The comparison to theft might be an inept rhetorical device, but it seems to influence perceptions of this issue very often.
So what is the claim of damages ultimately based on? In a case of theft, there is an objective loss that can be quantified and compensated; but in copyright infringement cases, it seems like publishers most often talk about unrealized revenues. Is it appropriate for the courts to award damages based on the plaintiff's predictions of the future?
What do you suppose Atari would have sued for if they discovered someone distributing unlicensed copies of the "ET" 2600 game back in the '80s - the same game they eventually buried thousands of unpurchased copies of in a landfill? Would they have based their damages claim on the same sales projections that made launching the game look like a good idea?
You're attacking a straw man. It doesn't matter how unlike theft coypright infringement actually is. What's being claimed is damages under tort law. However outrages you think those damages are, courts have repeatedly affirmed them.
You're attacking a straw man, too. The whole argument here is not whether the law and courts justifies the $600k judgment, that's a tautology, but whether that outcome is "just".
It's not a credible argument to argue that because the law is the law, it's right. For example:
"If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death."
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.
Laws are attempts 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.
So what is the claim of damages ultimately based on? In a case of theft, there is an objective loss that can be quantified and compensated; but in copyright infringement cases, it seems like publishers most often talk about unrealized revenues. Is it appropriate for the courts to award damages based on the plaintiff's predictions of the future?
What do you suppose Atari would have sued for if they discovered someone distributing unlicensed copies of the "ET" 2600 game back in the '80s - the same game they eventually buried thousands of unpurchased copies of in a landfill? Would they have based their damages claim on the same sales projections that made launching the game look like a good idea?