1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions
File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is, at least to some degree, reprehensible. (I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable.) However, from the facts of this particular case, it doesn't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages.

2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award
This seems huge to me. Though I don't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did, it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages. The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number. It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question.

3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.
This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application. (None that takes direct legal effect, but still affects the approach that the courts' take.) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine. Punitive damages, as the name obviously indicates, act to "punish" the individual for bad behavior. Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive, egregious, unconscionable, or any other term for "whacked out" that I can think of.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.

Nothing new here, unless you have a relative who struggles with Parkinson's and you have more hope for helping the crippling symptoms subside a bit.

I am very interested to see whether or not use of the Wii could result in either preventing Parkinson's or delaying it significantly. Obviously there isn't any data available at this point on such theory, but I think 20 to 30 years down the road it would be interesting to see what happens to people who regularly used Wii and future Wii-like consoles.

Of course, since IIANDoctor, I have no idea on the science behind that. Anyone know whether or not that's feasible?

While I don't espouse this particular idea (nor do I argue against it), the boy may see a difference between art and entertainment. Generally, video games are classified as popular entertainment that uses technical skills commonly employed in arts, but video games themselves are not considered art. However, movies are commonly considered an art form which also is employed as entertainment.

Like I said, I'm not for or against that idea, but it seems like a logical distinction and could account for his preference.

Does anyone have information on how the dog distinguishes between the CDs physically? I would assume that there is some chemical difference in the materials that the CDs are composed of. Does anyone have a link or info on this?

Also startling is that Titus appears to be a body-builder in addition to being a proselytizer with St. Paul. -Bryan Gividen

I can see your point, but I think the only circumstances that it would happen is not Hulu "work[ing] with" Boxee, but instead buying them out or co-opting them. Hulu wants the ability to exclude people or devices from their service at will. Having that type of power allows them to use proprietary formats or hardware to deliver content. If Boxee exists, Hulu would have a much tougher time creating revenue off of new devices which do exactly the same thing as Boxee.

Even though people will always be able to murder, steal, cheat, lie, etc. That does not mean we should consider all efforts to stop illicit activities as fruitless. I am proud of Craigslist for taking a step in the right direction and working to police themselves. Similarly, I'm proud of the authorities for working to enforce the laws that legislatures have passed.

Though I don't have numbers immediately available to back it up, income is significantly lower unless a "soft major" (read as: social sciences) attends graduate school. Those students which graduate in Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are faced with very low incomes or no job with only a Bachelor's for the most part. Engineering, Accounting, and even "Ology" majors see a much higher placement and pay right out of graduate school.

I know that in admissions to many of the law schools I am applying to, a 3.8 in History and a 3.3 in Mechanical Engineering are comparable grades to the admissions committees. The inflated GPA which soft majors enjoy really does little except possibly inflate ego. And as an Econ major, I can tell you that me and my fellow soft major comrades already had inflated egos as is... it's sad really.