Adding to this site’s archived posts addressing UFC Pay Per View piracy, reasons for judgement were released this month by US District Court, WD Louisiana, Shreveport Division, noting that the UFC’s Commercial PPV distributor may not have the right to sue where an establishment purchases and displays the residential version of the program.
In the recent case (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Triple JJJ Travel Plaza, Inc) the Defendants operated a nightclub. They purchased a licence directly from the UFC Website and registered their Roku as the device to stream a UFC Pay Per View program.
The price-tag for the residential program was $44.99 whereas a commercial licence, purchased from the plaintiff, would have cost $950.
The Plaintiff sued alleging Satellite and/or Cable Piracy which are the usual claims made in these prosecutions as the Federal Statutes creating civil liability for these offences call for steep statutory damages. The Plaintiff applied for summary judgement but the Court denied the application noting Joe Hand Promotions may not even have standing to sue in these circumstances and perhaps the UFC /Zuffa themselves are the aggrieved party.
In denying the application Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby provided the following reasons:
Based on this record, the best exercise of this court’s discretion is to deny the motion for summary judgment and proceed to a trial where all of these issues can be fleshed out in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is denied.