Please, die in a fire. Ok, now that I have your attention: The Associated Press: Atty: MN woman can't pay for sharing songs I know it's old news, but this lady has had THREE trials with jurys of her PEERS each time thinking that for sharing 24 songs, this mother of 4 deserves to pay 222,000, 1,500,000 or 1,920,000 dollars to the RIAA. Seriously? Wow. Maybe "jury of your peers" is an outdated concept, because I can't think of a single "peer" of mine that would bend me over like this!! My question is, can anyone here maybe justify making someone pay more than the minimum 750 dollars per song which would equal 18,000 dollars total in this case? I don't want to argue how our legal system is broke, or how stealing is wrong, or how this or that. I want to know how you justify anything more than the minimum. They probably figure you share 1 song that costs 1 dollar, and share it with an average of 750 people, bam, there is a loss of 750 dollars to the RIAA. However, let's say you don't share that file, do you really think those 750 people are going to all of the sudden think "oh no! the one person in the world sharing this one file is not sharing it, I guess I'll pay the 1 dollar for it!" Unlikely. And this theory gets exponential when you get up to 150,000 per track! I know if the RIAA got a hold of my records from my college days, I'd be paying millions that I don't have. I'm pretty sure I'd end up walking in to RIAA headquarters and re-enacting the end of Terminator 2.