Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00545-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ODNIL MUSIC LIMITED and FIFTYSIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC LIMITED,

NO. CIV. S-05-0545 WBS JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

AND ORDER

KATHARSIS LLC, WILLIAM JOSEPH

SCHECK and NATHANIEL CHRISTOPHER

SCHECK, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter came on regularly for trial before the

court, sitting without a jury, on July 18, 2006. Plaintiffs

were represented by Alan M. Steinberg, Esq. Defendant William

Joseph Scheck appeared in propria persona. No appearance was

made on behalf of defendants Katharsis LLC or Nathaniel

Christopher Scheck. Because defendant Nathaniel Scheck failed

to appear for trial, and the Magistrate Judge having heretofore

made his Findings and Recommendations recommending that default

judgment be entered against defendant Katharsis, plaintiffs

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

elected to proceed in this trial against defendant William

Scheck only.

The court having received and considered the evidence,

both oral and documentary, having read and considered the

written submissions, and having heard the arguments of the

parties, now makes the following Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The songs “EXODUS,” “JAMMING,” “AMBUSH IN THE

NIGHT” and “AFRICA UNITE” (hereinafter collectively referred to

as “the Copyrighted Works”) are original works written by the

late Bob Marley, afforded protection and properly registered

under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101,

et seq.

2. Plaintiffs Odnil Music Limited and Fifty-Six Hope

Road Music Limited own the Copyrighted Works.

3. Plaintiffs are all members of the American Society

of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") to which they

have granted the non-exclusive right to license nondramatic

public performances of the Copyrighted Works.

4. Plaintiffs also granted ASCAP a non-exclusive right

to enforce the copyrights in plaintiffs’ songs, including but

not limited to the Copyrighted Works.

5. On behalf of plaintiffs and its other members,

ASCAP licenses thousands of music users, including radio and

television networks, commercial radio and television stations,

restaurants, nightclubs, and other establishments whose owners

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

desire to perform lawfully the copyrighted musical compositions

in the ASCAP repertory.

6. At the time of the events which are the subject of

this action, defendant Katharsis, LLC was a California limited

liability company that, at all times pertinent, owned,

controlled, managed, operated and maintained a place of business

for public entertainment, accommodation, amusement and

refreshment known as the “Owl Club,” which is located at 109-111

Church Street, Roseville, California.

7. The Owl Club commenced operation under the

ownership of Katharsis, LLC in January 2003.

8. At all times relevant to this action, defendants

William Joseph Scheck and Nathaniel Christopher Scheck were the

sole owners, members and managers of Katharsis, LLC.

9. At all relevant times, defendants William Scheck

and Nathaniel Scheck each had a direct financial interest in the

activities conducted at the Owl Club, including but not limited

to the performance of musical works. They operated, or intended

to operate, Katharsis, LLC and the Owl Club at a profit.

10. At all relevant times, defendants William Scheck

and Nathaniel Scheck each exercised control over and management

of the operations of the Owl Club, including but not limited to

direction and supervision of employees, selecting entertainment

at the Club, booking bands, and playing music and music videos

on audiovisual equipment at the Club.

11. At all relevant times, defendants William Scheck

and Nathaniel Scheck each had the authority to make decisions

concerning the operation of the Owl Club, including the decision

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

whether to obtain an ASCAP license for the Owl Club. 

12. During the period August 4, 2003 through August

17, 2004, representatives of ASCAP repeatedly offered the Owl

Club an ASCAP license.

13. Also during the period August 4, 2003 through

August 17, 2004, ASCAP representatives on numerous occasions

contacted defendants by letters, telephone calls, and personal

visits as part of ASCAP’s unavailing efforts to persuade

defendants to obtain a license for the Owl Club, which would

have enabled defendants to perform publicly and lawfully ASCAP’s

members’ copyrighted songs, thereby avoiding this litigation.

14. ASCAP repeatedly advised defendants that in order

to perform lawfully any of the copyrighted musical compositions

in the ASCAP repertory at the Owl Club, permission is required

from either ASCAP or the individual copyright owners directly.

15. Moreover, ASCAP repeatedly reminded defendants of

their potential liability under the United States Copyright Law

for the unauthorized public performance of copyrighted musical

compositions at the Owl Club. Nonetheless, defendants repeatedly

ignored and rejected ASCAP’s offers of a license.

