Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Another Sports Bar/Restaurant Owner Must Pay the Price for Illegal Interception of Pay-per-View Programming
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 14, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
About a year ago, we wrote about a then-recent decision in the Federal District Court for New Jersey in which the owner of a sports bar and restaurant was found guilty of violating the federal Communications Act, which prohibits the unauthorized reception of radio or television transmissions as well as satellite transmissions. Both sets of statutes carry the possibility of statutory damages, including “enhanced” (or punitive) damages, as well as court costs and attorney’s fees. The bar and restaurant had illegally intercepted a pay-per-view boxing match and displayed it throughout the establishment.
Now, another sports bar/restaurant owner will pay the price. In May of 2010, Robin Waldron and Charlynn Waldron arranged for the illegal interception of an Ultimate Fighting Championship television broadcast for dissemination in their sports bar/restaurant in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. With the defendants having failed to appear in a lawsuit brought by the owner of the rights to the broadcast, the Court determined, on the basis of the allegations set forth in the complaint, that summary judgment was appropriate, finding the defendants guilty of the unauthorized interception of the programming. Indeed, despite the fact that the plaintiff was unable to determine whether the defendants had intercepted a cable system signal or a satellite broadcast signal (because such information was within the domain of the defendants), the Court concluded that a violation of both statutes (47 U.S.C. §553, applicable to communications over a wired cable system, and 47 U.S.C. §605, applicable to communications via satellite), could be sustained and that sufficient evidence existed to establish a violation in either case.
On that basis, the Court ordered the defendants to pay statutory and enhanced damages (owing to the willful nature of the defendants’ actions), as well as Court costs and attorney’s fees, totaling almost $8,000.00.
An expensive evening of television.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Dennis Linken, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Another Sports Bar/Restaurant Owner Must Pay the Price for Illegal Interception of Pay-per-View Programming
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
About a year ago, we wrote about a then-recent decision in the Federal District Court for New Jersey in which the owner of a sports bar and restaurant was found guilty of violating the federal Communications Act, which prohibits the unauthorized reception of radio or television transmissions as well as satellite transmissions. Both sets of statutes carry the possibility of statutory damages, including “enhanced” (or punitive) damages, as well as court costs and attorney’s fees. The bar and restaurant had illegally intercepted a pay-per-view boxing match and displayed it throughout the establishment.
Now, another sports bar/restaurant owner will pay the price. In May of 2010, Robin Waldron and Charlynn Waldron arranged for the illegal interception of an Ultimate Fighting Championship television broadcast for dissemination in their sports bar/restaurant in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. With the defendants having failed to appear in a lawsuit brought by the owner of the rights to the broadcast, the Court determined, on the basis of the allegations set forth in the complaint, that summary judgment was appropriate, finding the defendants guilty of the unauthorized interception of the programming. Indeed, despite the fact that the plaintiff was unable to determine whether the defendants had intercepted a cable system signal or a satellite broadcast signal (because such information was within the domain of the defendants), the Court concluded that a violation of both statutes (47 U.S.C. §553, applicable to communications over a wired cable system, and 47 U.S.C. §605, applicable to communications via satellite), could be sustained and that sufficient evidence existed to establish a violation in either case.
On that basis, the Court ordered the defendants to pay statutory and enhanced damages (owing to the willful nature of the defendants’ actions), as well as Court costs and attorney’s fees, totaling almost $8,000.00.
An expensive evening of television.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Dennis Linken, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.