## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 D IR E C T V , I NC ., P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D AVI D B ARC ZEW SKI an d J ONAT HAN W IS LER, D ef endants-A ppell ants
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our tfor the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No s. 1: 03-cv -1879 &-1930

—David F. H amil ton, Ju dge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 21, 2007

— D ECI DE D M AY 13, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, an d F LA UMa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . A j ury concl ud ed that J o na th anW i sl eri nt er ce pte d e nc r y pte d s i g na l s fr o m the Dir ecTV satel l i te sys tem witho ut autho ri zati on a nd that Davi d Barczewskifurni shed devi ces t o ass i st othe rs to ste al the si gnal s. Se e 18 U
. S. C. §251 1; 47 U
. S.C . §60 5. A m ple ev i dence supports thi s v er dict : bo th defendants bought el ectr oni c gea r fro m a m er chant that ad ver ti sed2 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 i ts pr o duct s as de si g ne d t o f aci l i ta te the ft o fDi r ec TV si gnal s, and both part i ci pated i n an o nl i ne disc u ssio n g r o up, c al l ed th e “P i r at e’ s Den, ” whos e m embe r s ex c h an g ed ad vic e a b ou t h ow to d ec ry p t D ire c T V sign als w ithou t pa ying. B oth de fend an ts insisted that th e “sm art car ds” a n d as soc i ate d geartheypurchase d had le gal uses. That m uch is u n c on tes ted, but the j ury did not have to bel i eve defendants’ cl ai m thatthe ge ar had been putt o a l eg alr athe rtha n a n i ll egal u se. Nordi d the j u r y h a v e t o b e l i e v e Wi s l e r ’ s a s s e r t i o n th a t, a s a D i r ec TV su bs cr ibe r, he ha d no r ea so n t o s te als i g na l s. Af te rb uy i ng a smar t ca rd a nd j o i ni ngthe Pi r at e’ s Den, W i sl erc ut b a c kt o the l o we s tt i e ro fs e r v i c e ; a j ur y c o ul d c o ncl ud e th athe de sc r ambl ed o th erprogram s, s ucha s spo r ts a nd m ovi es, witho ut payi ng. M osto fdefendants’ l ega lar gum en ts ar e feebl e. They conte nd , f orexam ple , thatD I RE CT V, Inc. , the provi der o f Di r ec TV s er vi ce , i s no t ag g r i ev ed bys i gn al the ft an d ther ef or e ca nnot s ue u n der 1 8 U.S
. C. §252 0, wh i ch pro

vi des a pri vate r i ght o fact i on f orso m e violati ons of 18 U
. S. C
. §2511 , an an ti- interce p tion statu te. E very cou rt of a p p ea ls th at h as co n sid e re d th is s u bj ec t h as h eld that D IR E CT V i s e nti tl ed to sue und er§2 520. S ee D IRE C T V, Inc. v. Web b , 545 F
. 3d 837 (9th C ir. 2008); D IRE C T V, Inc. v. Bennett, 470 F.3d 565 ( 5th C ir. 2006 ); D IRE CT V, Inc . v. Pepe, 431 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C ir . 2 005); D IRE CT V, Inc . v. N i ch ol as , 4 0 3 F
. 3 d 2 2 3 ( 4 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. We ag r ee wi th th at co nc l us i o n, as wel l as th e r el ated p o i nt th at D I RECTV i s a “pe r so n a g g r i ev ed” e nt i tl ed to s ue und er§6 05. S ee D IRE CT V, In c. v. Se i j as , 50 8 F
. 3d 123 ( 3d C ir. 2007); D IR E C T V

, Inc. v. B ud den , 42 0 F.3d 5 21, 52 6–28N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 3 ( 5th Ci r. 20 05) ; se e a l so U nite d States v. N orris , 88 F. 3d 462, 468– 69 (7th C ir. 1996). N onethel ess , de fendants i nsi st, an e xcepti on t o §251 1 m ak es the pr i va te r i g hto fa ct i o n us el ess to DI RECTV. The excepti on r eads: I t s hal lnotbe unlawfulunder thi s chapte r . . . f or any per son

— ( i ) t o i n t e r c e p to ra c c e s s a n e l e c t r o n i c c o mm u n ica t i on m ad e t h ro u gh an ele c tr on ic com m unica ti on s yst em t h at i s co nfi gure d so that such el ectr oni c com m unica ti on is re adily a cces sibl e t o the g ener alpubli c; ( i i ) to i nter cept an y r adio co m m unica ti on w h ich i s t ra nsm i tte d

— ( I ) byany sta ti on f o rthe u s e o fthe g e ne r a lp ub l i c , o rtha t relates to ship s, aircraft, veh ic les, or p erso n s i n d ist re ss ; (I I) by an y g ov er n m en ta l, l aw enf or cem ent, ci vi ldefense, pri vate l a nd mo b i l e , o rp ub l i c s a fe t y c o mm un i c ati ons sys tem , i ncl ud i ng pol i ce a nd fi re , re adily acces sibl e to the gener alpubli c; ( I I I ) b y a s t a t i o n o pe r a t i ngo n a n a utho

ri zed fre quency withi n the bands al l oca ted to the a m ate u r, ci ti zens band, o r gener al m obi l e r adio se rvic es ; o r ( I V) by any m arine o r aer onauti calco m m unica ti ons sys te m [.] 18 U
. S. C. §251 1(2)(g). S ubsect i on ( i i ) ( I V), wh i ch exem pts
“ an y m ar in e o r ae ro n au tic al c om m u n ica tio n s s ys te m ”, is4 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 the o ne o n w hi ch defe nd ants re l y. Du ring tr i aldefendants’ law ye r as ke d on e o f D IR E C T V ’s w itn es se s w h et h er it op e r a t e d a n “ a e r o na ut i c a lc o mm un i c a t i o ns s y s t e m”; th e wi tn es s an swe r ed “y es ” an d in s o do i ngs cut tl ed th e ca se , de fen dan ts mai nt ain. Lik e the di str i ct c ourt, we doubt thatthe w i tness was thi nki ng ab out §251 1( 2) ( g) ( i i ) ( I V). N o m att er . W hether or not the w i tness had thi s sta tute i n m i nd , th e a n sw er i s no t di spo si ti ve . J udg es , no t wi tn es se s, a r e r es po nsibl e fori nter preting st atute s. S ee Bam m e r l i n v . Navi s t ar Intern a tio na l Tran spo rtat io n C o rp . , 30 F. 3d 8 98, 90 0–01 ( 7th Cir
. 19 94)
. S ecti on 2 511( 2) ( g) as a w hole d eals with unencrypted co m m unica ti ons, br oadcas t in the cl earto prom ote publi c sa fetyo r open di sco urse . The phras e “aer onauti cal com m unica ti ons sys tem ” i s not defin ed in §2 51 1 o r an yw h er e e lse in t h e U n ite d S t a t e s C od e; th is is i ts s o l e appe ar an ce . Onl y one a ppel l at e o pi ni o n us es the phrase, and f ol l owing the l ead ofthe Feder alCom m unica

ti ons Com m i ssi on

— not to m en tion th e d ictionary

— it u n d er st an d s t h is lan gu ag e t o m ea n a sys te m of co m m u n icati ons to and fr om ai rpl anes. S ee Aeronau t i ca l Radi o, Inc . v. F CC, 928 F.2d 42 8 , 4 3 4 ( D .C . C ir. 19 91 ). W h at ev er els e it m ayb e, Di r ec TV i s no t a sy st em f o ri ss ui ngna vi g at i o n instr ucti ons to ai rcr aft o r re cei vi ng the i r dist ress cal l s. Dir ecT V ther ef or e i s no t a n “ae ro nauti calco m m unica