16. Defendants never obtained permission from ASCAP or

plaintiffs to perform the Copyrighted Works, with the result

that the performances of musical works in the ASCAP repertory

have been, and continue to be, unlicensed.

17. The estimated license fees that defendants would

have paid if the Owl Club had been properly licensed by ASCAP

from August 4, 2003 to present are approximately $3,401.71

(including the applicable license fee of $1,224.00 for 2006).

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

18. The out-of-pocket expenses incurred by ASCAP to

obtain the evidence of defendants’ infringing conduct on which

this action is based is $593.60. In addition, ASCAP incurred

expenses of $758.42 in connection with a subsequent

investigation to demonstrate defendants’ continued infringing

conduct, for a total of $1,352.02 in out-of-pocket expenses.

19. ASCAP engaged an independent investigator, Scott

Greene, to visit the Owl Club on the night of September 2, 2004

when it was open to the public. During the course of his visit

to the Owl Club, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Mr. Greene saw the

bartender load a DVD into the DVD player located behind the bar.

He observed on the television screen that the DVD was “loading.”

Mr. Greene then saw and heard the playing of a Bob Marley and

the Wailers filmed concert performed publicly for the enjoyment

of the Owl Club’s patrons. Among the songs Mr. Greene saw and

heard being performed on the Owl Club’s television and speakers,

Mr. Greene identified the Copyrighted Works – Bob Marley’s songs

entitled “EXODUS,” “JAMMING,” “AMBUSH IN THE NIGHT,” and “AFRICA

UNITE.”

20. Later that evening, at approximately 10:45 p.m.,

Mr. Greene saw defendant Nathaniel Scheck re-start the DVD

player and again saw and heard the same Bob Marley concert

performed publicly for the enjoyment of the Owl Club’s patrons

on the television set and speakers. Mr. Greene saw and heard the

four Copyrighted Works publicly performed for a second time

before leaving the Owl Club at approximately 12:15 a.m. on

September 3, 2004.

21. Mr. Greene made written notes of his observations

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

at the Owl Club on the night of September 2, 2004, including a

list of the titles of all songs performed during his visit to

the Club, that he was able to recognize. Thereafter, on

September 8, 2004, Mr. Greene prepared an “Investigator’s

Report” based upon his notes and recollection.

22. Defendants have presented no credible evidence to

contradict Mr. Greene’s detailed testimony as to public

performance of the Copyrighted Works at the Owl Club on the

night of September 2-3, 2004.

23. Defendants have also presented no evidence

whatsoever, other than the fact that ASCAP is apparently

operating under a sixty year old consent decree with the

Department of Justice, to support William Scheck's repeated

accusation that ASCAP is somehow involved in extortionate or

criminal conduct. No evidence was presented, nor is there

anything to suggest, that ASCAP is not acting in full compliance

with the law.

24. All performances of copyrighted material described

above occurred without a license from ASCAP, or permission

obtained from either the plaintiffs or anyone acting on their

behalf.

25. Defendants' conduct in causing the Copyrighted

Works to be performed on their premises without a licence was

willful. For more than a year before the infringing performances

on which this action is based occurred, defendants knew that the

Owl Club was not licensed to perform copyrighted musical

compositions in the ASCAP repertory, and that the unlicensed

performances of such music constituted copyright infringement,

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 6 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

exposing them to liability and the risk of paying substantial

monetary damages.

26. Nevertheless, defendants deliberately chose to

disregard the rights and protection afforded to plaintiffs under

the Copyright Law. Upon receiving the August 4, 2003 letter and

license application from ASCAP, defendants discussed and decided

not to enter into a license agreement with ASCAP. They persisted

in that position despite ASCAP’s repeated efforts to persuade

defendants to obtain an ASCAP license.

27. Defendant William Scheck did more than simply

ignore ASCAP’s entreaties. It is undisputed that he threatened

ASCAP representatives with physical bodily harm. On August 12,

2004, Tom Janci, an Area Licensing Manager for ASCAP visited the

Owl Club to discuss licensing of copyrighted songs. William

Scheck became verbally abusive, so Mr. Janci left the Owl Club.

William Scheck followed Mr. Janci to his car. Mr. Janci locked

himself in his car as William Scheck threatened him with bodily

harm and demanded that he get out of his car and fight. Mr.

Janci escaped unharmed. A few days later, on August 16, 2004,

Dean Demerritt, a Director of Licensing for ASCAP, spoke with

William Scheck on the telephone. William Scheck confirmed his

intention of harming Mr. Janci and then threatened Mr. Demerritt

and any other ASCAP representative that visits the Owl Club with

bodily harm. William Scheck admitted to, and reaffirmed his

threats in his deposition and trial testimony.

