lol i would have to pay 1.5 trilion

Tom, her wages, etc. could be attached to the point where her life would be made totally unbearable. Yes, she should have known better. Yes, it's a harsh penalty, meant to deter.

She should enter into a negotiation process with the injured parties.

I feel there are several issues here that get co-mingled in all the posturing by the various "interested' parties.  Yes, jammie violated both the law, and a strict understanding of stealing.  She is being held accountable.  She should pay the going rate for the intellectual property she stole, and some sort of reasonable fine, community service, or whatever.  And that is as it should be.

However, there is a grave injustice built into our system of fines.  When a millionaire speeds and gets ticket for 100.00, that is loose change - trivial.  Fine one of the working poor the same amount - and you have taken 1/2 their wages for the week.  Totally disproportionate "justice."  Our system of fines need to be based on the violators real net worth, etc., to be truly fair. Otherwise, the fine, for the wealthy, is merely a nuisance fee they pay - for having been caught. 

Also, in what context is copying 'intellectual property' theft?  A song broadcast over the (public) airwaves is recorded, and played at home.  Is that theft?  You record the current episode of your fav show.  You play it later.  Is that theft?  It will be soon, when the broadcast / cable industry figure out how to apply the software license mechanism to movies, videos, and music.  Soon...

The recording company(s)  (four of them, I believe) have indicated they are not going to demand the multi million dollar settlement from jammie.   To do so would be tantamount to indentured servitude.  They are not stupid.  The music industry is looking for, found, and created, a set of legal precedents to put teeth into enforcing their rights.  This is also as it should be.  Now, lets see if they do the right thing with their new found teeth.  Forget the small fry, and go after the people who make money off this form of theft: the "sharing"  sites made money- so nail them.  Have they?  China and Russia (and I am sure other nations, including usa) have thriving dvd - video industries selling illegal copies of music, movies, etc.  Will this extend to those 'organizations' who do have deep pockets? 

Who needs movies when real life is so full of ....

my three cents...

In Sweden, for criminal acts, we use day-fines extensively. However, it is important to keep in mind that in this woman's case, is not only a criminal act, but she has also violated someone's rights and they are seeking to be reimbursed for that. This amount cannot possibly be based on the woman's income, as the company is the one losing out when the material is shared with others (for example - an unemployed person destroys a building worth hundreds of millions - obviously reimbursement should not be based on the person's income).

I think the system, however, is set up wrong in the USA, where the estimated loss is obviously blown up to insane proportions.

There is a slight, but nevertheless very important distinction to be made here. When you record a song from the radio, it goes on your tape or whatever and that's it. But on a peer-to-peer network (like KaZaa), you automatically share the song you download, basically becoming a distributor of the pirated song. This is how P2P networks function, they download into a shared folder, and anyone on the network can search for it and download it from you. BitTorrent is the same way, clients generally automatically upload to anyone else downloading. In many cases of course these can be disabled, but honestly, if she was using KaZaa of all things, what are the chances she knew how? If KaZaa actually allows you to disable automatic sharing.

As such, if one song is worth $1 to buy, but she left KaZaa on and helped distribute it to 30,000 other people, the actual damage done isn't $1, but $30,000.

A criminal being brought to justice. I don't even know why this is being discussed.

I have to agree with Fuzzy. 

It can be discussed whether or not the punishment fit the crime but the jury did come up with the decision.

Still goes back to 'If you can't do the time (in this case pay the fine), don't do the crime.' 

Just picked this up from MSN.com:

"The Recording Industry Association of America has said it found Thomas-Rasset shared more than 1,700 songs on the file-sharing site Kazaa, but it sued over 24 of them. RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said the association made several attempts to settle with Thomas-Rasset, at first for $5,000, but Thomas-Rasset refused."

Apparantly, huminado she thought music was free also.

No frustration. It does.

No, they are participating in a legal manner in our economic system. Thomas-Rasset is a thief who has the nerve to think she can take the work of others with impunity and never pay for it. She's learning (albeit slowly) that she's wrong. Her "justification"? Paying would take food out of her children's mouths. I've seen her photo, and she certainly hasn't starved to feed them.

You postulate things for which there is no proof and then argue a tautology.

Bottom line? She stole and she will pay. Software, music, video/media....all are someone's intellectual property and espousing views against that only serves to advocate the destruction of sites like this.

I don't believe in property.

There are relationships.  There are actions.  But property is an idea someone thought up, most people accepted, and only remains true insomuch as they continue to accept it and it can be reinforced.  Once it can't be reinforced, the idea fails.

Where'd you say you live? I'll be right over. How did you buy the computer you're typing on? How would you feel if someone entered your home uninvited (he doesn't believe in locks and doors) and took whatever he wanted?

Is there no concept of value either, then? Even in a barter economy that exists. The fact is that people want different things for different reasons at different times. That created a marketplace. There is no "innate" value to anything. It's all about what you're willing to pay for something: From freedom to fried eggs.

"T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L." (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) - R.A.Heinlein, "Farnham's Freehold".

What about all the work all the artists and the people at their labels put in? Does that not count as "value in action"? What are you trading with them, when you are trampling on their rights?

somewhere i read an interview of some guy, (napster founder?) that he believed the war on music piracy was lost... and i guess i have to agree with him. the music industry needs a new business model, rather than bludgeon people into the old one.

i buy music i can afford, and pirate songs i listen to only rarely. (usually i don't even pirate, just use music provider which has ads to pay music company).  what i can't stand is charging extra money for video game soundtracks, buying the game should entitle you to the sound in it.

google found it:

http://www.techspot.com/news/40828-napster-cofounder-war-on-music-piracy-is-a-failure.html