But Wave Hookah, a hookah lounge in Van Nuys, California, displayed the fight to its customers without sublicensing the fight from G&G, by instead purchasing it from a digital media provider and playing it for guests on a laptop via the internet. G&G sued Wave under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 553 (:§ 553”) and the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605 (“§ 605”), alleging violations of those statutes’ prohibitions on displaying television programs without the right to do so—known as “signal piracy.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wave, finding that §§ 553 and 605 did not regulate streaming over the Internet.

Many defendants, clearly fighting above their weight class, often lose the fight without throwing a punch when they fail to appear in court. In a typical complaint, J&J brings suit under 47 U.S.C. § 605, which addresses the interception of radio and satellite signals, and also include a claim for common law conversion of property. A defendantfound to violate § 605 faces liability in the amount of either (1) the actual damages to the plaintiff, plus the profits earned as a result of the violation or (2) a combination of statutory and enhanced damages provided for in the statute.

Id. at *4. Finally, the Customer Agreement also contained a clause that excluded certain statutory claims, stating: “Notwithstanding the foregoing… any dispute involving a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 or any other statement or law governing theft of service, may be decided only a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. at * 5.