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

A demand letter or complaint over a game or fight you showed almost always names one or both of two federal statutes, 47 U.S.C. §553 and 47 U.S.C. §605, and often a copyright claim under Title 17 alongside them. They are not interchangeable, and the way the internet routinely describes them is wrong in a specific, costly way: the two signal-piracy statutes are built differently from each other, and copyright is a third system with its own numbers. Blur them together and the exposure on the page looks either far worse or far simpler than the law actually makes it.

The useful thing to understand first is what each statute measures and how it counts. One counts damages per violation, the other counts all violations together, and their rules on attorney’s fees run in opposite directions. Which one applies is not a choice the plaintiff makes for leverage; it turns on how the feed physically reached your screens. Copyright, when it appears, is a separate claim that answers a question the other two may not.

Two Statutes, Built Differently

Both statutes create a civil claim when someone receives a protected feed without authorization and, in the commercial context, exhibits it in a business. That much is shared. The structure of the damages is not, and the differences are the whole reason it matters which statute the case runs under.

Under §605, which governs satellite and radio signals, “the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation … in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000.” The operative words are for each violation: the base is counted per violation. On top of it, where “the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” a court “may increase the award of damages … by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation,” and where the violator “was not aware and had no reason to believe” the act was a violation it “may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $250.” Fees are not optional: the court “shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.”

Under §553, which governs cable signals, the base is counted the opposite way: statutory damages are “for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000,” an aggregate figure for the whole action, not a per-violation multiplier. The willful enhancer is capped at “not more than $50,000,” half of §605’s and a single amount rather than a per-violation add-on. The innocent-violator floor drops to “not less than $100.” And fees are discretionary: the statute says “the court may … direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees,” where §605 says the court shall.

Side by side:

Statutory figures above are quoted from the current text of 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553 at the Legal Information Institute, verified as of July 2026.

What This Means for You

• The per-violation-versus-aggregate distinction is why a satellite case and a cable case with identical facts can carry very different maximum exposure. It is worth knowing which one your letter is built on before you weigh anything.
• “Willful” is a finding a court has to make, not a label the letter gets to assign. The enhancer and the innocent-violator floor are the two ends of the same range, and where a case lands between them depends on the facts.
• Mandatory fees under §605 are a real part of the calculus a cable case does not automatically carry. That is a structural difference, not a detail.

Which Statute Applies to You?

The dividing line is the signal path. A satellite feed points to §605; a cable feed points to §553. The facts of how the broadcast physically reached the establishment decide it, not the size of the event and not which number the sender would prefer to claim. Working out your own signal path is a diagnosis in itself, and it is the job of the signal-path decoder, which walks the satellite-versus-cable-versus-internet-app branches and where each one lands.

In practice, complaints frequently plead both §553 and §605 in the alternative. That is a pleading strategy, not a doubling of the exposure. Courts do not permit double recovery for the same conduct: the plaintiff may allege both, but the award comes under one statute, not both stacked on top of each other. Some commentary describes courts as tending to award under §605 when both are pleaded, but that is a reading of past filings rather than a rule of law, and it is not something to treat as settled; the controlling point is that recovery is under one statute for one course of conduct.

The $110,000 Ceiling, and Where It Comes From

The roughly $110,000 figure that anchors so many of these letters is not invented, but it is not a bill either. It is the arithmetic ceiling under §605: the $10,000 top of the base range plus the $100,000 maximum willful enhancer, for a single violation, and reaching it requires a court to find the violation willful and to award the maximum at every step. The same statute that allows that ceiling also starts the base at $1,000 and lets a court reduce an innocent violation to $250.

A ceiling describes the worst case the statute permits, not the case in front of any particular establishment. What courts have actually awarded against venues, as opposed to what opening demands claim, is a separate question answered by the record of decided cases, assembled on how these cases resolve and what venues really pay. The number to carry away from the statute is the structure, not the ceiling: a range with a floor and a top, and a willful finding standing between the base and the maximum.

The Copyright Claim Is a Separate System

When a letter also cites the Copyright Act, it is invoking a different body of law with its own damages math, and the single most common error in this area is merging the two. The event’s owner, typically a league, promoter, or the UFC, holds a copyright in the broadcast itself. Federal copyright law provides that “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 … is an infringer of the copyright” (17 U.S.C. §501). Those exclusive rights include the right to publicly perform and display the work, so an unlicensed commercial showing can infringe the copyright independently of any signal-piracy claim.

The damages run on their own schedule. Under 17 U.S.C. §504, a copyright owner may “elect … to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages” of “not less than $750 or more than $30,000” per work, and where “infringement was committed willfully,” a court “may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.” These figures are elected in lieu of actual damages, and they belong to the copyright claim alone, not to §§553/605.

What This Means for You

• These are two separate damage systems, not one bigger one. The $750 to $150,000 copyright range is not added to the §§553/605 numbers, and the §§553/605 numbers are not swapped in for it. A letter that cites all three statutes is describing overlapping claims, each with its own math.
• Copyright is why “it was streamed” is not a clean escape. The signal-piracy statutes are written around cable and satellite; copyright is written around the work itself, and it can reach a transmission the Communications Act may not.

