Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy
I think the defendants stance, based on the article, that she isn't sharing only taking them from a massive share system. The record companies are trying to make the point that any download is equal to the entire sharing system. They also say they don't want the money, just to make an example.
Not to nitpick, but I didn't get that from the article. Except the last part. I see it as the record industry wants to use the case to set an example to anyone who shares music (Copyright infringement), even only a couple of songs. Basically they're thinking this will make people shit their pants and stop downloading shit. And probably to set a legal precedent too, I'm sure. And her defense is basically that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Or, in other words, it's fucking ridiculous. Which I'm sure any remotely reasonable person reading this would agree.