tions syst em ” un d er §2511 (2)( g)(i i) (I V ). A nsw er i ng speci ali nter ro gat or i es, the j u ry co ncl ud ed that Barcze w skihad dis tr ibuted f our unauthori zed decry pti on devi ces and that W i sl erhad i nter cepted Di r ec TV’ s si g na lf o r 43 5 day s wi th o uta utho r i za ti o n. TheN os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 5 j udg e us ed th es e an swe r s to calcul at e damag es . The penal ty of$4 4, 000 aga i nst Bar czewskidepend ed on §605 ( e) ( 3) ( C )(i) ( I I ) : the j ud ge aw ar ded DI RE CT V $10, 000 for e ac h d ev ice , s ee § 60 5(e )(4) , a n d $ 1,0 00 for e ac h (vic ar io us ) i nt er ce pti o n, s ee § 60 5( a)
. S ubs ec ti o n ( I I ) all o ws the c ou rtto aw ar d “fo r ea c h vio lat ion of su b se c tio n (a) of t h is sect i on . . . a sum o fnot le ss than $1 , 000 orm or e than $10, 000, as the cour t consi ders j ust, and f orea ch vi ol ati on ofpara gr aph ( 4) o fthi s s ubsect ion
. . . an a ggr i eve d party m ay re cove r sta tutory dam age s in a s um n ot l ess than $1 0,0 00 , or m or e th an $1 00 ,00 0, as th e cou rtco n sid er s jus t.” DIREC TV r equeste d, an d the dis tr i ct j ud ge used, the l ow poi nt o fthes e r anges f orea ch ofBarcz ew ski ’ s v i ol ati ons. W i s l e r ’ s p e na l t y o f$ 4 3 , 500 ( $ 1 0 0 p e rda y o fi nt e r c e pti on) was cal cu late d und er18 U
. S. C. §252 0( c) ( 2) , wh i ch sa ys th at “th e c ou rtm ay as se ss as d a m ag es w h ich ev er is the g re ate r of

— ( A ) the sum o f the actualdam age s s uffer ed by the pl ai nti ffand any profi ts m ade b y th e vi ol ato r as a r esul t o fthe vi ol ati on; o r ( B) s tatutor y dam age s o f w hi cheveri s the gr eat ero f$1 00 a day f or e ac h d ay of vi o l at i o n o r$ 10 , 00 0. ” The j udg e rej ec te d W i sl er ’ s ar g um ent fora l ower fi gure , becau se Rodge rs v. Wood, 91 0 F. 2d 444, 44 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90) , hol ds that the hi ghest pe na l t y c a l c ul a t e d u nd e r§ 2 5 2 0 ( c ) ( 2 ) i s ma nd a t o ry . R o dg ers l eave s di str i ct j ud ges with no di scr eti on t o exer ci se

— as a r es u lt th e co urt need not ( i nd eed, m ust not ) con side r defen d an ts’ c ircu m stan ces, and the j ury’s o n l y r o l e i s t o s p e c i fy th e i n p u t s t o th e f o r mu l a ( th e num ber of days or dev ice s). Se e B M G M usic v. G o nz a lez , 430 F.3d 888, 891– 93 (7th C ir. 2005).6 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 S ec ti o n 2 52 0 was o ve r ha uled in1 98 6, a nd R o dg ers was the nat i on’ s ini ti alappel l ate deci si on o n the que sti on w hetherthe sta tutory penal ti es ar e m andator y o r perm i ssi ve. M or e r ecent l y four othe r ci rcuits have address ed the quest i on

— and al lf our have disa gr eed withR o dg ers and hel d that § 2520 (c )( 2) al l ows dist ri ct j ud ges notto aw ar d dam age s. S ee Nal l ey v . Na lley , 53 F. 3d 649, 65 1–53 (4th C ir. 1995); D or r i s v. Abs her, 179 F. 3d 420, 42 9–30 ( 6th C ir. 1999); R eyn o lds v . Spea rs , 93 F. 3d 4 2 8 , 4 3 3–35 ( 8th Cir. 1996 ); DIRECTV, In c. v. Brown , 37 1 F
. 3d 814, 81 7–18 ( 11th Cir
. 20 04) . D ev elo pm ents that l eave thi s ci rcui t a l lby i ts l ones om e m ay j usti fy r eexam i nati on o fo ur pre cedents, th e b et te r to refle c t a rg u m en ts th at m ay n otp re vio u sly h a v e b e e n g i v e n fu l lw e i g h ta n d t o s p a r e th e S u p r e me Court the ne ed to i nter vene. S ee U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th C ir. 2010) (en ban c); U ni t e d S t at e s v. C a rlo s–C o lm ena res , 253 F.3d 276 ( 7th Cir. 2001). Section 2520(c)(2) says th at th e j ud ge “ m ay” aw ard c e r t a i n da mag e s . “Ma y ” i s p e r mi s s i v e . DI RE CT V c o nt e nd s that the pe r mi s s i v e qu a l i t y o f “ may ” i s o v e r r i dde n by th e phr as e “the g r ea te ro f ”, b uttha t’s no t so und: “ th e g r ea te ro f ” te l l s th e j udg e to c o m put e th e ce i l i ng separ ate l y und er s u bsec ti ons ( A ) and ( B) a nd then use the hi gher of the tw o ( a proce ss re peated in subsection (B), w hich offers tw o w ays to set sta tu tory d am ages). Tel l i ng the j ud ge to w or k thro ugh al lo f the possibi l i ti es to see w hi chnumbe ri s hi g he stdo es no t co m pelthe co ur t to a war d tha t m ax i m um . A p hra se su cha s “the dist ri ct c ourtm ay aw ar d X o r Y” w oul d obl i ge the j ud ge to use ei ther X or Y, not som e l ower o r i nter m edi ate num ber, b u t §2 520( c) ( 2) does notr ead thi s way. I t s aysN os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 7 th at th e j ud ge “m ay” aw a r d d am ages, then gi ves a formul a . T hi s i s the l a ngua g e o fdi s c r e t i o n, n o tc o mm a nd

