Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999

The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 was a United States law aimed at increasing civil penalties for copyright infringement and addressing an administrative obstacle that hindered the implementation of the NET Act of 1997's criminal penalties. The act raised the range of allowable statutory damages in civil copyright cases, which had previously been set between $500 and either $20,000 or $100,000 per work, depending on whether the infringement was "willful." The new law increased these amounts by 50%, establishing a minimum damage of $750 and maximum damages of $30,000 or $150,000 per work.

Proponents, including Rep. Howard Coble, argued that the rapid growth of the Internet and advancements in digital storage media like DVDs necessitated stronger deterrents to copyright infringement. They noted widespread ignorance of copyright laws online, belief among infringers that they would not be caught, and a perception that existing penalties were insufficient to deter violations. The law was also supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy, who stated it aimed to adjust penalties for inflation to ensure compliance incentives.

The rationale behind the act was further reinforced by failed challenges, such as the Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum case, which unsuccessfully contested the fairness of statutory damage ranges. The law sought to address these issues by providing clearer disincentives for copyright infringement through adjusted penalties.