I'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive. After the first case was tossed, the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict's damages were and begged congress to do something about it. The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws. Stealing music is wrong, but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive. After the first case was tossed, the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict's damages were and begged congress to do something about it. The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws. Stealing music is wrong, but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack!