Originally Posted by Miburo
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.
Fuck that - you deliberately mean to nitpick!! Which is fine with me.
I see what you are saying. I guess I got hung up on the argument the defendant made that she wasn't the one sharing. In any case, the overall result that the jury keeps hitting her for money (really - who's on this jury?? A bunch of Luddites and rock stars?) rather than dealing with the archaic system sanely is a bigger problem for the American judicial system. Who was that guy who wanted millions for his lost suit?