Re: Help Me Out Here
The difference (while still seeming disproportionate) is that they didn't share or sell, it appears they intended to, but as they didn't actually do it, there was no statuatory damage - no actual "loss" to the copywrite holder, whereas sharing 24 songs (she actually shared 1700+, it's just that 24 were the subject of the case), potentially copied directly many times, and those copies then copied many times again (as per their claim) is an actual loss.
It's perhaps reasonable to say it's unfair that Jammie was unaware of the potential cost and damage (and that should be taken into account), whereas a deliberate hack and theft is far worse (and of course it is), but that's purely the criminal activity, not the civil restitution, if you carelessly throw a ball through someones window you might be liable for a new window, or a multi-million ming vase, your intention is irrelevant with respect to the damage you caused (although it might mitigate a criminal case).