Sascha, I'm not sure if you were thinking of this when you wrote the above, but in any case I'd like to point out that when fines are levied for going about some "thing" illegally, they are almost ALWAYS for more (sometimes much more) than the cost of doing said "thing" legally. This is because it's a PUNITIVE fine. If they just charged someone how much it would have cost them if they did it in the legal manner in the first place, there would be no reason for them to do it legally, in a cost benefit analysis. The evildoer would say, "Well, I can do it the legal way and pay $X, or I can do it the illegal way and pay $0 dollars if I don't get caught (with %Y probability), or pay $X if I do get caught (with %(100-Y) probability). Hmmmmmmm, decisions decisions."Sascha Franck wrote:So, wait a minute... a little math:
The DJ was charged 1,8 million dollars for "over 2000 MP3 files" he had on his computer.
Let's say 2500.
That's 720 dollars per EACH file!!!
Now, while I believe that it's rather stupid to use such an amount of illegal MP3 files on a (most likely commercial) job, while I also agree that it's pretty much unfair and illoyal to use other people's work for "free" when you get money for things, this amount of money per file CAN'T be justified in ANY case!
They must've had him/her observed before (through P2P and whatever IP logs) - otherwise, no matter how much illegal or illoyal he/she was, this can't be correct.
As said, just a little math, nothing else.
Now, whether $720 (I'm assuming your calculations are correct) per song is debatable, there is no question as to the sense & legitimacy of charging more money for the fine than for the cost of doing legitimate business. This is basic stuff. You also have to realize that this DJ was using the songs in a professional public performance to make money and so the fines should be higher than for someone who DL's .mp3s for personal listening.
I'll send you a file in a cake. 
