This is in the US Courts and is a well known and argued case from moral viewpoint. It is important to note a few things;

1.) Her defense was that she was not the person using the IP ? she lost on that one.

2.)"[T]hat's a consequence of Congress providing statutory damages that range from $200 (for an "innocent infringer") to $150,000 per infringement. ..." She was accused of file sharing so she (her IP) was greater than an "innocent infringer."

3.) Her activities were not for some commercial gain (for some profit).

The traffic camera ticket issue cited above is still in motion;

Note the name in the URL, civil_district_court_judge_rem i.e., in rem = against property (a vehicle in this case) but the Courts can identify the vehicle's owner so the owner is fined and the vehicle is not "arrested (read seized)." I am not arguing this as right or wrong and in some cases, I think this is excessive or even possibly unconstitutional.

The most important statement in all of this is;

"[T]hat's a consequence of Congress providing statutory damages that range from $200 (for an "innocent infringer") to $150,000 per infringement. ..."

Users that are downloading for their own personal use and not "file sharing" might end up with a judgment of $200 (for an "innocent infringer",) per title proven as downloaded.

Since for about $29.95 they could have had legal access and the right to download, if I were the "Emperor," I would treble the damages to 89.85 per claimant. Remember, this is for an "innocent infringer."