
Cablevision, Inc. v. Cancari, W.D.N.Y.1997, 960 F.Supp. 28. Telecommunications
1251
Penalty in amount of $250 for each of 340 cable descrambling decoders unlawfully distributed
by seller, plus additional award of statutory damages of $25 for each such decoder, for total civil
award in favor of cable operator of $93,500 was appropriate for seller's willful conduct in
distributing decoders for profit that enabled others to obtain scrambled cable TV programming
without authorization. Columbia Cable TV Co., Inc. v. McCary, D.S.C.1996, 954 F.Supp. 124.
Telecommunications
1253
In civil contempt proceeding against corporations and their owner, in cable television operator's
action arising from corporations' sale of unauthorized cable television descramblers, operator
would not be awarded damages resulting from owner's importation of descramblers after entry of
parties' final consent judgment and permanent injunction, but would be awarded as part of its
costs of seizure $4,500 informer's fee operator paid to owner's employee who informed operator
of owner's involvement in importation, which was cost of operator's investigation of owner's
compliance with consent decree; owner took decisive steps to import approximately 8,500
illegal descrambler devices in violation of consent judgment, and operator took possession of all
of the devices before any sales were made to end-users. Time Warner Cable of New York City,
a Div. of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. U.S. Cable T.V., Inc., E.D.N.Y.1996, 920
F.Supp. 321. Federal Civil Procedure
2397.6; Injunction
232
Cable television company would be awarded $250 minimum statutory damages award against
seller of descramblers, intended for use in unauthorized reception of company's premium
programming, where seller sold two descramblers for total of $600, record did not establish that
seller's purpose was to profit financially from sales, and seller knew that use of descramblers was
illegal. International Cablevision, Inc. v. Noel, W.D.N.Y.1994, 859 F.Supp. 69, vacated 75 F.3d
123, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 298, 519 U.S. 929, 136 L.Ed.2d 217, on remand 172 F.R.D. 63,
on remand 982 F.Supp. 904. Telecommunications
1253
Statutory minimum damages for unauthorized interception of cable television signal were
irrelevant where cable franchisee had elected statutory damages pursuant to a different statutory
provision. Cablevision Systems Corp. v. 45 Midland Enterprises, Inc., S.D.N.Y.1994, 858
F.Supp. 42. Telecommunications
1253
Statutory damages of $1,000, increased by additional $2,000 for willfulness, would be imposed
on owner of commercial bar who was liable to cable television broadcasting company for
violating section of Cable Communications Policy Act prohibiting unauthorized reception of
cable service; owner testified he was long aware that bar's satellite system could unscramble
encrypted signals and knew it was unlawful, and yet did nothing about it. Home Box Office v.
Gee-Co Inc., E.D.Mo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 436. Telecommunications
1300
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 18
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Bar's unlawful receipt and unscrambling of encrypted satellite signal, for purpose of showing
sports events that would attract customers to bar, warranted statutory damages of $1,000,
increased by $1,000 for willfulness. Home Box Office v. Carlim, Inc., E.D.Mo.1993, 838
F.Supp. 432. Telecommunications
1300
Subscriber of cable television services who had tampered with cable converter boxes and
received premium channels for which he did not pay was liable for damages in amount of $250
per converter box per month that unauthorized service was received. American Cablevision of
Queens v. McGinn, E.D.N.Y.1993, 817 F.Supp. 317. Telecommunications
1253
Individual, who was found to possess six or more electronic cable decoders, behaved willfully
and with hope of financial gain and, thus, corporation would be awarded additional $10,000 in
statutory damages after finding of actual liability of individual in amount of $19,200, in
corporation's action against individual, alleging that individual used electronic decoders to obtain
cable television without authorization and intended to sell decoders for private gain.
Newchannels Corp. v. Koplik, N.D.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 333. Telecommunications
1253
14A. ---- Willful conduct, damages
Fact that cable television viewer purchased and installed unauthorized descrambling device was
sufficient to demonstrate "willful" conduct, for purpose of awarding enhanced damages under
statute proscribing unauthorized interception; additional fact that viewer defaulted in cable
service provider's enforcement action was not relevant to willfulness inquiry. Charter
Communications Entertainment I, LLC v. Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16.
Telecommunications
1253
14B. ---- Private financial gain, damages
To be entitled to enhanced damages under "private financial gain" provision of Cable
Communications Policy Act (CCPA), a cable company must allege facts showing that the
defendant profited in some way from the pirate decoding device beyond simply sitting by
himself or with his family and friends around a television set in a dwelling using the illegal
device to watch programs for which payment should have been made. Comcast Cable
Communications v. Adubato, D.N.J.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 684. Telecommunications
1253
Fact that defendant used unauthorized descrambler for home viewing of cable television
programs was sufficient to demonstrate that he acted for "private financial gain," for purpose of
awarding enhanced damages under statute proscribing unauthorized interception. Charter
Communications Entertainment I, LLC v. Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16.
