Both presumably. By collecting them they scare people. The judgement was $650K, even if that is above his net worth (it may or may not be), they may be able to garnish it from future wages. $650K is below the lifetime earnings of a lot of people.
This is not to say that the ruling isn't completely unreasonable.
Piracy is tricky. People who produce content do have some right to keep other people from stealing it. It is very difficult to track down individual pirates, so most get away and reasonable fines are not a deterrent. This leads to a sort of reverse-lottery where lots of people take a chance at disastrous penalties.
Part of the problem is that the public is very split on what is reasonable.
Some people believe ALL content should be free.
Some people believe that small payments for content are reasonable, but that some industries charge "unreasonable" rates for content.
Some people believe that the industry should make all content available at the same time everywhere at the same rates.
Some people do not mind paying the rates industry charge, but prefer to download for reasons of convenience, lack o tracking, lack of advertising, or others. (many of the people who pirate Game of Thrones would purchase the content if they were allowed to without creating a subscription that they know may be difficult to cancel).
Some people are happy with any arrangement that industry wants because the purchase is voluntary .
It would be interesting to see a survey of opinions on this and see how well public opinion matches the law.