. R o dg ers di d n ot see a ny si gni fi cance i n “the gr eat ero f ”. I ns te ad i t l o o k ed to the l an g ua g e o f§2520 b efo r e th e 1986 a men dme nt
. T he o r i g i na ll a ngua g e o f§ 2 5 2 0 ( c ) wa s: “A ny pers on w hos e w ir e o r oralcom m un ication is intercepted, di scl ose d, orused i n viol ati on o fthi s chapte r shal l( 1) have a ci vi lcause o fact i on a gainst a ny per son w ho inter cepts, disc l ose s, or uses . . . such co m m unica ti ons, and ( 2) be enti tl ed to re cove r fro m any su c h per son

— ( a) actual dam age s but not l ess than l i quidate d dam age s com pu ted atthe ra te of$1 00 a d ay fo r each day o fvi ol ati on o r $1, 000, wh i cheveri s hi gh er ”. Pub. L. 90 –351 , T itle II I, §8 02 , 82 S ta t . 2 23 (Ju n e 1 9, 19 68 ). Th e p an el in R o dg ers tre a t e d th e w or d “s h all” as m ak in g t h e m ax im um a war d m an dat o r y a nd the n obs er ve d tha t th e l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryi n 198 6 di d not e xplain w hy “s hal l ” had be enc ha ng ed to “ m ay ”. The pa ne lc o nt i nue d: “ I n the ab sence o fa nys uc h s t a t e men t, we a r e h e s i t a ntt o r e a d a gr ant o fdi scr eti on t o the di str i ct c ourt s w here none had been perm i tte d i n the past. ” 9 10 F. 2d at 448. A s o u r c olle ag u es in o th er circ u its h av e re m ar ke d , th is unw i l l i ng ne ss t o g i ve e ffec t to a c ha ng e i n s ta tu tory l anguage unl ess the l egi slat ive hi sto ryco ntai ns a re assu rin g “ W e re ally m ea n it!” is in c om p at ible w ith d ec isio n s o f th e S u p re m e C ou rt . See , e.g., Swa in v. Pres sl e y, 430 U
. S. 372, 378 –79 (1977 ); Har r i s on v. PPG Indu s t r i e s , Inc ., 446 U. S
. 5 7 8 , 5 9 2 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ( “ i two ul d b e a s t r a ng e c a non ofs ta tutory c onst ructi on that would r equi re Congr ess to sta te i n com m i tte e rep or ts orel sewhere i n i ts del iber a-8 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 tions th at w hich i s obvious on t h e f ace of a statu te”). L egislati ve h istory com es into p lay only w he n n eces sary to decode an a m b iguous enactm ent; i t i s no t a s i neq ua non f orenf or ci ng a str ai ghtf or w ar d text. The 1968 ve rs i on was i tse l funcl ear : the pla cem ent o f “s ha l l ” b e f o r e the c l a us e c r e a t i nga p r i v a t e r i g hto fa c t i on sou n d ed perm issi ve rath er than m an d atory