28. Defendant William Scheck also wilfully attempted

to frustrate plaintiffs’ ability to recover on any judgment

against Katharsis LLC in this action, by taking steps to

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

dissolve the corporation and transfer its liquor license on June

8, 2006, between the time the Magistrate Judge heard the motion

to enter the default of Katharsis LLC and the time the

Magistrate Judge’ Findings and Recommendations were entered.

29. Following commencement of this lawsuit, ASCAP

hired another independent investigator, Kevin McDonough, to

visit the Owl Club on February 3, 2006. Mr. McDonough heard the

playing of musical compositions performed publicly for the

enjoyment of Owl Club’s patrons, including the following

copyrighted compositions in ASCAP’s repertory: “JUST A LIL

BIT” and “CANDY SHOP,” written by Curtis James Jackson and Scott

Spencer Storch and recorded by 50 Cent; “PANAMA” and “HOT FOR

TEACHER,” written by David Lee Roth, Alex Van Halen and Edward

Van Halen and recorded by Van Halen; “BRASS MONKEY,” written by

Michael Lewis Diamond, Adam Keefe Horovitz, Rick Rubin and Adam

Nathaniel Yauch and recorded by the Beastie Boys; and “WANTED

DEAD OR ALIVE,” written by John F. Bongiovi and Richard S.

Sambora and recorded by Bon Jovi.

30. While the public performances of the Copyrighted

Works on the night of September 2, 2004 provide the basis for

the four counts of copyright infringement enumerated in the

Complaint in this action, those performances coupled with the

performances on February 3, 2006, and William Scheck’s threats

of violence, demonstrate defendants’ willful disregard of all

ASCAP members’ rights, including plaintiffs’, in violation of

the Copyright Law.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This is an action for copyright infringement under

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 8 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. This court has subject matter

jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question) and 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) (United States Copyright Law). 

Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a).

2. This court has personal jurisdiction over

defendants. 

3. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., gives

a copyright owner the exclusive right to perform its copyrighted

song publicly, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4), and those who publicly

perform the song without permission from the copyright owner

thereby infringe the copyright, id., § 501(a).

4. The elements of copyright infringement by

unauthorized public performance in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101

and 106(4) are:

(a) the originality and authorship of the compositions

involved;

(b) compliance with the formalities required to secure

a copyright Under Title 17, United States Code;

(c) plaintiffs’ ownership of the copyrights of the

relevant compositions;

(d) defendants’ public performance of the

compositions; and

(e) defendants’ failure to obtain permission from the

plaintiffs or their representatives for such performance.

Jobete Music Co., Inc. v. Johnson Communications, Inc., 285 F.

Supp. 2d 1077, 1082 (S.D. Ohio 2003); see also Almo Music Corp.

v. 77 East Adams, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 123, 124 (N.D.

Ill. 1986).

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 9 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

5. The uncontroverted evidence establishes the

originality and authorship of the Copyrighted Works, plaintiffs'

compliance with the statutory formalities of Title 17, and

defendants' failure to obtain permission from plaintiffs or

their representatives to perform those works. 

6. Although defendant William Scheck has stated that

he contests plaintiffs' ownership of the copyrights of the

compositions in question, and further denies that those

compositions, or any other copyrighted compositions, were

performed at the Owl Club, plaintiffs have clearly met their

burden of establishing these elements of their claim as well. 

7. Copyright registration certificates constitute

prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 17 U.S.C. §

410(c). Plaintiffs conclusively establish their ownership of

valid copyrights in the four songs in suit by proffering into

evidence the copies of copyright registration certificates and

other pertinent documents. Flick-Reedy v. Hydro–Line Mfg. Co.,

351 F.2d 546, 549 (7th Cir. 1965), cert denied, 383 U.S. 958

(1966); Interstate Hotel Co. v. Remick Music Corp., 157 F.2d 744

(8th Cir. 1946); Flyte Tyme Tunes v. Miszkiewicz, 715 F. Supp.

919 (E.D. Wis. 1989) (accepting ASCAP paralegal’s affidavit and

copies of copyright documents as proof of plaintiffs’ ownership

of valid copyrights). This establishes the first three elements

of proof articulated by the court in Jobete Music Co., Inc.,

supra, 285 F. Supp. 2d at 1082.

