Not sure what's untrue? I only stated what I believe is fact and separated it from "extenuating circumstances" which I don't really see in this case.

Not a good analogy because no one's "Basic human rights" (as defined by the U.N.'s "Universal Bill of Rights") has been infringed upon.

I think anyone would agree that $62k per song illegally downloaded is a bit stiff. The whole "but she shared via torrent thus she stole the whole store" isn't true, given human behavior at best she stole two copies and gave one to somebody else. More likely is she stole 1.25 copies.

Is it just a case of the courts being out of touch with reality? See the case of Pearson vs Chung to see how a judge can be off the planet mentally while his physical body is here to wreak havoc. Its a pair of lost pants that he asked $64 million for.....

While the internet is as free and unrestricted as it is piracy will continue. Seeing the latest batch of "the internet is losing its neutrality" stories from the US and UK I wonder if part of that argument, from the providers side, is to put tighten piracy as torrents apparently use significant bandwidth.

Argument...  contradiction???

Either way, a stalemate has been reached by the participants.... er, combatants, but none of them is willing to see that.

It's what the jury awarded. Perhaps that can be appealed. I don't know.

As for the pants case, that was tossed.

The pants case was to highlight that judges can be separated from reality. If a jury awarded damages of $62k per song they must be separated too.....

If this were the amount per song they could receive, imagine how much they would get if every pirated song was able to be claimed on. There is not enough money in the world. It sounds to me like they pushed the argument that pirating costs the industry huge dollars, thus this lady should pay huge dollars. This is a poor argument as it effectively says she should have to pay the penalty for her actions and the actions of others.

I don't know what the answer to piracy is, but I know its not this. I think consumerism, the need to have more even if its not needed, drives people to pirate. It also is leads to an existence where the economy is all great and mighty and the environment comes second to the needs of the economy.

My point is you won't ever see anyone with an interest pushing for people to consume less, but you will see complaining when people feel compelled to illegally consume more. Does this mean I condone piracy? No, I think its wrong.

Yes, so it is.... still doesn't alter the fact that this contradictory argument has run its course and has nowhere else to go.

Could change the subject, tho.....

So wot about them thar pirates 'ijackin' ships orf tha East Coast of Africer?

couple of well aimed 5 inch shells from the forward turret would be an acceptable answer, but to the hairy armpit brigade that would be much to harsh treating these parasites the way they treat the ships they hijack... but not to me. Send the correct message at the start and these things tend to become less common. ( in some cases)

Yar, scuttle tha basterds in shark infested wa-aters, I ses. ...cos they be bringin'  a bad name ter gentlemem pirates like meself wot does no 'arm t' anybody.

I agree the punishment is harsh. She should have agreed to the $5,000. Unfortunate all the way around.

She will have to work hard at the local diner to pay that off. Personally I'd buy lotto tickets, there is a greater chance of paying the debt off by winning lotto than by actually working.

Ah, I've vented enough about this

I hear there's a vacancy at her local bordello.... but then there's the risk of more children, an expense she can ill-afford...  and one which would defeat the purpose, I guess.

Oh well, she can always hope for a toilet to fall on her  from a passing American Airlines jet... then she could sue for the much needed funds.

Hopefully it's contagious.