A reasonable discussion of the history of the case (noting events that, I think, depict some pretty bad judgments made on the defense side) may be found at the

A reasonable discussion of the history of the case (noting events that, I think, depict some pretty bad judgments made on the defense side) may be found at the WSJ legal blog: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/05/copywrong-again-minn-woman-keeps-fighting-riaa-keeps-losing/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/05/copywrong-again-minn-wom.... Even after the last trial, RIAA offered to let her settle by paying $25K to a charity for struggling musicians. So, indeed, she has had several opportunities to "get off the hook" and, each time, the lawyers have come charging forward saying they will get her ultimately vindicated. Now, of course, she herself can't be excused because a client ultimately controls this decision no matter what the lawyers want to do. But lawyers are in a strong position to influence most clients and, as a middle-class mother of 4, I assume this client would not be taking ultra-aggressive legal steps unless the lawyers were encouraging this, in effect, making her a martyr for the cause (as "Above the Law" puts it: "The crappy thing about being a martyr is that you have to die" (http://abovethelaw.com/2010/11/sorry-file-sharing-lady-looks-like-you-just-have-to-take-one-for-the-team/ http://abovethelaw.com/2010/11/sorry-file-sharing-lady-looks...). This case really illustrates the ugly face of aggressive copyright enforcement while at the same time highlighting the sometimes questionable judgments people can make in responding to it.