24 tracks, how about $24 dollars? I'd even give them double, or $48. For the 1700 tracks (that she allegedly downloaded but was not tried for), $3400. The extra dollar for each song goes towards the administrative costs of tracking them down.
I'm against music piracy and I think those who get caught should be responsible for paying back what they took from the other party. But bankrupting a person serves no societal purpose and actually provides a disincentive because someone who owes more money than they could ever pay will probably end up paying nothing at all. While someone who owes a couple thousand will probably just take the hit and move on.
I dunno - it seems that if we're going to punish her for sharing as well, do we then not go after those 7-8 people that downloaded from her? Seems like there's a bit of double-dipping that's possible here (which again would lead to an Infinite amount of damages).
But i'll give you that. We're now at $8-$10 a track. Which makes her fine somewhere between $200 and $17,000, still orders of magnitude less than the actual outcome.
In any case, your arithmetic seems to me to measure the wrong thing. The problem is not that she downloaded the songs. The problem is that she made them available for downloading. If all she had done was burned 24 tracks from a friend's collection and listened to that in her car and gotten caught, then your calculation makes sense. But each time someone downloaded the songs she made available, that person no longer need to buy the album from the artist. That's why two dollars per track, IMHO, is far from being a fair figure from damages. It's the viral aspect which makes P2P different, from, say, copying cassettes like we did when we were kids.
For most minor and petty crimes (such as my examples in another comment; parking violations, drunk driving, etc.), mens rea is unneeded (in the US, at any rate). The question of what degree of mens rea is relevant for intellectual property theft is both open and relevant; simply saying that, for example, it should should require mens rea because larceny (theft) does ignores the fundamental differences between the two.
EDIT: Two clarifying points. First, there is legal language describing the mens rea necessary in intellectual property theft; however, there is not a significant body of case law interpreting exactly what it means. Second, the reason that you can't just copy the mens rea of larceny is that intent to commit larceny is the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the object, which is clearly not a factor in intellectual property theft.