This is the theory: Before the lawsuit is files, plaintiff and defendant agree that one will sue the other and then settle for a huge amount that is never actually paid.

The purpose would be to propagate the idea that even insignificant infringements can be very costly.

Why do I suspect?: Because the settlement agreement did not require confidentiality and big corporations, I believe, always demands confidentiality each time they infringe or are sued, to cover their tracks.

Ever since tha American copyright law changed in 1978, whereas anything created has an autimatic copyright everyone is all the time a copyright infringer to the tune of millions of dollars per day in potential liabilities. An interesting article on the subject, “Overly-broad copyright law has made USA a “nation of infringers” can be read here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071119-overly-broad-copyright-law-has-made-us-a-nation-of-infringers.html

Says the article: “John Tehranian, a law professor at the University of Utah, calculates in a new paper that he rings up $12.45 million in liability over the course of an average day”.

Looking at the Britanny Spears video it is evident that on the video there is the appearance of hundreds of things (for example, earrings, necklaces, curtains, cloth, automobile, sunglasses, shoes,….) that have design copyrights, just as the Vuitton cloth, simply because they were created.

It is by chance and ironic that a RIAA record label was cought and sued this time around.

It is also by chance and ironic that a RIAA record label is this time arounf the victim of a damage award that has nothing to do with the actual damages, simply because the copyright law allows damages of $150,000 where there is none.

The irony part is that the victim this time comes from the class of lobbyists that have pushed the law (and the legislators who passed the law) into the predicament and riduculed position it finds itself in, as illustrated by the John Tehranian statements.