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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT