[gamblor956]

1) This isn't about their 501 non-profit status, it's about their use of the non-profit exemption for re-transmission of copyrighted materials through a service that would otherwise be classified as violating copyrights.

1) No, it's not a valid use of the money under the restrictions of the non-profit exemption from copyright for re-transmission. The law is quite clear on this point: revenues derived from the violating service must not exceed the actual costs of providing that service. Expansion costs are not related to the costs of providing existing service, therefore they are not permitted under the exemption.

3) PBS is not even remotely the same thing, because it's not the non-profit status that is at issue. PBS owns and/or licenses the content they broadcast and stream, so it does not need an exemption from copyright laws. Locast does not own or license the content it streams, so it does need the exemption, and it violated the explicit requirements for the exemption it needed.

4) But Locast attempted to resolve that and remove the interruptions entirely, but was still required to completely shutdown and was given 0 chance to adjust Historically, using someone's IP without their permission resulted in statutory damages, and Locast should consider themselves lucky they're not on the hook for those, as statutory damages for copyright law can be as much as $150,000 per violation* for willful violations of copyright law. * Tech was able to get away with the ask for forgiveness business model for 3 decades, but generally the law does not operate on "ask for forgiveness" basis. It's irrelevant that they got "0 chance" to adjust since the onus was on them to plan their activities in a way that complied with the law.