— c er ta in ly it does not c om m an d a l li nj ured part i es to sue! Or i t m ay have m eant that th e pr evai l i ng par ty “shal l ” r ecei ve so m e co m pen sa ti o n, whi l e le av i ngthe a m o unto pen . “S h all” so m et im es m e a n s “ m ay ” in lega l te x ts , w h ich is w hy g oo d drafter s use “m ust” f orm andates. S ee G utierrez d eMar t i n ez v . L am agno , 515 U
. S. 417, 432– 33 n
. 9 (1995); B ryan A
. Ga rner, A D i ct i onary of M ode r n L egal Us age93 9–42 (2d ed . 199 5). T h e c h an ge from “s h a l l” t o “ m ay ” c ou ld have been desi gned to m ake expl i ci t a per m i ssi ve m eani ng tha t had be en the re a ll a l ong. W hethero r not “m ay” i n the 1986 r evi si on was desi gned a s a change , how eve r, does not m att er ; al l w e need to do i s a c kn ow ledge that “ m ay” i s per m i ssi ve. R o dg ers g av e a se co nd r ea so n: i n am ending the dam age s s ecti on, Congr ess r eco gni zed thatthe new penal ty str ucture w oul d b e t oo se v e r e f o rs o me v i o l a t i o ns o fthe Ac ta nd a ddress ed that concern by cre ating an excepti on t o the penal ty str ucture f orthe i nter c ep ti on o f cer tain pri vate sa tel l i te vi deo co m m unica ti ons. 18 U .S.C . §25 20 (c )(1) . Th is e x c ep tio n orig in at ed in c oncerns e xpresse d by S enato rs Laxal t, Gras sl ey, DeC onciniand Si m pson duri ng subco m m i tte eN os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 9

con side ration “ab ou t the bil l’ s p en alty struc tu re f orthe i nter cep tio n o fcer tain sat el l i te tr ansm i ssi ons by h om e v i ew er s, ” a nd i t cul m i nated i n an am endm ent t o the bi l lo ffer ed by Se natorGras sl ey. S. R ep . N o . 9 9

– 54 1, 99 th C on g. 2d Ses s. 6– 7, rep ri nte d in 1 9 8 6 U
. S
. C o d e C o n g . & A d min . Ne ws 3 5 5 5 , 3 5 6 0

– 6 1
. T he f a c ttha tCo ng r e s s c ho s e to add re ss concerns abo ut the seve ri ty of th e new pe na l t y s t r uc t ur e b y c r e a t i nga s pec i fi c e xc e pti on f orcer tain acti ons s ugges ts that Congre ss i ntended to lim i t the ty pes o fvi ol ati ons f or whi chth e p e n a l t i e s c o u l d b e a v o i d e d

. T h i s c o nfl i cts w i th and ul ti m ate l y defeat s an i nfe re nce that Congre ss i ntended t o gr ant di str i ct c ourt s th e di sc r etion to de ci de th e ca se s i n whi chthe m o r e se ve r e pen al ti es s ho ul d a tt ac h. 910 F .3d at 448
. Li ke the four othe r ci rcui ts that have consi dered th is su bj ect si nce R o dg ers , we fi nd i t har d to i nferfrom gr adua te d a war ds th atthe hi g he rmaxi m um mu s tb e a min i mu m. To sho w t h e co ntext, her e i s the cur re nt ve rs i on o f §2 52 0(c ) in fu ll: ( 1) In an a c ti on under thi s s ecti on, i fthe conduct inv i o l at i o n o fthi s ch apt eri s th e pr i va te v i ewi ng of a p riv at e s at ellit e v id eo co m m u n ica tio n th at is not scr am bl ed orencr ypted orifthe com m unica

ti on i s a ra dio com m unica ti on that i s tra n sm i tte d on fre quencie s al l oca ted und er subpart D o f part 74 o f th e r u l e s o f th e F e d e r a l C o mmu n i c a t i o ns Co mm i ss i o n tha t i s no t sc r ambl ed o re nc r y pte d a nd the10 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 conduct i s no t fora tor ti ous o r i l l ega l p urpose o r f orpurposes o fd i re ct o r i nd i re ct c om m er ci al adv an ta g e o rpr i va te c o m m er ci al g ain, the n the cour t s hal las ses s dam age s a s fol l ows: ( A ) I fthe perso n w ho e ngage d i n that conduct has no t pr evi ousl y b een e nj oi ned und erse cti on 25 11 ( 5) a nd ha s no t be enf o und l iabl e i n a p riorcivi l action un d er this sectio n, the cou rt shal las ses s th e gr eat ero fthe sum o factual d am ages su ffered b y t he p lai nt iff, or stat ut ory d am ages of not less tha n $5 0 a nd not m ore than $5 00. ( B) I f, o n o ne pri or o cc as i o n, the pe r so n who engag ed i n tha t co nd uct has been enj oi ned u n d er se c tio n 2 51 1(5 ) o r h as be en fou n d liab le in a civi l action un d er this section, the cou rt shal las ses s th e gr eat ero fthe sum o factual d am ages su ffered by th e plaintiff, or statu tory dam age s o fnotl ess than $1 00 and not m or e than $10 00. (2) I n any oth er action un d er th is section, th e cou rt m ay ass ess a s dam age s whicheve r i s the gr eat er of

