MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES B. ZAGEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. has brought this action against Defendants Dritan Zani and Euro Star Cafe, Inc. for a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment as to both liability and damages. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff was the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the transmission signal of the December 11, 2010, telecast of Ultimate Fighting Championship 124: St-Pierre vs. Koscheck 2 ("The Event"). These rights included all undercard bouts and the entire television broadcast. Plaintiff makes its money by entering into agreements with commercial entities to permit their display of the Broadcast. The rates are determined based on the capacity of each establishment; in this case the rate would have been $1, 300.00.
Plaintiff's primary revenue source is the sublicense fees it charges to commercial establishments to broadcast programming. Plaintiff states it has lost millions due to unauthorized broadcasts. Plaintiff alleges that it has lost and will continue to lose customers due to the unauthorized exhibition of its programs, in part because the commercial establishments that properly purchase rights cannot make money as a result. Moreover, Plaintiff states that the unauthorized exhibition of its program damages its goodwill and reputation because it cannot provide customers with an accurate list of locations that are showing an event.
Abram Gale Sports Bar is located at 2366 N. Neva, Chicago, Illinois 60707 and has a capacity of 168 persons. Defendants admit to showing the Event in the bar without a proper license. The event was advertised on Facebook and Twitter, but Defendants say they reached just nine followers.
Defendants state that Direct TV came to the bar to set up the account. It appears that Direct TV mistakenly gave Defendants a residential account, though Defendants assert that this was not made clear to them until this lawsuit was filed. Direct TV sent bills directly to the bar, and Defendants assert that they were unaware there were different rates for residential and commercial accounts. Further, Defendant Zani states that he has no residential satellite television service with Direct TV in his home. It is uncontested that Defendants purchased the Event from Direct TV as a Pay-Per-View event and paid the rate they were charged, which was the residential fee.
Courts "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). "On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Bell v. EPA, 232 F.3d 546, 549 (7th Cir. 2000).
The evidence relied upon in defending a motion for summary judgment must be admissible at trial, although the court may consider sworn testimony. Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the moving party must provide specific facts and cannot rely solely on the pleading: "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
47 U.S.C. § 605(a) essentially provides for strict liability. See King Visiont Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 349 (9th Cir. 1999). By their admission, Defendants violated § 605(a) when they commercially published the Event after having been charged only the residential rate. Section 605(a) provides in relevant part:
[N]o 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, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney
It is undisputed that Defendants did not pay the proper fee for commercial use of the broadcast. Publication of the broadcast to patrons in the bar was thus unauthorized, resulting in a violation of § 605(a). Summary judgment in ...