Guys, get your story straight. There was no 24 million € fine. That figure is the value of the subject matter of this injunction verdict as determined by court.
In related news, the same court has issued an order requiring all ISPs to prevent their customers from filesharing any copyrighted material belonging to the RIAA or MPAA; ISPs must spray their routers with the magic pixie dust that the court knows the ISPs possess but which they deny having.
Hmm, makes me think, shouldn't a person passing a judgment on such a technical thing have knowledge of the field, or consult some person who has knowledge of the field, and I am not talking just about this ruling, I am talking of any field where the judge may have no expertise at all !
They do consult people with "knowledge" in the field.
The problem is that the "experts" are experts in the sense that the kid up the street is to your mom when it comes to power-button usage on her new dell.
That is, not experts at all, but full of enough bullshiat and hand waving that the judge (who doesn't know much, if anything, about tech. or the subject at hand) believes what he or she says as gospel.
Double bonus multiplier if the "expert" is on the RIAA/MPAA/etc's payroll.
From the comments:
Guys, get your story straight. There was no 24 million € fine. That figure is the value of the subject matter of this injunction verdict as determined by court.