Agreed. This "news story" smacks of a plea for sympathy, and publicity for a cause, based on the personal situation of the accused. I seriously doubt they knew she is (allegedly) disabled, depressed, etc. They just knew an account with her name on it was being used to steal their product.

Also, if you are charged with something and don't show up in court to defend yourself, you can't very well cry about it afterwards. What did she think was going to happen?

>Wellll......
>
>Looks like she's claiming she didn't do it. If that's the case then this is not right. If she did violate copyright, however, then I don't see being poor, depressed, and disabled is an excuse. I don't want a poor and depressed invalid stealing my stuff and then whining that the rules shouldn't apply, do you? "Waaa...that's not fair!" ... Well, "fair" is that we're all afforded equal rights and equal protections. You can't argue that because of personal circumstances that you are immune from being judged for wrongdoing. I know, now you guys are gonna think I'm a heartless bastard but I think there's a principle involved.
>
>
>>Wonder how these creeps can sleep at night sometimes...
>>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/12/04/riaa-wins-default-judgment