There is a distinct legal difference between performance of a work and copying.... if you were recording the thing at the bar and then distributing copies - it would be the latter.
The point the judge is making here is more like "Hey - in performance related damages - we punish violators who knowingly and blatantly refused to follow the law to their direct commercial benefit, and the only pay a few thousand bucks in damages compared to the licensing fees. (4, or 5 figures in the extreme.)
Now, even though it's not the same issue precisely, it seems grossly out of place that a person at home who shared some music with a few people for non-commercial reasons is being assessed damages in the 6 to 7 figure ranges...and that just seems absurd.
I mean seriously - some Mom goes out and shares a song on some bittorrent setup - and we're saying she owes a MILLION DOLLARS?
The high figures seem to result from the fact that the *AA argue that the file was _potentially_ shared with _millions_ of people around the internet. I wonder why they are not required to prove every single instance of downloading that they claiming damages from...
