DRAFT PREVIEW — not yet reviewed or signed off. These pages are engine drafts under review. Facts may change; do not rely on them.
The Demand-Letter Guide · Sports & PPV (draft) Independent — makes no money

The Law They're Citing: §§ 553 vs 605, and the Copyright Claim Riding With It

A signal-piracy demand letter or complaint usually cites two federal statutes, 47 U.S.C. §553 and 47 U.S.C. §605, and often adds a copyright count under Title 17. Seeing all three at once, with a number like $110,000 nearby, reads as if the amounts stack into one enormous bill. They do not. These are separate damage systems that answer different questions, and the two signal-piracy statutes are usually pleaded as alternatives to each other, not as additive claims. Separating each claim is what shows the real shape of the exposure, and the worst case is not the sum of the maximums.

What You Need to Know

The Two Signal-Piracy Statutes, Side by Side

Both statutes let the authorized distributor recover statutory damages for an unlicensed commercial showing, but the structures are different in ways that change the exposure. The figures below are quoted from the U.S. Code and verified against the primary text on 2026-07-20.

47 U.S.C. §605 (a satellite or radio feed).

47 U.S.C. §553 (a cable feed).

The two differences that matter most: §605 damages are counted per violation while §553 is a single aggregate figure for the whole action, and §605 makes a fee award mandatory for a prevailing plaintiff while §553 leaves it to the court's discretion. That is why plaintiffs generally prefer to proceed under §605 when the facts allow it.

Why Both Statutes Are Usually Cited (and Why They Don't Stack)

Seeing §553 and §605 in the same complaint does not mean you face both. Which statute applies turns on the signal path: a satellite feed falls under §605, a cable feed under §553. A plaintiff often does not know, at the moment of filing, exactly how the feed reached a given establishment, so the complaint pleads both in the alternative, the way a complaint routinely pleads more than one theory before the facts are settled. As the case develops, the signal path is established and the claim resolves under the statute that fits it.

Courts do not allow double recovery for the same conduct. Plaintiffs plead both statutes, but a court awards under one, not both, for a single unlicensed showing. (Courts in practice tend to award under §605 where it applies, because of its per-violation structure and mandatory fees; that pattern is a docket-level observation rather than a fixed rule, so treat it as a tendency, not a guarantee.) Which statute actually applies to your situation is a signal-path question, worked through on did they even have a case.

One point the letter's headline number obscures: "per violation" is a fact question, not a fixed multiplier. What counts as a single violation, and how many there are, depends on the specifics, and it is not something to compute for yourself from the statute. Treat the printed maximum as a ceiling, not as a calculation of what you owe.

The Copyright Claim Is a Separate Machine

Many letters and complaints add a claim under the Copyright Act, and it is important to understand it as a separate, overlapping cause of action, not part of the §§553/605 numbers. The league, promoter, or network that owns the broadcast owns it as a copyrighted audiovisual work, and federal law gives a copyright owner the exclusive right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly" (17 U.S.C. §106). "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer" (17 U.S.C. §501).

Copyright statutory damages run on their own scale: "not less than $750 or more than $30,000" per work as the court considers just, rising to "not more than $150,000" per work for willful infringement, and reducible to "not less than $200" for an innocent infringer (17 U.S.C. §504(c)). These figures are not added to or merged with the §§553/605 figures; they are an alternative theory with its own remedy.

The reason this matters most is the internet defense. There is a live legal question, discussed on did they even have a case, about whether §§553/605 reach a broadcast delivered over an internet app rather than a cable or satellite line. Even where that argument has force against the Communications Act claims, it does not answer the copyright count: a public showing of the copyrighted broadcast can infringe under Title 17 regardless of how the signal was delivered. Treating "it was streamed on an app" as a total win is the most expensive misunderstanding in this area, because it can leave the copyright claim standing untouched.

What This Does Not Decide

Two more points belong here, both hedged because they are less settled than the statutory figures above:

Ceilings Are Not the Bill

Every figure on this page is a statutory ceiling or floor, not a prediction of what a court awards or what a case settles for. The $110,000 that anchors many §605 letters is the top of the base range plus the maximum willful enhancement for a single violation, not a typical result, and the copyright maximums are the same kind of ceiling. What establishments actually pay, on the record of real settlements and default judgments, is a separate subject with its own receipts on how they detect, demand, sue, and what venues pay. Reading the statute tells you the shape of the exposure; it does not compute your bill, and no honest page can put a single number on your specific case.

If You Also Got a Music-Licensing Letter

Signal piracy is a different question from music licensing. If a performing rights organization such as ASCAP or BMI has also written to you about the music in a broadcast you showed, that runs on a separate statute (the public-performance right in the underlying songs) and a separate exemption analysis, covered on the venues resource for the §110(5)(B) TV-audio exemption. It is a different counterparty enforcing a different right, and the two analyses do not merge. An answer to one is not an answer to the other.

Where to Go Next

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is the Difference Between 47 U.S.C. §553 and §605?

They cover different signal paths and are built differently. §605 applies to a satellite or radio feed; its damages run $1,000 to $10,000 per violation, with a willful enhancement up to $100,000 per violation and mandatory attorney's fees for a prevailing plaintiff. §553 applies to a cable feed; its damages are $250 to $10,000 for all violations in the aggregate, with a willful enhancement up to $50,000 and discretionary fees. Which one applies to you turns on how the broadcast physically reached your establishment.

Can a Plaintiff Recover Under Both §553 and §605?

No, not for the same conduct. Plaintiffs commonly plead both because the signal path is not yet established, but courts do not allow double recovery, so an award comes under one statute, not both, for a single unlicensed showing.

Is the $110,000 the Amount I Will Owe?

No. It is a statutory ceiling: the top of the §605 base range ($10,000) plus the maximum willful enhancement ($100,000) for a single violation. It is the most the statute allows in damages for that scenario, not the amount courts typically award. What cases actually resolve for is covered on the page about what venues pay.

We Streamed It on an App. Does That End the Case?

Not necessarily, and not the whole case. There is a genuine legal question about whether §§553/605 reach an internet or app stream, but a copyright claim under Title 17 can reach a public showing of the broadcast regardless of the delivery method. An internet-delivery argument may affect the Communications Act counts while leaving the copyright count in place, which is why treating it as a total win is a mistake.

Does the Copyright Amount Get Added to the §605 or §553 Amount?

No. Copyright statutory damages ($750 to $150,000 per work) are a separate remedy under a separate statute. They are not added to or merged with the §§553/605 figures. Stacking all the maximums together to estimate a worst case is the single most common error with these letters.