(E.D.Pa.1997). Despite the above-stated precedents, the Plaintiffs contend that the “communications personnel” requirement is not applicable insofar as “numerous courts have found that when owners/managers of bars, nightclubs, or restaurants utilize signals in commercial facilities that are only authorized for residential viewing, those activities violate both the first sentence and the third sentence of § 605(a).” (Pis.’ Opp. at 17.) However, the parties in the cases cited by the Plaintiffs did not appear to raise the issue of whether a non-communications personnel defendant could be liable under the first sentence of § 605(a), and therefore the issue was not directly addressed by the court. See, e.g., DIRECTV, Inc. v. Ferri, No. 08-CV-122, 2009 WL 4406052 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2009) (<HOLDING>); That’s Entertainment, Inc. v. J.P.T., 843
holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar holding supervisory personnel liable for  1983 violations only where evidence establishes that they authorized or approved the unconstitutional conduct holding that a bar owner authorized to receive satellite transmissions for residential use was liable under the first and third sentences of  605a for broadcasting the satellite transmissions at his bar for commercial benefit without any reference to communications personnel holding companies contributorily liable for copyright infringement for facilitating users transmissions of unauthorized digital copies of copyrighted works holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar