ILNews

7th Circuit overrules itself in satellite TV case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled one of its own decisions from 20 years ago, finding that judges have discretion in whether penalties are imposed on those who steal encrypted television satellite signals or help others take them without paying for the service.

Deciding today in the case of DirecTV v. David Barczewski and Jonathan Wisler, Nos. 06-2219 and 06-2221, the three-judge appellate panel mostly affirmed a ruling from then-U.S. District Court Judge David F. Hamilton from the Southern District of Indiana.

The case goes back to jury verdicts against Jonathan Wisler and David Barczewski, who respectively had intercepted encrypted signals from the company’s satellite system without authorization and furnished devices to help others steal the signals. Both defendants bought electronic gear from a merchant that had advertised its products designed to help facilitate the theft of those signals and both participated in online discussion groups about decrypting those signals without paying.

But the case also involves penalties imposed by the District judge, and that’s a legal issue more significantly addressed in this case that the appellate court heard arguments on in February 2007. While affirming Judge Hamilton’s decision, the appellate judges found that one of its own decisions from 1990 that Judge Hamilton relied on wasn’t correct in finding that judges are mandated to give out maximum damages calculated under 18 U.S.C. §2520(c)(2), which says, “courts may assess as damages” involving the use of satellite signals taken without payment or permission.

In Rodgers v. Wood, 910 F.2d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 1990), the appellate court in Chicago held that the highest penalty calculated under that federal law section is mandatory – effectively leaving District judges without any discretion about whether or not damages should be assessed and that those should be imposed at the highest level.

The Rodgers ruling was the nation’s first appellate decision on that issue of statutory penalties being mandatory or permissive after Congress in 1986 overhauled that section of federal law. Specifically, Congress revised the language from “shall” to “may” in assessing those damages. Since then, other Circuits have analyzed that issue in the past 15 years and disagreed with Rodgers - the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits have held that §2250(c)(2) allows judges to not award damages.

Now, the 7th Circuit is following suit.

“Developments that leave this Circuit all by its lonesome may justify reexamination of our precedents, the better to reflect arguments that may not previously have been given full weight and to spare the Supreme Court the need to intervene,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the panel that also included Judges Joel Flaum and Diane Sykes. “We overrule the portion of Rodgers holding that award of the maximum damages specified in §2250(c)(2) is mandatory. We conclude that the District Court has discretion not to award statutory damages under the statutory formula.”

Dismissing what the defendants argued, the panel wrote that the federal statute doesn’t require judges to set penalties according to wealth and the economics don’t matter.

“District judges have discretion to consider other reasoned approaches too; there is latitude in the word ‘may.’ The District judge used that latitude to give Barczewski the lowest available penalty,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote. “But judges need not go easy on hourly wage-earners who decide to steal TV signals, any more than they need to go easy on people who choose other forms of theft to supplement the family budget. People who do not want to pay the market price for goods or services must refrain from theft and cannot complain if the price of crime is steep.”

The case is remanded to the Southern District on the issue of statutory damages against Wisler.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT