I don't get this, how can a court deem this kind of fine reasonable?...
I am pretty sure in the UK if this went to court, the damages would be negligible.. Last time I read (but I might be wrong) damages paid are actually related to the damage caused, which of course would need to be proven first... so think about it.... you download 1 song, then share it maybe 10 times... damage is £11 based on 99p per track average price...
Try getting a UK court other than a Small Claims court to see a case such as that...
even with movies, a single Digital download (of a film already on Blu-Ray/DVD), say £9.99 damage per copy, unless you share thousands of times... most would only share once or twice, so damage maybe £30-£40 per download...
That is why I don't get 22k per track, or even 1K per track.. unless there is PROVEN losses caused, surely its a negligible matter and really they should go after the file sharing sites more than the consumer who probably does it down to financial(can't afford it) & practicality(want it in another format) reasons rather than maliciousness...
Now where I do understand the copyright holders going after pirates, is films still at the cinema and unreleased tracks.. that is a clear violation of copyright in a way that will severely harm their business... and people who do 'cams' in the cinema are just harming the industry! maybe a few years ago when it was 6 month between cinema release and blu-ray release it was worth it, now its like 3 months....