Damn, but you are determined to prove me wrong. OK, OK, you were right and I was wrong.
I have no idea of what you’re talking about with references to stuff like Bittorrents.
As I pointed out, I thought the damages were set at such a high value to make an example of this guy by making the judgment at the amount it was. I was simply noting that it did seem like grand larceny. What do I know?
Anyway, I concede. And if you have real problems with this matter take it up with the court. Goodness, some people just want to be argumentative.
Let me address this backwards:
Yes, I've been accused of being argumentative; in this case slightly, moreso to get at what would be a just punishment though.
I have problems with "the system" but this stuff is lower on my list of priorities than others. This case is arguably a violation of the Constitution's prohibition of excessive fines; I'm more interested in fixing the more blatant/inarguable violations first.
BitTorrents are a common form of file-sharing where people on the network who have a particular piece of the requested file can share it. I picked it because it's file-type/purpose agnostic; one could argue that a program sharing only MP3s is designed for 'pirating' but BitTorrent is different in that many people use it for legitimate purposes too; such as distributing Linux ISOs or their software installer (BitTorrent giving the advantage of not overloading their servers with download-requests when popular new-releases come out).