Can we get the headline changed? It is not at all accurate - the size of Wikipedia was a largely insignificant point in the judge's reason, as the article clearly states.

Maybe we should stop with the conspiracy theories about corrupt judges for a second and actually consider the legal situation. The judge's job is to rule based on the law, not to use his own judgment or fight for his idea of social justice.

For good reasons, you could only pursue a lawsuit against someone if you have real evidence of wrongdoing - not intuition or "common sense" or anything else. How would you feel if the RIAA could launch lawsuits against any teenager with a fast internet connection, based on a statistical argument and 'common sense' that most teens steal music?