DISH Network holds exclusive rights to distribute and publicly perform twenty-one Arabic-language channels in the United States, including five channels operated by MBC FZ LLC. In 2016, MBC registered four specific episodes of these channels with the U.S. Copyright Office. Gaby Fraifer, through his companies Tele-Center, Inc. and Planet Telecom, Inc., operated services called UlaiTV and AhlaiTV that sold set-top boxes to customers in the U.S. These services captured live broadcast signals of the protected channels, transcoded them using encoders, and transmitted them to customers via content delivery networks. DISH sued for copyright infringement, arguing the defendants unlawfully retransmitted the works without permission. The district court granted summary judgment on ownership but held a bench trial on infringement, ultimately ruling in DISH's favor and awarding $600,000 in statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and attorney fees. The defendants appealed, challenging DISH's ownership, the validity of the copyright registration, and the evidence supporting infringement.
The court addressed three primary issues: ownership, transfer of rights, and infringement. First, regarding ownership, the court applied UAE law to determine initial ownership. The defendants argued the works were Joint Works, which would require multiple authors to share rights. The court rejected this, finding the works were Collective Works under UAE law because the contributions of various authors (writers, directors, composers) were merged into a whole and could not be separated. Under UAE law, the entity directing the creation of a collective work, MBC, held the rights. Second, the court addressed the transfer of ownership to DISH. The defendants argued the transfer was invalid because it did not meet UAE law requirements. The court held that the defendants abandoned this argument by failing to provide supporting authority. Furthermore, the court ruled that defendants, as third-party infringers, lacked standing to challenge the validity of the transfer between MBC and DISH under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a), which is designed to resolve disputes between owners and transferees, not to protect infringers. The court also dismissed the argument that the 'work made for hire' designation on the U.S. registration was invalid, noting the defendants failed to raise it as an affirmative defense in a timely manner. Third, on infringement, the court found the defendants directly infringed by using encoders to 'push' copyrighted works onto their systems for transmission. The court upheld the admission of expert testimony from Pascal Metral, finding his experience in anti-piracy operations qualified him despite a lack of technical engineering training. The court also affirmed the admission of monitoring reports, screenshots, PayPal records, and WHOIS data, rejecting hearsay and relevance objections. The evidence showed that the defendants operated encoders and transmitted the works to users in the United States, satisfying the requirements for direct infringement.
The judgment affirming liability for copyright infringement stands. The defendants remain subject to the permanent injunction and the $600,000 statutory damages award. The decision clarifies that third-party infringers cannot challenge the validity of a copyright transfer between the original owner and an exclusive licensee. It also reinforces that the use of encoders to push content onto a streaming system constitutes direct infringement, even if the transmission originates from abroad but terminates in the United States. The ruling leaves no open questions regarding the specific facts of this case, as the court affirmed the district court's findings on all challenged issues.