Judge draws parallel between music sharing and unlicensed public performance

There is a distinct legal difference between performance of a work and copying.... if you were recording the thing at the bar and then distributing copies - it would be the latter.

The point the judge is making here is more like "Hey - in performance related damages - we punish violators who knowingly and blatantly refused to follow the law to their direct commercial benefit, and the only pay a few thousand bucks in damages compared to the licensing fees. (4, or 5 figures in the extreme.)

Now, even though it's not the same issue precisely, it seems grossly out of place that a person at home who shared some music with a few people for non-commercial reasons is being assessed damages in the 6 to 7 figure ranges...and that just seems absurd.

I mean seriously - some Mom goes out and shares a song on some bittorrent setup - and we're saying she owes a MILLION DOLLARS?

Exactly, what bothers me is how they don't have to prove how many time the files were copied (from her computer to another, she didn't do the infringement when she first downloaded the song.) to make up that 1.92 million number. If we had a number say $10 per song shared (ridiculous number 10 times larger that the real number) then if they can prove she at least shared those file once, that's $240. But they can't prove that currently so... the damages are in my view totally in founded.