In my opinion, the guy should be fined for what crimes he has committed plus legal costs. hundreds and thousands of songs still don't add up to that amount of money. Nowhere even close to that figure. And legal costs don't even cover it.
1) So we should reconstruct the entire legal system so that every case is decided by you?
2) This guy didn't just steal thousands of songs, he also distributed them to thousands of other people.
3) Do you seriously not see why simply fining someone the exact value of the goods they steal is stupid? It provides no disincentive for people to steal, since doing so will never make them worse off.
The fact that he has been fined an exorbitant amount of money shows just how uniformed the jury really was.
Says some guy with zero idea of what he's talking about. Did you listen to the case?
There is simply no way the cost should have been that high. How a judge could sign off on that is beyond me.
Possibly because judges actually know the law. If the prosecution can show show potential damages up to a certain level and convince a jury to find in their favour to that amount then that is the verdict. Unlike random people on the internet; judges don't rewrite the law.
I would have thought that the jury would have come up with a cost per song and would have multiplied that by how many songs he was supposed to have stolen. That would be reasonable. This is just ridiculous.
As I said; he also distributed these songs to thousands of other thieves. This will have been gone over at the trial. This is why the jury are informed and you are not. And this is why we leave the decision to them, and not to you.
Seriously; if you oppose trial by jury, what is your alternative?
If they all knew that he was going to file for bankruptcy in any case, then why not make his punishment more severe? Make his punishment the full extent of the law. I mean, he was never going to pay it anyway. Right?
They didn't. That kind of information is intentionally withheld from juries. Revealing it would probably be grounds for a mistrial.
How anyone else could argue a different sum of money is lost on me unfortunately.
So after five minutes reading you are legitimately unable to even comprehend how half a dozen people who spent days listening to the evidence could think differently to you. That's... disappointing actually.