8. The testimony of ASCAP’s investigator, Scott

Greene, proves performances of plaintiffs’ songs at the Owl

Club. See, e.g., Flyte Tyme Tunes, supra, 715 F. Supp. at 921;

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 10 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

Milene Music v. Gotauco, 551 F. Supp. 1288, 1293 (D. R.I. 1982).

9. At the time of the performances of plaintiffs’ four

songs, none of the defendants had permission from plaintiffs or

ASCAP, or any of ASCAP’s members, or anyone acting of their

behalf to perform publicly any of the musical compositions in

the ASCAP repertory. Defendants concede this point. This

establishes that performances of plaintiffs’ songs were

unauthorized. See, e.g., Flyte Tyme Tunes, supra, 715 F. Supp.

at 921; Milene Music, supra, 551 F. Supp. at 1294.

10. Defendants have no excuse for not having obtained

proper authorization to use copyrighted music at the Owl Club. 

Their reliance on Twentieth Century Music Corporation v. Aiken,

421 U.S. 151 (1975), is misplaced. That case applies only to the

listening of radio broadcasts of copyrighted compositions. 

Likewise, 17 U.S.C. § 110 is inapplicable to the facts here.

That statute makes an exception for the performance or display

of musical works ". . . intended to be received by the general

public, originated by a radio or television broadcast . . ." 

The public playing of a DVD is not excepted under either Aiken

or § 110.

11. ASCAP undertook extensive efforts to inform

defendants of their responsibilities under the Copyright Act and

their potential liability. In light of ASCAP's numerous contacts

with the defendants about the need for permission to perform

publicly copyrighted music, and defendants' refusal to obtain a

license for any performances of music, defendants’ public

performance of the Copyrighted Works on September 2, 2004 was

deliberate and willful. International Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk,

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 11 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

855 F.2d 375, 381 (7th Cir. 1988); Swallow Turn Music v. Wilson,

831 F. Supp. 575, 579-580 (E.D. Tex. 1993).

12. Moreover, defendant William Scheck threatened

ASCAP representatives with physical bodily harm on multiple

occasions. Mr. Scheck was fully aware of the necessity to

obtain permission to perform copyrighted music; yet, he

responded to ASCAP’s offers of a license with belligerence and

blatant disregard for the Copyright Law.

13. “[C]opyright infringement is a tort, for which all

who participate in the infringement are jointly and severally

liable.” Jobete Music Co., Inc., supra, 285 F. Supp. 2d at

1083.

14. Liability for copyright infringement extends to

those who own or control the premises where the infringing

conduct occurred, have the right and ability to supervise those

responsible for the infringing conduct, and derive direct

financial benefit from infringing performances on those

premises. See, e.g., Ellison, supra, 357 F.3d at 1076; A & M

Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir.2001);

Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 239 (9th Cir.

1996); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Blueberry Hill Family

Restaurants, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 474, 480-81 (D. Nev. 1995);

Milene Music, supra, 551 F. Supp. at 1295.

15. In this case, the company defendant, Katharsis,

LLC, has failed to make an appearance and default judgment has

been requested by plaintiffs. Katharsis, LLC’s liability is

nonetheless clear, as defendants admit it has owned and operated

the Owl Club since January 2003. See Almo Music, supra, 647 F.

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 12 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Supp. 124.

16. Mr. Greene’s testimony establishes that defendant

Nathaniel Scheck was responsible for the re-playing of the DVD

containing the Copyrighted Works on the night of September 2-3,

2004. Defendant William Scheck was present at the Club at that

time, and may also be liable for such conduct, even though he

did not himself perform the copyrighted work. See, e.g., Boz

Scaggs Music v. KND Corp., 491 F. Supp. 908, 913 (D. Conn.

1980); Jobete Music, supra, 285 F. Supp. 2d at 1083.

17. Defendant William Joseph Scheck has personal

liability for the infringing performances of plaintiffs’

Copyrighted Works under the doctrine of vicarious liability, the

prerequisites for which are that: (1) the individual has the

right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and (2)

the individual has a direct financial interest in such

activities. Ellison, supra, 357 F.3d at 1076; see also Gershwin

Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d. 1159 (2d

Cir. 1971); and Jobete Music, supra, 285 F. Supp. 2d at 1083.

18. As the sole members and owners of Katharsis, LLC,

William and Nathaniel Scheck jointly exercised control over the

daily operations of the Owl Club and make all business

decisions, including what music is to be performed at the Club.

