The courts don't ask if the plaintiff allowed the defendant a month to
respond. They act first to mitigate the damage and give the defendant a
strong incentive to remedy it through injunction , enjoinment, etc. They
do this because they are persuaded that an infringement of any duration
causes irreparable damage to the copyright holder.
/T//hen/ the defendant gets time to remedy it, with the assumption that
the duration before that remedy will be taken into account in levying
damages.
I work for infringers why are trying to clean up their act, and their
attorneys, every day. Most of them haven't been noticed by you guys yet,
but their attorneys have counseled them regarding what can go wrong.
None of them are proceeding under the glib assumption of a court that
makes sure everything will be reasonable.
Thanks
Bruce
