1st Circuit Rules That § 605 Does Not Apply
to Theft of Cable Signals Delivered by Wire |
8/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (1stCir) issued
its opinion in
Charter Communications v. Burdulis, a case regarding theft of cable signals.
Charter is a cable television operator. Its cable signals for premium
channels and pay-per-view services are electronically coded, or scrambled.
Thomas Burdulis used an illegally modified cable descrambler device to receive service
for which he did not pay. Miquel Sanchez used a quickboard designed to effect the unauthorized
reception of premium and pay-per-view programming.
Charter filed complaints in U.S. District Court
(DMass) against Burdulis and Sanchez alleging unauthorized reception of cable service
in violation of
47 U.S.C. § 553 and unauthorized publication or use of communications in violation of
47 U.S.C. § 605.
The District Court entered default judgments against both defendants on the § 553
claims. However, it held that § 605 does not apply to theft of radio signals
transmitted over a cable network. It also held that the amount of statutory
damages awarded should be limited to the estimated value of the cable services
stolen, and that not more than one award of statutory damages of up to $10,000
would be allowed for all of Sánchez's statutory violations.
Charter appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
§ 605(a) provides, in part, that "no person receiving, assisting in
receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized
channels of transmission or reception ..."
§ 553 provides in part that "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".
§ 605(b) also provides in part that "The provisions of subsection (a) of this
section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting
(including the manufacture or sale) of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable
programming for private viewing if -- (1) the programming involved is not
encrypted ..."
Subsection 605(e)(3) provides a private cause of action for violations,
as does § 553(c). However, prevailing on separate claim under the two sections
could give a cable operator two separate damage awards. Moreover, § 605 can result in
a higher damage award than § 553.
The Court of Appeals held that "the statutory text does make clear that § 605
is not to apply to signals delivered by wire over a cable network. And if there
is any doubt, we think that the structure of the regulatory regime provides the
necessary clarity."
It elaborated that § 605 regulates the theft of radio or satellite signals,
not the theft of cable signals delivered by wire.
The Court of Appeals concluded that "If Congress finds that theft of
wire-based cable continues to be a major problem, it certainly possesses the
power to raise the penalty amounts for wire-based cable theft, so that such
penalties are on a par with the amounts for wireless theft. Until that time,
however, Charter will have to remain content with the penalty amounts available
under § 553."
This case is Charter Communications Entertainment I v. Thomas Burdulis and
Miquel Sanchez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1653
and 05-1726, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Judge Torruella wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in
which Judges Lipez and Stafford joined.
|
|
|
|
|
More News |
8/28. The Supreme Court issued an
order [PDF]
in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., an antitrust case.
PSKS, which runs a women's clothing and accessories store, filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court (EDTex) against Leegin
Creative Leather Products, which makes women's accessories, alleging violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, in connection with its manufacturer's suggested resale
price policies. The District Court awarded $3.6 Million in treble damages to PSKS. The Court
of Appeals affirmed in a unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court order states in full that
"The application to recall and stay the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 04-41243, presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to
the Court is granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate
automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted,
the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court. This
order is conditioned upon the remaining in effect of the bond posted in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas."
8/28. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir)
issued its opinion [11
pages in PDF] in USA v. Curry, an eBay fraud case, in which the
defendant, Kenneth Curry, auctioned through the eBay web site, but did not deliver, hundreds
of gold coins. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for mail fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1341 and wire fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1343. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence. This case is
USA v. Kenneth Curry II, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos.
05-5090 and 05-5173, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Norfolk, D.C. No. CR-05-3, Judge Walter Kelly presiding.
8/28. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
released a Public
Notice [6 pages in PDF] that announces changes to the FCC's Universal Licensing System
(ULS) to implement FCC Form 608, which is titled "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement or Private Commons Arrangement
(Form 608)". This item is DA-06-1723.
|
|
|
|
Publication Schedule |
The was no issue of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert on Monday, August 28, 2006.
There will be no issue on Monday, September 4, 2006. |
|
|
Correction |
The Washington Tech Calendar incorrectly stated that the
American
Enterprise Institute's (AEI) September 1 event titled "The Keys to the Kingdom:
Intellectual Property Rights and Trade" will be held at the AEI
offices in Washington DC. It will be held at the Law Faculty of
the University of Chile, in Santiago, Chile. See,
notice. |
|
|
Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red. |
|
|
Tuesday, August 29 |
The House will next meet at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, September 6. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will next meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, September 5.
CANCELLED. 10:00 AM. The
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will hold a hearing regarding its notice of proposed
rule making pertaining to the application of
26 U.S.C. § 199, which provides a deduction for income attributable to domestic
production activities, to certain transactions involving computer software. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 105, at Pages 31128-31129, and
notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 146, at Page 43085.
Location: IRS Auditorium (New Carrollton location), 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD.
See,
notice of cancellation in the Federal Register, August 25, 2006, Vol. 71,
No. 165, at Page 50378.
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 30 |
Deadline to submit comments to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in response to its notice of proposed rule making
pertaining to the application of
26 U.S.C. § 199, which provides a deduction for income attributable to domestic
production activities, to certain transactions involving computer software. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 105, at Pages
31128-31129.
|
|
|
Thursday, August 31 |
11:00 AM. The
Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Prospects for
Reform of U.S. Agricultural Policy --With or without Doha". The speakers
will include Mike Johanns (Secretary of Agriculture), former Rep. Cal Dooley
(D-CA) (head of the Food Products Association), and Robert Thompson
(University of Illinois). See,
notice and registration
page. The event will be webcast by Cato. Lunch will follow the program.
Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division regarding
its
draft [ZIP] of Special Publication (SP) 800-69, titled "Guidance for Securing
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition: A NIST Security Configuration Checklist. See also,
summary. This
document provides guidance to telecommuting employees and those who maintain
home offices and use Windows XP Home Edition.
|
|
|
Friday, September 1 |
Effective date of the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC) final rule amending Section 310.8 of its Telemarketing
Sales Rule (TSR) by revising the fees charged to entities for accessing the
National Do Not Call Registry. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 146, at Pages
43048-43054.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
its 2006 biennial review of telecommunications regulations. See, FCC
notice
[10 pages in PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, August 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 163, at
Pages 49400-49401. This is CG Docket No. 06-152, EB Docket No. 06-153, IB Docket No.
06-154, ET Docket No. 06-155, WT Docket No. 06-156, WC Docket No. 06-157, and
FCC 06-115.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the FCC's Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Children's Television
Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters" and numbered MM Docket No. 00-167. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 25, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 165, at
Pages 50380-50382.
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 5 |
The Senate will return from its August recess at 11:00 AM. It will
resume consideration of
HR 5631, the Department of Defense FY 2007 appropriations bill. See,
2006 Senate calendar.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(FedCir) will hear oral argument in Business Objects v. Microstrategy,
App. Ct. No. 05-1540. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
1:00 - 3:00 PM. The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
U.S. Copyright Office (CO) will hold a public
roundtable discussion regarding World Intellectual Property
Organization's (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights' (SCCR) work on
a proposed Treaty On the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 159, at Page
47489. Location: Atrium Conference Room, USPTO, 600 Dulany Street, Madison
West, 10th Floor, Alexandria, VA.
Deadline to submit comments to the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding whether major beneficiaries of the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program have expanded exports or have progressed
in their economic development within the meaning of the statute to the extent that their
eligibility should be limited, suspended, or withdrawn, pursuant to section 502(d) of the
Trade Act of 1974, which is codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2462(d). See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 8, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 152, at Pages
45079-45080.
|
|
|
About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|