damages, enhanced damages for willful infringement, and reduced damages for accidental, nonnegligent infringement, and does so with a similar structure and similar wording. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), (c). The Court will therefore apply the standard reiterated in Softel as an appropriate test for assessing vicarious liability under 47 U.S.C. § 553. b. The substance of the Softel standard Even when accepting or assuming that the Softel standard applies, courts demonstrate differing views as to what the Softel standard requires. Under the first prong, the defendant must have a right or ability to supervise or authorize the violative behavior, but he need not have actually supervised, given authorization, or even had knowledge of the violative behavior. See, e.g., Shapiro, 316 F.2d at 306 (<HOLDING>); id. at 308 (“The imposition of liability upon
holding that seventeen missing records does not constitute improper record keeping because the fact that the records are not at the station does not mean that the records are incorrect or inaccurate holding on direct appeal that the evidence showed that green was the leader of the la boys and that he had orchestrated the enterprises activities holding green vicariously liable even though green did not actively participate in the sale of the records and that it had no knowledge of the unauthorized manufacture of the records holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception