No I don't think your analysis is correct. It's not like slashdot readers understand this law less than anyone else. It's not even clear if having damages 151515.15 times greater than the price of the item in question is even constitutional. Additionally it's not as if the RIAA offered any proof that she was the one who did the downloading, they used the argument that she owned the computer so she must have been the one downloading. So by that logic if someone breaks into your house and steals a gun and commits a murder you should be on death row cause someone got murdered with a gun you own. BTW it's not like the jury in this case hasa good grasp of cyberlaw.
And here are some fast facts: None of the jurors in this trial ever used any sort of file sharing programs. So they have no experience with P2P networking. The RIAA had all the jurors who knew about file sharing from friends from the case (4 out of 19, had heard of file sharing). So the 12 jurors on her case had absolutely no knowledge of file sharing. But according to an LA times survey 64% of people regularly download copyrighted materials. A Tiscali UK survey found 60% of people surveyed downloaded copyrighted materials. And according to the Stanford Report 24% of people surveyed were actively involved in downloading illegal materials. So for Jamie Thomas to not have one person on her jury that has made a download either legally or not is bullshit. I mean if 60-64% of people have downloaded copyrighted materials you'd expect about 7 of the jurors to have experience with downloads. She didn't get a jury of her peers, she is being hit with an unusual penalty (you could steal a whole CD from a store and only be charged about $1000 or so in most places, max.), and she got fucked by the courts, remember the RIAA objected to her new lawyer being given time to review the old lawyers case work.
I'm going to encourage everyone to boycott the major record labels for the rest of the year.
And the fucking disgustingly sick part of this is that the real impediment to artistry has been the record labels! It wasn't until about the 1960s that the most popular white bands started to have more or less "fair" contracts. But how many copyrights do these companies have that are based on contracts that would be thrown out if they were signed today? And how about enforcing copyright law on clearly acceptable legal fair uses?
And finally the statutory damages exist to recompensate labels for the estimated amount of money they lost on record sales. It's not based on what they proveably lost but can be anything from $750 to $150k for each infringement with the idea being that juries can award more for let's say leaking a full album before it's release date. Jammie Thomas was downloading songs like "pour some sugar on me" which was recorded in 1987! Almost no songs make money after a year of being released. It's not like she was depriving an up and coming artist from having a big CD debut. She was largely downloading songs that had already made practically all the money they will ever see, so for her to recieve 80k per infringement is laughably cruel.
What she should do is empty her bank account, sell off the rest of her fundraising panties, etc. and give all that money to the RIAA, then for phase 2 call in a tv crew and do a nice segment on how it's impossible to eat right when almost all of your paycheck goes to pay off a ridiculous lawsuit. I'm beginning to think her best bet is a hunger strike.