Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Volume 15 Issue 3 Issue 3 - Spring 2013 Article 4 2013 Sneering at the Law: An Argument for Punitive Damages in Copyright R. Collins Kilgore Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation R. Collins Kilgore, Sneering at the Law: An Argument for Punitive Damages in Copyright, 15 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 637 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol15/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Sneering at the Law: An Argument for Punitive Damages in Copyright ABSTRACT The Copyright Act limits statutory damages in a copyright action to one award for every work that a plaintiff can prove a defendant infringed. The maximum amount a plaintiff may recover for each work is $30,000, except in the case of willful infringement, for which that amount may be increased to a maximum of $150,000. This Note explains how this dual limitation in the Copyright Act-the one-award-per-work limitation and the cap on statutory damage amounts-allows infringers to manipulate court procedures and corporate structure so that their acts of copyright infringement may maintain profitability despite the imposition of maximum statutory damages. Such efficient willful infringement undercuts the deterrence rationale of the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision.