Pirating is one thing - if you can't afford given media, it's understandable and a minor offence.
Yeah because courts and judges have really ruled that way right?
It would really depend on the local statutory provisions and common law, there's no clear cut severity to any offence in the world, like how some places give death sentences for murder, some don't.
I know American courts has been notorious for this (RIAA case where the woman was fined 2.4m), but that's the local common law, and not binding on any foreign jurisdictions. Plus, these ridiculous cases are mostly civil suits by corporations that demand large amounts of compensation for "damages", criminal law for IP infringement is really different, and you get some amount of jail time for profiting from a reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted product:
http://www.law.corne...19----000-.html
5 years, which is less than the amount of jail time you get from punching someone and fracturing their bones or something (and get prosecuted for causing grievous hurt) I think. And you probably get even less than that for just downloading (I'm not sure if there is even a provision for that, I don't think it's enough to warrant a criminal offence and you can't even get sued for mere piracy, but I'm not an American law expert). It's certainly not as minor as theft, but it's as minor as a punch.
I think there are many civil cases against downloaders, but most of them revolve around scare tactics leading to out-of-court settlements (the whole Hurt Locker shit, a few 10k defendants lol), it would probably be too much of a hassle to go through the litigation process with so much bullshit anyways. I think just downloading is not nearly as serious as upload. You would be much worse getting sued and having to pay large amounts of damages that are punitive in nature like the RIAA case, than getting prosecuted. But in many cases, you get both.