Telecommunications
1253
15. Attorney fees
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 19
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Cable television service provider, having prevailed in cable piracy action against subscriber who
had purchased and used unauthorized descrambler, was entitled, in addition to damages, to
recover costs and reasonable attorney fees. Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC v.
Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16. Telecommunications
1253
Corporation would be awarded attorney fees of $1,780 in corporation's action against individual,
alleging that individual used electronic decoders to obtain cable television without authorization
and intended to sell decoders for private gain. Newchannels Corp. v. Koplik, N.D.N.Y.1995,
903 F.Supp. 333. Telecommunications
1253
Individual was not "aggrieved party" as required for attorney fee award to aggrieved party who
prevails under Cable Communications Policy Act, after dismissal with prejudice, for failure to
prosecute, of corporation's action under Act against individual for unauthorized reception and
public showing of boxing match transmitted by satellite, as individual was not party who sought
relief under civil remedy provisions of Act. VJC Productions, Inc. v. Kydes, S.D.Ga.1995, 903
F.Supp. 42. Telecommunications
1252
Principles of United States Supreme Court Farrar decision that the technical nature of nominal
damages award or any other judgment bears on propriety of attorney fees awarded under § 1988
and that court may lawfully award low fees or no fees without entry-by-entry parsing of fee
petition in terms of reasonable hours spent multiplied by reasonable hourly rate were applicable
in cable television company's suit against small tavern for its unlawful exhibition of cabletelevised heavyweight championship fight in which company was awarded $420 in damages.
TCI of Illinois, Inc. v. Carpenter, N.D.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 326. Federal Civil Procedure
2737.5
Cable company that was awarded default judgment against business operator for alleged
unauthorized interception and reception of cable programming was entitled to award of
$2,477.50 for attorney fees pursuant to Cable Communications Policy Act, given that hourly
rates of, and number of hours expended by, company's attorneys were reasonable. Time Warner
Cable of New York City v. Sanchez, S.D.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21744089, Unreported.
Telecommunications
1253
16. Jury trial
Statute prohibiting unauthorized receipt or publication of cable television provided for remedies
that were punitive in nature, and thus analogous to claims cognizable at common law in 1791,
requiring trial by jury under Seventh Amendment. National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Cotter's
Lounge, Inc., E.D.Mo.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 1024. Jury
14(1)
Seventh Amendment did not require jury trial on claims for statutory damages under provisions
of Communications Act of 1934 and Public Telecommunications Act of 1988 prohibiting piracy
of closed-circuit television signals. Storer Cable Communications v. Joe's Place Bar &
Restaurant, W.D.Ky.1993, 819 F.Supp. 593. Jury
14(1)
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Page 20
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
Bar and restaurant owners who allegedly exhibited closed-circuit telecasts of boxing matches to
their patrons without subscription or authorization, in violation of antipiracy provisions of
Communications Act of 1934 and Public Telecommunications Act of 1988, did not have right to
jury trial under those statutes in civil action for statutory damages brought by cable television
company and licensor of telecasts. Storer Cable Communications v. Joe's Place Bar &
Restaurant, W.D.Ky.1993, 819 F.Supp. 593. Jury
14(1)
17. Injunctions
No relief could be granted to cable television service provider under Cable Communications
Policy Act (CCPA) beyond final injunction to enjoin further illegal use of pirate decoding
device, where provider's attorney made application for relief under provision that did not apply
according to binding precedent, provider did not advise court of inapplicability of that provision,
and there was no evidence to support claim under that provision.
Comcast Cable
Communications v. Adubato, D.N.J.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 684. Telecommunications
1253
Cable television service provider, having prevailed in cable piracy action against subscriber who
had purchased and used unauthorized descrambler, was entitled, in addition to damages, to
injunction preventing subscriber from illegally intercepting cable in future.
Charter
Communications Entertainment I, LLC v. Burdulis, D.Mass.2005, 367 F.Supp.2d 16.
Telecommunications
1253
Cable television system operator was entitled to permanent injunction prohibiting seller of cable
television descramblers from manufacturing, modifying, selling, or distributing cable
descramblers, where seller's entire business was built upon defrauding the cable industry by
providing the means necessary to steal cable television programming. Comcast of Illinois, X,
LLC v. Platinum Electronics, Inc., D.Neb.2004, 336 F.Supp.2d 957. Telecommunications
498
Cable television operator would be granted permanent injunctive relief against individual
defendant, precluding future violations of federal statutory provisions governing unauthorized
publication or use of communications and unauthorized reception of cable service, in operator's
action against defendant, in which operator had shown that defendant had violated provisions
through reception of operator's programming via unauthorized connection. International
Cablevision, Inc. v. Cancari, W.D.N.Y.1997, 960 F.Supp. 28. Telecommunications
1253
47 U.S.C.A. § 553, 47 USCA § 553
Current through P.L. 110-17 approved 04-09-07
Copr. © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
47 U.S.C.A. § 553
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Page 21