@skelband - RE:All seems a bit pointless
"If the guy can't pay 67k then what is the point exactly?"
Damages are not supposed to be awarded on the basis of being able to pay, they are supposed to be awarded on the grounds of damage incurred (with a little wriggle room natch.). The amount that will actually be paid will be settled at a different hearing, which will take into consideration the amount that can be paid.
Whether you agree with the findings or not is not relevant wrt discussing damage award amounts - if it is decided that $X has been suffered then $X has been suffered, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a tramp or Bill Gates.
However, most importantly, these hearings are setting precedent. So you need to understand how these things work.
As there is little direct case law on the books the responses, arguments and findings in these early cases will be used as the basis for further hearings and findings (remember the US has a common law system which relies heavily on precedent) in future copyright infringement cases.
Ultimately the RIAA etc. want big paydirt. They want to sue people like Google, Yahoo, AOL even Microsoft and Apple if they can get away with it. That is where the real money is. People claim the industry model is dead, and they may have a point, however the future preferred model would be for YouTube, Facebook, Apple and similar to distribute their IP for them whilst the receive big cheques.
However, as we have seen with Viacom, trying to sue the big guys is expensive and extremely difficult. So the best bet is to start small - students, old people, children - the sort of people that will either cave in and pay up (legitimising the "crime" and "damages") or will go to court trying to stick-it-to-the-man and who will obviously lose - as we have seen.
The advantage of this model (for the industry) is that victory is almost certainly assured as the subjects are almost guaranteed to be incompetent, whiny, arrogant, dishonest and most importantly guilty. Each extra victory strengthens the case law and weakens the public defense of the freetards*
The disadvantages are that these people cannot pay big money. The industry needs big damages awards otherwise they can't make any real money off the big guys, but the danger is that juries will award low damages or judges will cut them - this will also likely set a precedent but not one the industry wants.
The RIAA doesn't really give a fuck if you download and share a couple of albums over your P2P system of choice - they know that they would probably not get most of the sales they claim to have lost whilst also being faced with the suggestive evidence that P2Pers spend more on music than non-P2Pers** and will almost certainly do so later in life when they graduate school and get jobs.
The RIAA want a piece of Google and a share in each MP3 player sold - common or garden freetards are just a stepping stone to getting there. Which is why they must have large damages set now. Don't be surprised if they then go all public spirited and merciful and "let off" infringers with a token amount they actually can pay.
*Every time a Jammie Thomas or a Joel Tenenbaum spouts absolute bollocks, lies, destroys evidence and generally whines like a little girl whilst clearly guilty it just turns public opinion away from file sharers. Already the media is against you (obviously, it is their business model after all) and a lot of people blindly do what The Sun, or Fox News or whatever tell them anyway.
**Seems logical in many cases, on one hand I do not P2P stuff, but equally I haven't bought any music for years (and I mean years) - If I tried before I buyed I might well discover new music I liked, at which point I would be happy to pay for it. If I didn't like it I would delete it.