— ( A ) the sum o fthe actualdam age s s uffer ed by the pl ai nti ffand any profi ts m ade by the v i ol atoras a re sul t o fthe vi ol ati on; o r ( B) s ta tu to r y da m ag es o fwhicheveri s th e gr eat er of $100 a day f or each da y of v i ol ati on or$1 0, 000.N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 11 S ec ti on 252 0( c) ( 1) de al s wi ths i g na l s se nti n the c l ea ra nd not i nter cepted f ora com m er ci alo r i l l ega lpurp os e; §252 0(c)(2) ad d resses o t h er situations , suc h as th e intercepti on o fDir ecTV’s encr ypted signal s. S ubsect i on ( c) ( 1) set s l ower dam age s, doubtl ess be c ause M em ber s o f Congre ss thought the wrongdoing l ess se ri ous. T o say that the penal ty f orthe non- com m er c iali nter cepti on o f unscram bl ed signal s ca nnot e xceed $1, 000 ( oractual l o ss ) do es no t i m pl y tha t th e p en alty f o ri nt er ce pting scr am bl ed si gnal s m ust be a t l eas t $ 10, 000. The di ffer ence i n pe r ce i ve d s er i o us ne ss i s r efl ec te d i n the di ffer en t m ax i m um pe na l ti es , no t i n a mandate to i m po se the hi ghestposs ibl e penal ty. One m or e co ntext i s w or th co nsi deri ng: the re l ati on between 18 U
. S. C. §252 0( c) and 4 7 U
. S. C. §605(e). Both ad d ress a s p ects of signal piracy. Section 605(e)(4) cove rs B ar c ze w sk i (w h o d i s t r ibu te d d ev ice s th at oth er s c ou ld use t o decry pt si gnal s), w hi l e W i sl er( w ho watched pir ated p ro gr am s o n hi s o w n TV) co m es w i thi n both §605 ( a) , ( e) ( 3) ( C)( i ) ( I I ) and §25 20( c) ( 2)
. S ecti on 6 05( e) aff or ds dis cre ti on withi n ra nges ( w e s et out the l an guage abov e)
. Sec tio n 252 0( c) ( 2) gi ves caps r atherthan ra nges. I t i s di ffi cul t t o see wh y di str i ct j ud ges w ou ld have di scr et i o n whe n a pe na l tyi s det er m i ne d unde r§ 60 5( e) b ut not w hen i t depends on § 2520 ( c)
. S ecti on 6 05(e) to ok i ts cur r en t f o r m i n 1 98 8, t wo y ea r s after th e amendment that gave §2 520( c) i ts curr ent t ext. A l though i t i s haz

ar dous to as su m e th at one Congre ss “kno w s” w hat anothe r did, the disc re ti onary ra nges est abl i shed f or §605 (e) in 1988 d o m ake m ore sens e ifthey exem p li fy a be l i efthatst atutory d am age s under §252 0( c) have a di sc r et i o na r y co m po ne nt; o th er wi se th er e i s a j ar r i ng12 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221

This opini o n h a s been ci rcul ated t o allact ive j ud ges und er † C ircu it R u le 40(e). N o ju d g e fav or ed a he arin g en b an c. C ircu it J udge H am iltondi d notpar t i c i pat e i n the c ons i der at i on or d ecision of this ap p eal. cl ash be tw een tw o sta tutes cov er i ng o ver l apping subj ect m atter. W e o ver rul e the p orti on o fR o dg ers hold ing tha t aw ard of th e m ax im u m d am a g es sp ec ified in § 25 20 (c )(2) is m andator y. W e co ncl ud e that the d i str i ct c ourthas † di sc r et ion nott o a war d s ta tu to r y da m ag es unde rthe sta tutory for m ula

