&#62; If someone physically stole CDs out of a publisher's warehouse over a long period of time, the marginal cost of those CDs is so low that the damage would be roughly equivalent to what a filesharer does. But nobody would be up in arms about a six-figure judgement.<p>Actually, I think a $150,000 judgment for stealing a single CD would be outrageous.<p>I can see where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you are justifying making an example of people via massive financial penalties for causing <i>no actual harm</i>, only theoretical harm.  If I make an unauthorized copy of an MP3, what is the actual harm?  In what sense can an unobservable event be said to have happened?  At best you can argue that it's a quality of life crime - if everyone did it, there would be reduced incentive to create and hence a lower standard of living.  But if that's the case, why aren't other quality of life crimes punished as harshly?  Drunk driving or speeding in a residential zone massively increase the chances that you will <i>kill</i> someone, and yet the punishment is nowhere near as harsh.