Also, as Katharsis’ sole members and owners, both Schecks earned

money from alcohol sales at the Owl Club while music was being

performed for the entertainment of the Club's patrons – a direct

financial interest in the infringing activities that occurred as

part of the operation of the business. Defendant William Scheck

is, therefore, jointly liable with his son as an infringer. See,

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 13 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

e.g., Marvin Music Co. v. BHC Ltd. Partnership, 830 F. Supp.

651, 655 (D. Mass. 1993) (the court held that “by virtue of his

multiple roles in the club's management and ownership, [the

individual defendant] had a substantial financial stake in the

infringing activity, which undoubtedly attracted patrons to the

Club”); Ellison, supra, 357 F.3d at 1076; A & M Records, supra,

239 F.3d at 1013; Fonovisa, Inc., supra, 76 F.3d 239.

19. The Copyright Law, 17 U.S.C. § 502(a), provides in

pertinent part:

Any court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising

under this title may . . .grant temporary and final

injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to

prevent or restrain infringement of copyright.

20. Recognizing that plaintiffs in this type of action

represent all of ASCAP’s members, the courts now routinely

enjoin defendants from performing any and all music in the

ASCAP repertory. See Sailor Music v. IML Corp., 867 F. Supp.

565, 569-570 (E.D. Mich. 1994); Swallow Turn Music, supra, 831

F. Supp. at 581. Plaintiffs are entitled to similar relief here.

21. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), provides

in pertinent part:

[T]he copyright owner may elect . . . to recover, instead

of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory

damages for all infringements involved in that action, with

respect to any one work . . . in a sum not less than $750

or more than $30,000 as the Court considers just.

22. “The court has wide discretion in determining the

amount of statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only by

the specified maxima and minima.” Harris v. Emus Records Corp.,

734 F.2d 1329, 1335 (9th Cir.1984); see, e.g., F. W. Woolworth

Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228, 231-32 (1952).

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 14 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

23. In F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.,

the United States Supreme Court held that merely awarding

plaintiffs damages equal to lost profits does not sufficiently

deter infringements. Thus, courts should formulate a damage

award that will achieve the deterrent purposes served by the

statutory damages provision. The Supreme Court said:

. . . [A] rule of liability which merely takes away the

profits from an infringement would offer little

discouragement to the infringers. It would fall short of an

effective sanction for enforcement of the copyright policy.

The statutory rule, formulated after long experience, not

merely compels restitution of profit and reparation for

injury but also is designed to discourage wrongful conduct.

The discretion of the court is wide enough to permit a

resort to statutory damages for such purposes. Even for

uninjurious and unprofitable invasions of copyright the

court may if it deems it just, impose a liability within

the statutory limits to sanction and vindicate statutory

policy.

Id., 344 U.S. at 233.

24. Another court has put it more bluntly: infringers

should not be free to “sneer” in the face of the Copyright Act;

courts must put defendants on notice that it costs less to obey

the Copyright Act than to violate it. International Korwin Corp.

v. Kowalczyk, 665 F. Supp. 652, 659 (N.D. Ill. 1987), aff’d, 855

F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Flyte Type Tunes, supra, 715

F. Supp. at 922 (“a violation of Copyright Law [is] a serious

matter requiring deterrence . . .”). Recognizing the important

deterrent purpose served by statutory damages, the courts

routinely award as statutory damages in cases such as this

amounts that are between two and three times license fees. See,

e.g., Frank Music Corp. v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 886 F.2d

1545, 1554 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1017 (1990)

(“Statutory damages are available in order to effectuate two

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 15 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

purposes underlying the remedial provisions of the Copyright

Act: to provide adequate compensation to the copyright holder

and to deter infringement.”); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Star

Amusements, Inc., 44 F.3d 485, 488 (7th Cir. 1995);

International Korwin Corp., supra, 855 F.2d 375 (license fees

owed would have been approximately $3,500; damages totaled

$10,500); and Fermata Int’l Melodies, Inc. v. Champions Golf

Club, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 1257, 1264 (S.D. Tex. 1989) (awarding

$8,000 when $2,400 in license fees owed); Boz Scaggs Music, 491

F. Supp. 908 ($1,000 for each of 23 infringements; license fees

would have totaled approximately $6,000).