. H avi ng sa i d thi s, we add a few words abo ut o ne questi on w e are no tdeci ding: W hether a j ud ge has di scr eti on t o aw ar d d am ag es u n d e r § 25 20 (c ), bu t le ss th an th e m ax im um . S om e o ft h e four othe r ci rcui ts that have gi ven “may ” i ts na tu r alr ea di ngmightha ve a ss um ed th atthe o n l y c h o i c e i s b e t we e n $ 0 a n d th e s t a t u t o r y ma x i mu m, but none actual l y ho l ds that. Depri vin g the j ud ge of d isc re tio n to ch oo se an int er m ed iat e o u t c om e c ou ld diss er ve both si de’s i nter est s. A ju d ge w ho thi nks that so m e d am ag es are a p p ro p ria te , bu t t h at th e m ax im u m is t o o h i g h f o rth e de fe n d a n t ’ s fi n a n c i a lo ro th e rc i r c u ms t a n c e s , wo u l d b e d r i v e n e i th e rt o a wa r d $ 0 ( s a c r i fi ci ng deter re nce and co m pensati on) o r the m axi m um ( w hi ch m ay im p ose an un w arran ted bu rd en on th e d efend an t’s fam il y). T h e fo u rt h circ u it, w h ich rea d “m ay ” in Na lleyt o a l l ow j ud ges to o m i t dam age s, r ecentl y r eve rs ed a di str i ct j ud ge w ho ex ercised that discret ion i n a signal pirate’sN os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 13 f avo r w i thout gi vi ng se ri ous c onsi derat i on t o the a dvers e effects o f let ti ng m i sco nd uct g o unsancti oned. S ee D IRE CT V, Inc . v. Rawli ns , 52 3 F. 3d 318, 32 6–28 ( 4th Cir
. 20 08)
. A nd the f act that subsecti on ( c) ( 1) , wh i ch deal s with l ess se ri ous v i ol ati ons, r equi re s s om e penal ty (rec a ll th at (c)( 1) uses “s ha ll ” w hile ( c)(2) us es “m ay”), i m pli es that i t would o ften b e a n abuse ofdi scr eti on t o gi ve the m or e ser i ous v i ol ato rs subj ect to ( c) ( 2) a fre e pass . Yet i fthe need to i m pose s o mepenal ty l eave s no al ternati ve to the s tatutor y m ax im um , we are bac k t o R o dg ers i n pract i caleffect, tho ugh t h rough a differ ent inter preti ve ro ute. S ec ti o n 6 05 ( e) , whi chc o ve r s no t o nl y pe r so ns who pi r at e signal s f o rthe i ro wn us e buta l so pe r so ns who h elp o ther s s tea lencr ypted si gnal s ( a m or e s er i ous t ra nsgr es si o n) , a l l o ws di st r i ctj udg es di sc r et i o n o ve rthe am ount o fth e penalty. Perhaps §25 20( c) ( 2) sho uld be re ad th e s am e w ay by tre at in g “ m ay ” a s a p p lic a b l e t o a ll ofthe ensui ng lan gu age , so thatthe gr eat erpow erto p re te rm itan yp en alt y e n ta ils th e les se r p ow er t o p re te rm it s o meo fthe p ot en ti alpenal ty. Or perhaps a di str i ct j ud ge shoul d fi rs t m ake any appropri ate a w ard un der §6 05 (e) a n d t u r n t o § 25 20 (c ) on ly if §6 05 (e) is u n av aila b le o rdo es no t au th o r i ze a n a deq uate pe na l ty
. By t r ea ting §605 ( e) a nd § 2 5 2 0 ( c ) t o g e the r, a j ud g e ma y b e ab l e to achi eve appropr i ate dam age s e ven if§2 520( c) i m poses an al l

- or - none cho i ce. That i s no t a questi on w e need add re ss today. The di str i ct c ourtsho uld have the firs t crac k at d e t e r m ining th e ap p rop riate pen alty f or W isl er’s conduct.14 N os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 Defen dan ts mai nt ain tha t, b eca us e th eya r e per so ns ofo rdi narym eans, hi gh penal ti es necess ar i l y a re an abu se of discret io n . Y et th e statu te d oes not requ ire j u d ge s t o s etp en alt ies ac c or d in g t o w ea lth , an d w e h eld inBM G M usi c th at se riou s p en alt ies for th e th eft ofint ell ec tu alpr o per tya r e no t co nfi ne d t o the wea l thy . One eco nom i cal l y s ound w ay to deter m i ne a penal ty i s t o di vi de th e ha r m do ne b y the pr o babi l i tyo fa ppr eh en si o n. S e e Ga ry S. Be cker, Cr i me an d Pun i s hme n t : An Ec on omic A pproach , 76 J
. Po l

