The National Law Journal, April 17, 2000 Copyright 2000 The New York Law Publishing Company The National Law Journal April 17, 2000, Monday SECTION: Pg. A1 LENGTH: 1135 words HEADLINE: Just like old times BYLINE: BY RITCHENYA A. SHEPHERD, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL STAFF REPORTER HIGHLIGHT: Gregory Jordan used a video pitch and some inside dope to take on an old colleague. BODY: A FEW MONTHS ago, several big sports and entertainment companies teamed up to sue a Canadian Internet company that was grabbing their TV programming from the air and putting it on its Web site. A lawyer in Pittsburgh saw his chance to leap into the case, and he grabbed it -- with a video program of his own. The dispute involved iCraveTV, which offered viewers, supposedly only in Canada, real-time TV in a corner of their computer screens. The National Football League, National Basketball Association, 10 movie and TV production companies and three TV networks all wanted iCraveTV stopped. The Pittsburgh lawyer, Gregory B. Jordan, of Reed Smith Shaw & McClay L.L.P., is an intellectual property litigator. But his real expertise involves William R. Craig, iCraveTV's founder. Mr. Jordan had been a lawyer both for and against Mr. Craig. That contrary relationship had developed when both worked, in various ways, for the vast Fox broadcasting network. And it was a Fox representative who urged Mr. Jordan to make a pitch to one of the potential plaintiffs in the case, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), for the job of suing iCraveTV. Mr. Jordan jumped at the chance, submitting a video he called "Being Bill Craig" -- a play on the film Being John Malkovich. "I wanted the movie studio people to see who they were dealing with and get a better perspective into this man," he says. The MPAA did pick Mr. Jordan to lead the legal team against iCraveTV, and a month after filing, the 16 plaintiffs obtained a settlement forcing Toronto-based iCraveTV to end all unlicensed, copyrighted Internet transmissions. How they met Messrs. Jordan and Craig had begun their association when Mr. Craig was the general manager of the predecessor to Fox Sports Pittsburgh. As outside counsel, Mr. Jordan represented Fox in disputes with competitors, teams and sponsors. And he had plenty to do, he says. "Bill is a creative, innovative guy," Mr. Jordan says. "He likes to push the envelope. [He] tends to be aggressive in his interpretation of contracts." That, he says, led to litigation. In the fall of 1997, Mr. Craig left Fox and joined the management of the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey team. While at Fox, he had taken the position that, under its telecasting agreement with the Penguins, the network wasn't responsible for fees owed the National Hockey League for games viewed outside of the Pittsburgh area. When he joined the Penguins, he changed his mind. Mr. Jordan was soon on the other side of the table from his former ally. Still representing Fox, he took Mr. Craig to court over the hockey issue. Fox won, but the two sides continued to skirmish. It was this tenacity that Mr. Jordan wanted MPAA execs to see. His video contained excerpts of a TV interview Mr. Craig gave during the NHL fee litigation. "I thought it was somewhat noteworthy and remarkable that he gave the interview because it was in the course of a lawsuit in which he was being enjoined," Mr. Jordan says. "Most people would clam up." Mr. Craig moved to Toronto and launched iCraveTV. It digitized broadcast signals from TV stations in western New York and Canada and "streamed" them onto its Web site. By logging onto the site, people could watch TV on their computer screens while they worked. The service proved popular; the company claimed 800,000 visitors in its first month. Having beaten out six firms for the job, Mr. Jordan went to work. Besides professional knowledge of his adversary, he brought another weapon to the iCraveTV fight: He knew that Mr. Craig had been through a divorce in Pittsburgh and had a $ 1 million judgment against him. A bench warrant for his arrest had been issued, and returning might be a problem. Mr. Jordan suggested filing the case in Pittsburgh, and did so in federal court on Jan. 20. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV, No. 00-120. Sure enough, Mr. Jordan recalls, "there was a marshal in court looking for him when we had the hearing." Although Mr. Craig never showed up, there were other reasons for bringing the case in Pittsburgh. Mr. Craig had formed iCraveTV and registered its domain name under an address there, and the company's sales manager was in the city. The arrest warrant was just "an extra benefit," Mr. Jordan says. Mr. Craig declined to discuss the case. But it brought back memories for Mr. Jordan. When he deposed Mr. Craig, Mr. Jordan says, "he made a crack at one point, saying, 'That's the kind of question you used to tell me not to answer.'" In proceedings in January and February, iCraveTV argued that its activities weren't illegal in Canada and that it had taken steps to prevent U.S. residents from accessing its service. "The basic concept behind iCrave was to provide a service to Canadians," says Andrew Z. Schwartz, of Boston's Foley, Hoag & Eliot L.L.P., who represented iCraveTV. "Under the Canadian copyright regime, it's lawful to rebroadcast signals via any medium." Users had to assert online that they were in Canada and provide a Canadian area code. Getting around that issue, Mr. Jordan says, required a concerted effort. The NFL and the NBA retained William Iverson, of Washington, D.C.'s Covington & Burling, and the TV networks brought in Thomas P. Olson, of D.C.'s Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Mr. Olson took the lead in drafting the legal brief and Mr. Iverson took charge of some technical evidence and expert witnesses. One witness was a Harvard University sophomore, Ben Edelman, who analyzed iCraveTV's logs to verify that many of the Internet site's users lived in the United States. He also showed that there were ways to circumvent the company's efforts to screen out non-Canadians. "Their view was nobody would lie. Our argument was: 'Well, somebody might,'" says Mr. Iverson. The testimony was pivotal in moving the parties to settle, he says. "The defendants really couldn't find a way to prevent people from doing this. They weren't anxious to contest the facts anymore." On Jan. 28, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Donald Ziegler granted a temporary restraining order against iCraveTV. On Feb. 8, he issued a preliminary injunction. The case settled on Feb. 22, with iCraveTV agreeing not to stream unlicensed copyrighted programming. In a statement, Mr. Craig said that iCraveTV will pursue licensing agreements and improve screening techniques: "The litigation has had the beneficial effect of spurring the development of our enhanced geographic screening technology which we believe will have widespread applications in e-commerce." Notwithstanding their latest brawl, Mr. Jordan says, there is no personal animosity between him and Mr. Craig. "Not at all," he says. "Our interpersonal dealings have always been pleasant." GRAPHIC: Picture 1, Do you know me? Gregory Jordan helped Hollywood take on iCraveTV. JASON COHN; Picture 2, Andrew Schwartz: Lawyer for iCrave says the service is legal under Canadian copyright law.