Fox sounds pretty heartless but really I think this woman shouldn't have put herself within the scope of something like this.

" @DeathpooltheT1000: " You can't believe everything you read on the internet. "

Well. Sucks for her.
Shouldn't have distributed the script.
No pity for her over here.

Well I guess that people are shocked by the amount she's being sued for. Not by the fact that she is being sued.
But you must also understand that if they would sue her for a more reasonable amount, that this would not make a statement at all towards other 'pirates'.
 They made a statement with this: do not steal from us. Simple as that.
 
I get that it isn't fair, but than again, stealing isn't either. 
I just feel pity for her family, since they are the real victims because they haven't done anything illegal and yet are being punished also.

You know the Best Part?
Everything Fox makes will be pirated anyway.
They are throwing stones in the ocean.
And revealing themselves as Villains.
Destiny looms. 
Look around Ya'll.
Convergence.
 
on another note....

This is absurd, Fan Film are worst, you film a movie with the characters you dont own, write fan fics or create fan comics, you are also doing a crime, and dont came with the i dont win money with those things, is still a crime.
And Marvel is not like DC, who is that is ok, always that you dont win money.
So, why the hell she did such a big crime?
Temptation Island haved problems with the Mexican Goverment, they contructed a jacuzzi without the documents they need, the law is the law, still the Mexican  Goverment never asked for money, in this case they only closed the hotel for a time, ask for money is ok, to punish people is ok, but please, punish all the people that breack the law.
I mean, many people here readed the script, so why not to punish them also?
According to a Time magazine article, fewer than 100 lawsuits are filed against Disney each year for various incidents.

" Well I guess that people are shocked by the amount she's being sued for. Not by the fact that she is being sued. But you must also understand that if they would sue her for a more reasonable amount, that this would not make a statement at all towards other 'pirates'.  They made a statement with this: do not steal from us. Simple as that.  I get that it isn't fair, but than again, stealing isn't either.  I just feel pity for her family, since they are the real victims because they haven't done anything illegal and yet are being punished also. "

Well, obviously what she did wasn't the smartest thing in the world 
but don't fine a struggling woman 15 million dollars, fine her something if you must, but come on! 

A few random preliminary points: 

1. Unless people are on the high seas, engaging in assault, or depriving another of possession, terms like piracy, robbery, and theft are legal misnomers and just emotionally charged inaccurate terms... the only thing at issue is cold and clinical copyright infringement. 
2. Copyright infringement tends to be civil but, in certain federal circumstances- this potentially being one of them (online for-profit sales with damages over a certain limit)- it constitutes a crime... and even more rare circumstances could even amount to a felony. 
3. Copyright law is largely statutory and a big part of that is international treaty compliance (thus out of our hands) and in many ways incompatible with some of the basic tenants of the American justice system (such as the presumption of innocence; we take it for granted here, but guess what- many nations assume guilt and require proof of innocence to exonerate!)... these combined factors- along with a strong emphasis on civil rights- makes copyright enforcement rather unwieldy and somewhat divorced from reality / practical effects, nonetheless it's the only legal system available to copyright holders so they either use it or waive their rights (which could negatively affect a legitimate attempt at enforcement at a later date). 

• What can Fox do if they figure out someone is infringing on their copyright?  1. They can do nothing.  2. They can demand it be taken down.  3. They can sue for damages. 
• What is the result of each? 1. Obviously does nothing to deter infringement but worse, it sets a precedent of sitting on one's rights... more on that later.  2. This is the typical minimal step, but merely removing the offending content doesn't really deter and again sets a precedent... more on that in a second.  3. Okay, you sue for damages... how much?  Without getting into all the details, exceptions, and analysis, the bottom line is that you basically have to sue for the statutory max that you can make out.  Why?  Because if you don't, when a "real" infringer comes along you won't be able to collect full damages from them because they will point back to all the times you let things slide, calculated damages differently, or didn't ask for the full amount... they'll claim that the previous amount requested was genuine, reasonable, and fair and that the amount demanded now is knowingly unrealistic and unjust and while you can argue yourself out of that situation you put yourself in a defensive position unnecessarily.
• Damages are calculated in very unrealistic ways because there's no realistic way to measure these kinds of speculative damages, so the law compromises and sets a handful of set rules for the purposes of calculation and judicial economy (rather than litigating how exactly damages ought to be calculated each and every time; although in big cases they are anyways)... legislatures argue this more simple and known value- even if perhaps inaccurate- will serve as a deterrent since it's high / known.
• This means that under US law, you basically have the choice of getting infringed upon, slapping them on the wrist, or going nuclear on them with no statutory options in between... although what realistically happens is the threat of nuclear sanctions leads to a more moderate settlement.  It also means that even if you're pretty sure someone is the "real" infringer, it doesn't matter unless you can prove and enforce it... meaning you might be stuck going after smaller fish just because they're the only ones you can actually make a case against (because there's enough proof, they're in the jurisdiction, etc).  Or they're willing to settle rather than fight (because they're too poor to fight or in a bad evidentiary position or easily intimidated) meaning you can publish a deterring "win" and/or get some money.
•  In other countries, the burden of proof is generally lower (no, "innocent until proven guilty") so it's easier to accept damage assessments closer to the actual harm caused by the defendant and they nearly always get stuck with [a more "fair"] bill... of course, there's more room for abuse and extortion meaning more actually innocent defendants end up paying copyright holders for alleged infringement... but more actually guilty defendants pay out on the whole.  Which system is right is just the value judgment of the nations.
• In either case, companies try to use a commercial / contractual solutions which essentially amounts to calculating the costs of infringement and passing it on to consumers / insurers / etc... of course, there are only so many cost passing measures the market will bear and many costs can't be reliably predicted like these kinds of pre-production script or work-print leaks (as opposed to near-release type infringement that happen, inevitably, at the consumer or distribution level), which is why the law enforcement comes out of the woodwork.

• There's a big disconnect between the public's expectations / understanding of what infringement means and who it might hurt and how badly it could hurt... and what legal remedies are actually available to copyright holders, because of international treaties and fundamental values held by our current legal system.  At some point, something will have to budge and change.
• Fox doesn't really have a lot of latitude in this situation as one might imagine... if they slap her on the wrist, it means they'll only be able to slap future infringers on the wrist (OK, not 100% true, but in broad strokes)... they have to show they're not sleeping on their rights / just letting infringers walk to protect their right to protect their rights.
• As a practical matter, she's not going to pay $15M and Fox isn't going to recover $15M... so no one is actually punished right and no victim is made whole right... it's a bunch of compromises the whole way around and not as extraordinary as it may seem at first blush.

This site's full of copyright infringing material, including all those silly little avatar pics. Most of you are guilty of the same crime that she is. So anyone here who genuinely thinks she deserves to get bullied by a bunch of slimy, asslicking lawyers can all join the long queue to suck my fat dick.

15 mil for some paper and 3 months for child rapists YAY justice is at hand... FML

The only reason Fox is suing her is because the DP movie isn't coming out and they want to try to get some money out of it still. Worthless pieces of crap.