. Eco n. 16 9 ( 19 68 ) , a th eo ry of san ct i o ns that pla yed a ro l e i n hi s re cei pt of a N obe l Priz e in 19 92. T he a ppr o ac h h as b ee n wi dely us ed, i nc l udi ng ( f o re xa m pl e) the co ns truct i o n o ft ab l es i n the S en tencing Gu i del i nes. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 998 F. 2d 534 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. Thus i fsi gnalth eft e n abl es a per son to avo i d payi ng $2 00 i n fees to Dir ecTV, and onl y 1 i n 50 sig n al t h ie v e s i s c au gh t, th e a p p ro p ria te p en alt y w ou ld be $ 10 , 00 0. I fthe l o ss i s l o wer, o rthe pr o babi l i tyo fb eing ca ug htg r ea te r, the a ppr o pr i at e pen al tyg o es do wn; i fthe l o ss i s g r ea te r, o rthe pr o babi l i tyo fde te ct i o n l o wer, the appropri ate penal ty go es up . S tatutor y dam age s o f$1 00 per day co uld wel lbe apt, i fthe probabi l i ty ofdetec ti on is low en ou gh . T h e w ro n gd oe r’s w ea lth p lay s n o ro le i n s ucha n a ppr o ac h. Distri ct j ud ges have di scr eti on t o consi der o ther reason ed ap p ro a c h e s to o; there is l atitud e in the w ord “m ay .” T he di str i ct j ud ge used that l ati tude to gi ve Ba r c z e ws k ithe l o we s ta v a i l ab l e p e na l t y . Bu tj ud ges need not go eas y o n hourl y wage- earn er s w ho deci de to ste alTV si gnal s, any m or e th an they nee d go eas y o n peo p l e wh o c h o o s e o th e rf o r ms o fth e ftt o s u p p l e me ntN os. 06

- 2219 & 06

- 2221 15 th e f ami l y b udg et
. Pe o p l e who do no t wantt o pa y the m ar k e t pr i c e f o r g o o ds o r s e r v i c e s mus t r e fr a i n f ro m the fta nd c a nn o tc o mpl a i n i fthe p r i c e o fc r i me i s s t e e p. D efe n d an ts m ak e a n u m b er of ot h e r a r gu m en ts , on ly o ne o fwhi chr equi r es e ve n b r i efc o m m en t. Co nt en di ng that D IR E CT V had m ade a fri vol ous pos t- tr i alm oti on f o ra p r o t e c t i v e o r de r, de fe nd a nt s a s k e d a ma g i s t r a te j ud g e t o a wa r d s a nc t i o ns . T he ma g i s tr at e j ud g e de c l i ne d. Becaus e thi s s ubj e c t wa s ne v e r pr e s e nt e d t o o r pa s s e d on by the di str i ct j ud ge, i t i s not incl ud ed i n the fi nalj ud gm ent a nd cannotbe re vi ew ed i n thi s cou rt . M agi str ate j udg es ne i th erg r an t no rde ny mot i o ns s ucha s th e o ne de fe nd a nt s ma de ; a l lthe y c a n do i s r e c o mm e nd a dispos iti on t o the di str i ct j ud ge. S ee A lpern v. Lieb , 38 F
. 3d 93 3 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4)
. In th e abs en ce o fa c o ns en t und er28 U .S. C. §636 ( c) ( 1) , o nl y the deci si ons ofdi str i ct j udg es a r e o pent o r ev i ew i n a co ur t o fappe al s, and de fen dan ts ’ f ai l ur e to f o l l o w thr o ug h wi tha r eque stt o the dist ri ct j ud ge m eans that ther e i s no deci si on t o be r ev i e we d. The jud gm enti s affi r m ed ex ce pt wi thr es pec t to the aw ar d of st at u to ry d am ag es ag ai n s t W isle r, w h ich is va c a t e d. Hi s c a s e i s r e man de d fo rfur the rp r o c e edi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

5- 13- 10