25. In this case, because defendants repeatedly

rejected and ignored ASCAP’s offers of a license; acted as if

they are not subject to the copyright laws; threatened ASCAP

representatives with bodily harm on at least two occasions;

wilfully attempted to frustrate plaintiffs’ ability to recover

any judgment against Katharsis LLC in this action by taking

steps to dissolve the corporation and transfer its liquor

license; and have continued to perform copyrighted works in the

ASCAP repertory even after the filing of this lawsuit and as

recently as February 3, 2006, defendants are willful infringers.

26. Given the defendants' blatantly willful conduct,

an appropriate statutory damages award in this case is $3,000.00

per infringement for a total of $12,000.00 (approximately four

times the license fees “saved”) -- well within the statutory

range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement under 17 U.S.C.

§504(c)(1). This amount will hopefully serve as a deterrent to

defendants' further infringing conduct and serves as well the

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 16 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

other objectives of the Copyright Law. To award less would

reward defendants for their deliberate failure to comply with

the law and send the wrong message to other potential

infringers.

27. The Copyright Act provides for the imposition of

costs and attorneys’ fees in favor of the prevailing party:

In any civil action under this title, the court in its

discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or

against any party other than the United States or an

officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this

title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee

to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

17 U.S.C. § 505.

28. “Plaintiffs in copyright actions may be awarded

attorney’s fees simply by virtue of prevailing in the action: no

other precondition need be met, although the fee awarded must

be reasonable.” Frank Music Corp., supra, 886 F.2d at 1556. See

also Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

29. In Milene Music, Inc., on facts very similar to

this case, the Rhode Island District Court concluded that:

. . . The defendants have deliberately and knowingly

infringed upon plaintiffs’ copyrights; and subsequent to

such infringement, have forced the plaintiffs to engage

lawyers and to resort to the courts to enforce the

proprietary interests in the copyrights. The defendants, in

the court’s view, have come forward with no justification

for their actions, nor any colorable grounds upon which

defense or mitigation could be predicted. The Court

believes that this litigation fairly cries out for an award

of attorneys’ fees.

551 F. Supp. at 1298.

30. Here, defendants knowingly and deliberately

infringed upon plaintiffs’ copyrights, continue to perform

copyrighted materials in the ASCAP repertory, refused to obtain

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 17 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

permission to perform copyrighted materials, threatened ASCAP

representatives with bodily harm, and forced this matter to be

litigated through trial. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to

recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

31. The precise amount of fees and costs incurred by

plaintiffs shall be determined by this court upon plaintiffs’

post-trial motion in accordance with Local Rule 54-293.

32. 28 U.S.C. § 1961 specifies that “[i]nterest shall

be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a

district court.” Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgment

interest on the monetary award.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate

Judge, filed June 14, 2006, are adopted in full.

2. Defendants Katharsis, LLC, and William Joseph

Scheck, and all persons in active concert or participation with

one or both of them, are hereby permanently enjoined and

restrained:

(a) from publicly performing, without a license to do

so, the musical compositions in the repertory of the American

Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (“ASCAP”), including

but not limited to the following four copyrighted musical

compositions: “EXODUS,” “JAMMING,” “AMBUSH IN THE NIGHT,” and

“AFRICA UNITE.”

(b) from causing or permitting any of those musical

compositions to be publicly performed, without a license to do

so, in, at, or by the Owl Club, or any other business owned,

controlled, operated, maintained, or conducted, in whole or in

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 18 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

part, directly or indirectly, by one or more of the Defendants;

(c) from aiding or abetting the unlicensed public

performance of any of those musical compositions; and

(d) from otherwise infringing the copyright in any of

those musical compositions.

3. Plaintiffs shall recover from Defendants Katharsis

LLC, and William Joseph Scheck, jointly and severally, statutory

damages in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000.00),

which is an award of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for each

of the four copyrighted musical works infringed at the Owl Club

on the night of September 2, 2004.

4. Plaintiffs also shall recover from Defendants

Katharsis LLC, and William Joseph Scheck, jointly and severally,

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, in an amount to be

determined upon plaintiffs’ post-trial motion for fees and

memorandum of costs.

5. Plaintiffs shall further recover from Defendants

Katharsis LLC, and William Joseph Scheck, jointly and severally,

interest on the aforementioned statutory damages, costs, and

attorneys’ fees from the date of entry of judgment at the

applicable statutory rate.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED: July 20, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00545-WBS-EFB Document 72 Filed 07/21/06 Page 19 of 19