One thing said here is very correct (but for the wrong reasons): downloading is
not stealing. It is copyright infringement. They are two VERY different things. Of course, the public campaign is to
associate downloading with stealing so that people get behind the *AAs when they sue people into bankruptcy. If the people being punished are
thieves then it's not likely that others will feel bad for them. But, copyright infringement is
not theft - not yet at least. They're working on manipulating the law to change that.
spindles, I'm not sure about the limitations regarding what kind of damages they can sue for. That may very well be why they go after people they can prove uploaded. The problem, though, is that all they have to do is prove that you had SOMETHING available for upload and it can then be assumed all of it was available for upload. Copyright infringement goes into civil court (not criminal court), where the requirement is not beyond a reasonable doubt but, rather, a
preponderance of evidence. This allows the *AAs to make a convincing argument of losses due to uploading so long as they can show uploading took place. They don't have to prove that the monetary value of losses they claim is true, you have to prove, as the defendant, that it's more than likely not true. And if they can show that you were uploading, even a little bit (which, if you use most of the newer, better file sharing methods, you can't help but upload) then it's easy for them to convince a judge or jury, beyond 50% of evidence, that they're right. You can't argue that you didn't upload, because once they can show you did that's pretty much out of the question (remember, they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so arguments about proxies, etc are pretty irrelevant) and if you try to argue that you were responsible for less damages than they say you were, good luck winning that. It's simply easier for them to reach the threshhold required than it is for you, and that's why so many people just settle.