Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right.
A similar notion has been common even among cases involving open source licenses, where developers were able to claim non-monetary damages from violations.
From Jacobsen v. Katzer:
> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge.