Sounds like the "it could have been someone else and it can't be proven it was her" defense didn't work because she used her Kazaa username elsewhere on the web as well.

Regardless, $9,250 in damages per song is outrageous.

If the preponderance of evidence is that her defense lied in court, $9,250 sounds low.

I think Arrington timed his Techcrunch post <http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/04/the-inevitable-march-of...; to occur at the same time as this case.

Today was one of those days where we'll look back and say, "the same day the RIAA won its first case, Michael Arrington predicted the end of DRM. Turns out..."

My bet is with Techcrunch.

The RIAA was happy to see this case go to trial!

It's their PR machine working here. I have never heard of this case before and all the sudden boom press all over the place about it. They knew its an easy win and a good way to distract from all the negative press their campaign has received lately.

Good job RIAA!

i think this IS negative press. fining a random person who correctly chose not to pay exorbitant prices for music some $200,000 doesn't look so good

I might have focused the defense on the fact that these laws were intended to be used against black marketers, and not casual downloaders. (If that's the case--I believe it is.)

This case is like charging penny poker players with racketeering.

How is the damage cost determined ?

$9,250 a song?

Was the jury drugged?

That was at the low end of the possible damages.

I'd call that brainwashing.

We would be much better off as a nation if juries made decisions as human beings instead of just looking at the law, but I guess non-brainwashed people that know about jury nullification don't usually end up in 12/12 spots on a jury.