Yes, and we still talk about him and that one case today, a decade later. It was also a case where circumstances around it (the 'breaking' into an unlocked cabinet, the 'hidden' laptop, the different university, the manifesto, and so on) all allowed the case to be presented as particularly bad by publishers and the government.
And that's the risk here, in part: this system allows the practice to be presented as a paid criminal enterprise, and allows individual users to be presented as criminal participants.
A decade ago the publishing system harassed a researcher because he was downloading too many papers, going after him for millions in copyright "damages," only stopping proceedings after he ended his own life.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz