Dish Network LLC. v. Jadoo TV, Inc.

Background

DISH sued Jadoo TV, Inc. and Sajid Sohail under Section 501 of the Copyright Act. DISH alleged that the defendants transmitted television channels and content that DISH exclusively licensed. DISH asserted direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright-infringement claims, and alleged that Sohail was personally liable because he founded Jadoo and served as its CEO, director, and majority shareholder.

Jadoo sold Android-based set-top boxes and operated software features called eMedia, Video on Demand, and LiveTV. Jadoo advertised eMedia as a way for users to upload and watch content that Jadoo had not licensed. DISH sent infringement notices beginning in September 2016. Jadoo blocked or removed access to the identified channels in April 2019, but users could restore access. Jadoo ultimately removed eMedia in August 2019.

DISH owned 97 registered works and 159 unregistered works at issue. The court found that Jadoo users performed many of those works through the service, including more than 2,616 performances of works in the South Asian Super Pack between February 22, 2016, and August 6, 2019.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify evidence that could allow a jury to rule in its favor.

Direct infringement

The court held that DISH established ownership of the works and that the defendants violated DISH’s exclusive right to perform them. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision concerning services that enhance viewers’ ability to receive television programming, the court concluded that Jadoo was more than an equipment provider. Jadoo sold set-top boxes, controlled and facilitated its service, preconfigured Jadoo5s boxes to locate and install the South Asian Super Pack, and failed to limit access after receiving DISH’s notices.

The court also found that Jadoo employee Haseeb Shah uploaded and streamed the infringing content. Evidence connected Shah to accounts used to distribute the content, including account records, payment information, Internet addresses, and other evidence concerning aliases. The court found that Shah was Jadoo’s agent because Jadoo hired him to manage network operations and content, directed his work, and controlled his salary and communications.

The court further found the required voluntary conduct, or “volition,” because Jadoo enhanced users’ access to the content and, through Shah, selected material for upload. It rejected the defendants’ argument that a copyright-infringing service must store the content on its own servers to violate the public-performance right.

The court held that Sohail was personally liable because he was the “guiding spirit” behind the infringement. It relied on his positions at Jadoo, his ability to change company policy, his stated responsibility and final authority over the company, his control over engineering and contracted software development, and his role in responding to DISH’s infringement notices.

Contributory infringement

Contributory infringement is secondary liability for knowingly inducing or materially helping another person’s infringement. The court found that Jadoo materially contributed because it knew by 2016 that users were sharing unlicensed content and could have taken simple measures to prevent further infringement. Those measures included removing or limiting eMedia, controlling access to XML files, blocking protected streams, and filtering copyrighted channels. Jadoo did not remove eMedia until August 2019.

The court also found inducement. It relied on Jadoo’s advertising of eMedia, responses directing users to YouTube instructions for adding channels, internal communications about making content available in the United States despite DISH’s exclusive rights, customer-support instructions, and Jadoo’s failure to develop or use filtering tools after receiving notice.

Because the court found that Sohail was the guiding spirit behind the infringement, it held him liable for contributory infringement as well.

Vicarious infringement

Vicarious copyright liability requires a direct financial benefit from infringement and the legal right and practical ability to stop or limit it. The court found both requirements satisfied. Expert calculations showed that Jadoo generated millions of dollars in revenue associated with the works, and the court found that Sohail also benefited as Jadoo’s salaried CEO and majority shareholder. The court also relied on evidence that sales declined after infringing content was removed and that users and resellers complained about losing access.

The court found that Jadoo and Sohail had the ability to stop or limit the infringement because Jadoo ultimately removed eMedia, Sohail could change company policy, and Sohail had previously removed channels and approved responses to DISH’s notices. The court therefore held both defendants liable for vicarious infringement.

Disposition

The court granted DISH’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied Sohail’s motion on all claims. It dismissed as moot DISH’s motions to exclude the rebuttal testimony of Elizabeth Groves and Petra Loer. The court did not decide the final relief. It directed the parties to file a joint submission within 45 days addressing damages, fees, and whether a permanent injunction was appropriate.