Section 605 penalizes those who illegally intercept proprietary communications. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cerreto, 2014 WL 4612101, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014). When a plaintiff seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. § 605 for the unauthorized interception and broadcast of television programming, its burden is to show that the defendant "(1) intercepted a broadcast; (2)[was] not authorized to intercept the broadcast; and (3) showed the broadcast to others."
Section 605 prohibits wireless interception of proprietary communications. See J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Castro, No. 14-cv-557, 2015 WL 389381 at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2015); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cerreto, No. 13-cv-7647, 2014 WL 4612101 at *2 (D.N.J. Sept 15, 2014). Relief under § 605 for the unauthorized interception and broadcast of television programming requires a showing that defendant "(1) intercepted a broadcast; (2) [was] not authorized to intercept the broadcast; and (3) showed the broadcast to others."
Thus, the Court in its discretion will award enhanced damages of $2,200, which is equal to the cost of the sublicense fee, in order to provide for restitution and deterrence. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cerreto, No. 13-7647, 2014 WL 4612101, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014) (awarding the same for the enhanced damages component). III. Costs and Attorney's Fees
Recent cases in this district have held that statutory damages should approximate actual damages. See, e.g., id.; Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cerreto, No. 13-cv-7647, 2014 WL 4612101, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Waldron, No. 11-849 (RBK/KMW), 2013 WL 1007398, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2013); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Edrington, No. 10-3789 (CCC), 2012 WL 525970, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2012). "To determine actual damages, an appropriate starting point is to assess the cost of the licensing fee the defendants ought to have paid in order to broadcast legally."
On the issue of amounts, recent cases in this district have held that statutory damages should approximate actual damages. See, e.g., Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Cerreto, 2014 WL 4612101, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014)(Martini, J.); Waldron, 2013 WL 1007398, at *6; J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Edrington, 2012 WL 525970, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2012)(Checci, J.). Running through these decisions is the principle that the sum of the statutory damages and enhanced damages should compensate the aggrieved party for its financial losses, deter future violations, and be just in light of the circumstances. To determine actual damages, an appropriate starting point is to assess the cost of the licensing fee the defendants ought to have paid in order to broadcast legally.