That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. By that definition, a person can say "my stuff's on iTunes," and constitute distribution over a large geographical area.
...and if a judge or jury agrees that being on iTunes counts as "distribution over a large geographical area", then that would be sufficient.
Remember - civil case, not criminal.
That means "a preponderance of evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
And what about sales figures? Wouldn't it count for something to find out that the song in question sold such a small amount and was never played on the radio?
Those are all things a judge/jury MIGHT take into consideration when determining "distribution over a large geographical area".
The law has made big dumb mistakes in the past, and this is no exception if it's interpreted as you say.
IP Law is rife with strangeness.