3 ms·

You forget that the corporation usually pays for staffing costs of the workers who created this work, plus overhead, plus promotional expenses, and possibly eve

You forget that the corporation usually pays for staffing costs of the workers who created this work, plus overhead, plus promotional expenses, and possibly even entered into contracts on the basis of the work. A corporation spends more money to create a creative work, so its actual damages are significantly more -- why should it be forced to swallow those other costs? (Even staffing costs are damages b/c those costs could have gone into some other endeavor). Furthermore, work created for profit receives greater protection precisely b/c of the money interest involved -- if the work was created for free, the presumption is that the creator didn't carry about money, and so is not harmed much by infringement.

cduan 17y ago
You are absolutely right. And when a corporation is damaged in this manner, it has the opportunity to show its actual damages for staffing, promotions, contracts, and everything else. The issue with statutory damages is that they are awarded without regard to actual injury. They act, more or less, as a punishment or deterrent. So even if the corporation truly suffered no damages, it still can receive a few thousand dollars. (Note that taking statutory damages is an option: if your actual damages are higher, you can opt for those instead.) I'm not necessarily saying that statutory damages are a bad thing. The problem I see is the inequality in their distribution: because copyright registration is costly, statutory damages are ultimately only available to the profit-seekers. One possible idea would be to cut out the registration fee, making it easy for everyone to register their works and thereby receive equal protections.