Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants pirated Russian television programming by intercepting encrypted foreign satellite transmissions, converting them into digital data, and retransmitting the channels over the internet to paying subscribers in the United States. SK Management of New York, Inc. operated Gudzon.tv and offered roughly 140 to 150 Russian-language television channels for monthly subscription fees.

Channel One moved for partial summary judgment against SKM under Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act. The remaining broadcaster plaintiffs—CTC Network, Global Entertainment TV, TV Darial, New Channel, and Rain—moved for partial summary judgment against SKM on their Federal Communications Act and Copyright Act claims and on SKM’s affirmative defenses. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting Channel One’s motion, granting the other broadcaster plaintiffs’ motion as to SKM’s affirmative defenses, denying their Federal Communications Act and copyright claims, awarding Channel One $3,666,000, and issuing a permanent injunction. The parties objected to parts of that recommendation.

Court’s Review

Judge Daniels reviewed the objected-to portions of the recommendation independently and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. He adopted the report in full.

Channel One’s Federal Communications Act Claim

To obtain summary judgment, Channel One had to establish that it had proprietary rights in the Channel One Russia signal, that the signal originated by satellite, and that SKM received and retransmitted it to third parties without authorization for financial gain. The court held that no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to any element of the claim.

The court also upheld the finding that SKM acted willfully. It rejected SKM’s argument that its lack of knowledge about Channel One’s proprietary rights prevented a finding of willfulness. The court emphasized that SKM deliberately obtained the signal, retransmitted it to customers in the United States for subscription fees, continued doing so for years, and continued after a 2018 warning from Magistrate Judge Moses. The court concluded that the repeated violations for financial gain and the need for deterrence supported enhanced damages.

The court therefore granted Channel One’s motion for partial summary judgment, awarded $1,833,000 in statutory damages and $1,833,000 in enhanced damages, and entered a permanent injunction. The injunction bars SKM and specified related persons and entities from broadcasting, retransmitting, using, or promoting Channel One’s broadcasts through any medium. The court also directed Channel One to file any application for attorneys’ fees and costs within 60 days.

Other Broadcaster Plaintiffs’ Claims

The court denied the other broadcaster plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their Federal Communications Act claims. For Global Entertainment TV, the court found that the record did not establish that it inherited proprietary rights in TNT-Russia from Comedy TV, its predecessor in the case. The record indicated that Global Entertainment TV’s role concerned TNT-International, while its claim addressed TNT-Russia.

For TV Darial, New Channel, and Rain, the court found that they had not established that the signals for their programming originated by satellite, which was required for their Federal Communications Act claims. The evidence that a signal supplier obtained signals “over the air” did not eliminate contradictory testimony that SKM’s principal did not know how the supplier acquired them. The court therefore denied summary judgment on those claims.

The court also denied the broadcaster plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their copyright claims. Because the programming was created by Russian entities and copyright ownership was claimed in Russia, Russian law governed ownership. The plaintiffs offered conclusory assertions of ownership but did not provide sufficient evidence or legal analysis showing that they owned valid Russian copyrights. The court declined to decide the parties’ remaining arguments on those copyright claims.

Affirmative Defenses and Disposition

The court granted the broadcaster plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to SKM’s affirmative defenses and struck those defenses. The court agreed with the recommendation that the defenses either were not proper affirmative defenses or lacked evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact.

The final dispositions were: Channel One’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted; the broadcaster plaintiffs’ motion was denied as to their Federal Communications Act and copyright claims; and that motion was granted as to SKM’s affirmative defenses. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Channel One and against SKM.