Does “It Was Streamed on an App” End the Case?

It can change which law applies, and it is a real point worth raising, but it is not an automatic win. Because §§553 and 605 are written around cable and satellite signals, courts have divided over whether they reach an internet or app stream at all. One line of authority, associated with the Ninth Circuit and courts in the Central District of California, reads the signal-piracy statutes to cover cable and satellite signals only, which would put an internet-app stream outside them; some courts, including in the Eastern District of New York, have taken a different view. That split exists, but its current state is unsettled and moves with new decisions, so it is not something to rely on as resolved as of mid-2026, and its status is worth confirming against current law for any specific matter.

Even where the internet-app argument takes a showing outside §§553/605, it does not answer the copyright claim: Title 17 reaches the public performance of the broadcast work regardless of the pipe it traveled through. The app argument is best understood as narrowing one claim, not defeating the case: the signal-piracy statute and the copyright statute are separate walls, and clearing one does not clear the other.

Two Points That Come Up Often

How far back a claim can reach. Neither §553 nor §605 contains its own statute of limitations. Where a federal statute is silent, courts generally borrow the most analogous state limitations period, so the time window can vary by jurisdiction and by the facts. There is no single nationwide number to quote, and a stale claim is not automatically time-barred without that borrowed-period analysis; it is a fact-specific question worth raising with counsel rather than assuming.

Civil, not criminal. Both statutes also carry criminal penalties, but enforcement against a commercial establishment is overwhelmingly civil. The letter or complaint is a civil claim for money, an injunction, and fees, not a criminal charge.

A Music Letter Is a Different Law

One boundary is worth drawing clearly, because it trips people up. A signal-piracy claim under §§553/605, and a copyright claim over the broadcast, are both about the game or fight feed. They are not the same as a letter from a performance-rights organization such as ASCAP or BMI about the music played in the room. That is a separate right under a separate part of the copyright law, with a separate exemption analysis, and the small-business exemption under Section 110(5)(B) that can matter for a music letter has no application to a signal-piracy claim about the broadcast. If your letter is about the music rather than the game feed, it belongs to the music-licensing and Section 110(5)(B) analysis; do not carry one letter’s answer over to the other.

Where to Go From Here

• To work out which statute your feed falls under: run the signal-path decoder, which turns the satellite-versus-cable-versus-app question into a concrete answer.
• To understand what courts actually award, as opposed to what a letter demands: see how these cases resolve and what venues really pay.
• For the overview of the whole situation, including what to do first with a letter or a lawsuit in hand: start at what a letter or lawsuit over a game you showed means.
• If your letter is about music, not the game feed: cross to who is liable for music licensing and the Section 110(5)(B) exemption.
• If you have been served with a filed federal lawsuit, with a case number and a deadline, this explainer is not a substitute for counsel: a clock is running, and the right move is to retain a lawyer who handles signal-piracy or commercial-broadcast defense.

Frequently Asked Questions

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

They cover different signal paths and count damages differently. §605 applies to satellite and radio feeds, and its base statutory damages of $1,000 to $10,000 are counted per violation, with a willful enhancer up to $100,000 per violation and mandatory attorney’s fees. §553 applies to cable feeds, and its base of $250 to $10,000 is for all violations in the aggregate, with a willful enhancer capped at $50,000 and discretionary fees. Which one applies turns on how the feed reached the establishment, not on the dollar amount the sender wants to claim.

Is $110,000 What I Will Owe?

No. The roughly $110,000 figure is the ceiling under §605: the $10,000 top of the base range plus the $100,000 maximum willful enhancer, for a single violation, and only if a court finds the violation willful and for commercial advantage. The base starts at $1,000, and an innocent violation can be reduced to as little as $250. It is the top of the statutory range, not a prediction of any particular establishment’s award.

Can They Sue Under Both §553 and §605?

They can plead both, and complaints often do. But courts do not allow double recovery for the same conduct: the award comes under one statute, not both stacked together. Pleading both is an alternative-pleading strategy, not a doubling of the exposure.

How Is the Copyright Claim Different From the Signal-Piracy Claim?

It is a separate claim under a separate statute with its own numbers. Signal piracy under §§553/605 is about the unauthorized reception and exhibition of a cable or satellite feed. A copyright claim under 17 U.S.C. §§501 and 504 is about the unlicensed public performance of the copyrighted broadcast work itself, and its statutory damages run $750 to $30,000 per work, up to $150,000 if willful. The two damage systems are never added together or swapped for each other, and a copyright claim can reach an internet or app stream that the signal-piracy statutes may not.

Does Streaming the Event on an App Mean the Statutes Do Not Apply?

Not necessarily, and not cleanly. Courts are split on whether the signal-piracy statutes, which are written around cable and satellite, reach an internet or app stream at all, and that split is unsettled. Even where an app stream falls outside §§553/605, the copyright claim under Title 17 can still reach it, because copyright protects the broadcast work regardless of how it was transmitted. The app argument can narrow one claim; it does not by itself end the case.