Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

Arbitrary large amounts to discourage file sharing.
Not that it scsres the general populace from grabbing their tunes online, as can be seen by looking up the most popular files on torrent sites ;)

It does, however scare the **** out of people who get extortio... I mean settlement mails. You can go to court (and likely end up like up above) or pay a relatively small (extortionate) fine.

Do you want to be the next Rasset? I don't think so.

This **** needs to stop, really.
Record companies need to seriously calm the **** down about piracy. There's simply a large chunk of people who will take the "free" alternative when available.
On the flipside, they keep setting record quarters after another with the massive popularity of their autotunestars (but that's another discussion for another day).

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

He downloaded then "shared" them again.
He initiated another continuing, expanding sequence of the works being distributed & the owners of the works not being paid. I think it's fair & necessary.

The "share" euphemism for "steal & redistribute" that was initiated by Napster is one of the nastiest pieces of newspeak devised.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

non-rival goods + non-profit, so it's certainly not stealing either, thanks for the lesson on newspeak.
The real term is "copyright infringement"