Why the RIAA should have won (though the fine was too high) | The Iconoclast

I'm not exactly sure what was up with the Jury here. I did read somewhere that based on the judge's instructions, they correctly found her guilty. But, the instructions were a bit "off". No damages, that I'm aware of, have been proven yet this woman is slapped with a huge fine.

Personally, I don't think sharing material should be punishable. Just because I have files on my computer shared to the world shouldn't constitute something illegal. It's really the downloading part where, I believe, the copyright infraction occurs. Actually, not even then. I think it's when the downloaded material is used (watched or listened to). Until it's "used" it's just a bunch of 1's and 0's spread out across a disk. Kind of like a gun being in the bedroom closet, and bullets being in the garage. Until they are put together and used, they are of no harm. But, just sharing files seems pretty lame to have being so punishable.

"It doesn't strike a regular person that by passing a CD around the neighborhood, they should have their house taken away," says Lew Rockwell, president of the free-market Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. "And by electronic means it shouldn't be any different."

The RIAA isn't stopping file sharing. They also aren't generating more music sales with all their litigations. But, what they are doing is continuing to blemish an already money-hungry, degrading product, slimy industry.