You're attacking a straw man, too. The whole argument here is <i>not</i> whether the law and courts justifies the $600k judgment, that's a tautology, but whether that outcome is "just".<p>It's not a credible argument to argue that because the law is the law, it's right. For example:<p>"If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death."<p>That's from the code of Hammurabi. According to your arguments, because the legal system of the time affirmed it, it must be right. I'd wager most people would assume you are clinically insane if you tried that argument.<p>Laws are <i>attempts</i> to codify what society thinks is right. But the attitudes of society shifts, and so do laws. This discussion is about whether society thinks the outcome of applying copyright law is just, not about whether those who interpret the law are doing so correctly.