Appellate Law

CA1: the DMCA the Section 553 of the CCPA and circumventing pay-per-view

By S. COTUS

CoxCom, Inc. v. Chaffee, No. 07-2030. This appeal includes a rough description of how pay-per-view programming works.  The Chaffees would sell a box which would essentially make it possible to get a limited amount of programming. These boxes are really just ?low pass filters? which are normally legally and have plenty of commercial, residential, and recreational uses.  Nevertheless, the First does all it can to affirm.

The big issue for most lawyers is a jury trial waiver issue.  The defendants demanded a jury trial in their answer.  But, they didn?t get one.  They participated in a bench trial without further objection.  The First says it is waived.

Comcox went ?undercover? and bought a few of these boxes out in the open. Then they sued the Chaffees under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) ("Section 553"), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 1201.

The First holds that Comcox did have standing to sue even though they can?t show an injury, it was fairly obvious that there would be some financial harm to Comcox. 

It then holds that ?Section 553" extends to situations where ?plaintiff proves that a defendant intended to assist in the unauthorized reception of cable services.?  Further, while these filters don?t actually receive transmissions, they assist people in doing so.  So, they come under the act.  And, because the boxes came with instructions for use to get free pay-per-view (and in fact, they did do this), their intent was apparent.

Under the DMCA, the First says that this ?circumvents? a technological measure. 

With all this in mind, the permanent injunction is affirmed as well.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on August 04, 2008 (boomark / email).