Court Opinion

ID: 9565695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:25:58.909022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:49.806716
License: Public Domain

SILER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent, for I-would find that the district courts erred in determining that 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(4) does not apply to individual use. The language in the statute is clear and it is in the disjunctive. That is, it forbids specific conduct by “any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, ... or distributes any electronic, mechanical or other device or equipment.” The statute does not limit its application to manufacturers and sellers. If Congress had intended to limit its reach to commercial use, it would have said so.
Although it is a matter of first impression in this circuit, other circuits have held that § 605(e)(4) is not categorically inapplicable to end users. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Pernites, 200 Fed.Appx. 257, 257-58 (4th Cir.2006); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 543-44 (5th Cir.2005). Moreover, the Second Circuit has ordered the entry of a default judgment based on a complaint similar to the one in this case that tracked the language of the statute. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Meinhart, 158 Fed.Appx. 309, 311 (2d Cir.2005). Apparently no circuit has yet to rule to the contrary.
For these reasons, I would reverse the decisions of the district court in denying the motions for default judgments in both cases.