Posted 07/07/09 at 07:23:14 PM by Paul Lilly

It's been a roller-coaster of a legal ride for Jammie Thomas, who was found guilty of copyright infringement for sharing 24 songs through KaZaA, a P2P file sharing application. After the dust settled, Thomas was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages, an amount levied against her in a retrial of the case and much higher than the original $220,000 verdict she received in the original case.

In a motion filed today with the Minnesota federal court, Thomas called the verdict "excessive, shocking, and monstrous." As such, Thomas wants the federal judge overseeing her lawsuit to either toss out the exorbitant damage award, reduce it, or issue her a retrial.

"For 24 songs, available for $1.29 on iTunes, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per song -- a ratio of 1:62,015," the motion states. "For 24 albums, available for no more than $15 at the store, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per album, a ratio of 1:5,333. For a single mother's noncommercial use of KaZaA, and upon neither finding nor evidence of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the judgment fines Jammie Thomas $1.92 million. Such a judgment is grossly excessive and, therefore, subject to remittitur as a matter of federal common law."

The record labels also filed a motion today, one which asks the judge to issue a permanent injunction against future copyright infringement. Because, you know, a $1.92 million fine apparently isn't enough of a deterrent.

Should Thomas be issued a retrial or have her fines reduced? Hit the jump and sound off.

Read More

Posted 06/19/09 at 10:00:08 AM by Paul Lilly

For the second time, a jury on Thursday found Jammie Thomas liable for willful copyright infringement, this time ordering her to pay fines totaling an eye-popping $1.92 million to the RIAA. The surprise decision breaks down to $80,000 for each of the 24 songs Thomas was found guilty of illegally sharing. According to ArsTechnica, Thomas let out a gasp as the fine was read.

"Good luck trying to get it from me," Thomas said when speaking about the verdict. "It's like squeezing blood from a turnip."

For those who haven't been following, Thomas in 2007 was initially accused of illegally sharing 1,700 songs, but the RIAA dropped that number down to 24. In October of the same year, a jury found her guilty and imposed a $222,000 verdict against her. The decision was later thrown out when U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he erred when giving his jury instructions that simply making songs available amounted to copyright infringement.

The RIAA, big winners in the retrial, told reporters that they have always been, and still are, willing to settle the case. Thomas' lawyer acknowledged the settlement offer, but said he plans to file numerous motions if Thomas chooses to continue the fight.

Read More

Posted 05/22/09 at 09:36:49 AM by Paul Lilly

Brian Toder, former defense lawyer for Jammie Thomas, dropped a bombshell earlier this week when he asked to be removed from the case. He did so saying he was owed nearly $130,000 "that will never be recovered, coupled with the likelihood that a similar, additional amount will be incurred if ordered to continue representation of defendant."

Stepping in to take Toder's place is a trio of former Harvard University classmates who feel confident they can take on, and defeat, the RIAA.

"We are going a for a jury verdict of zero," said Kiwi Camara, one the three Texas lawyers who replaced Brian Toder on Wednesday. "We are going to convince a jury that the RIAA should not bring these cases."

Doing so will be anything but easy. With a retrial scheduled to begin in just three weeks on June 15, the trio said they will not seek a delay, and instead plan to attack the RIAA's litigation strategy, Wired reports.

"We think the jury is going to reject this strategy," Camara said. "The RIAA strategy here is not to try any of these cases."

Brian Toder wished Thomas well in her ongoing fight.

Read More

Posted 05/19/09 at 10:00:08 AM by Paul Lilly

On hindsight, Jammie Thomas may one day look back and wish she would have taken whatever deal was being offered during a court-mandated settlement conference just days ago. Certainly that seems to be what her lawyer, Brian Toder, must have wanted her to do, as Toder is now attmempting to withdraw from the case less than a month before a retrial in the RIAA's first copyright infringement suit to go to a jury is scheduled to take place.

According to what Toder told U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Minnesota, he is owed nearly $130,000 "that will never be recovered, coupled with the likelihood that a similar, additional amount will be incurred if ordered to continue representation of defendant."

The RIAA doesn't appear to be opposed to Toder withdrawing from the case, but at the same time, it doesn't want another delay. Should Toder get his way, a delay would seem inevitable, as "there's no way another lawyer could try this case by June 15," Toder said in a telephone interview with Wired.

If you haven't been following, Jammie Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement in 2007 and fined $222,000 for allegedly sharing 24 songs via Kazaa. Judge Davis later declared it a mistrial on the basis that he falsely instructed the jury that just by making available copyrighted works on a file sharing program constituted copyright infringement, even if it couldn't be proved that anyone actually downloaded the songs.

Barring another delay, a retrial is scheduled for June 15.

Read More

Posted 12/30/08 at 11:09:41 AM by Paul Lilly

While it might not be a major setback for the Recording Industry Association of America, a federal judged has denied the RIAA's appeal for a mistrial against Jammie Thomas, the only person ever to go to trial after being charged with copyright infringement by the RIAA.

Jammie Thomas initially made headlines earlier this year when a jury found her guilty of violating copyright laws and was ordered to pay a staggering $220,000 to six of the top music labels. Thomas was accused of sharing more than 1,700 songs, but despite the moral ambiguity, public opinion tended to view the verdict as obscenely high.

Just weeks after the verdict was handed down, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis overturned the ruling on the basis that he had misguided the jury by indicating that the act of making a copyrighted song available was enough to constitute infringement. While a new trial has been scheduled for March, the RIAA appealed the judge's decision and asked that it be declared a mistrial.

It will be interesting to see what long-term implications this current setback has on the RIAA. Just weeks ago, the RIAA announced it would try a new tactic in thwarting copyright infringement. Rather than continuing to sue individuals like Jammie Thomas, the RIAA said it would start working with ISPs to send out warnings to those suspected of illegally sharing music. After three warnings, the ISPs would cut off internet service.

Meanwhile, a retrial is still scheduled for March, and it would be hard to imagine the losing side not appealing the verdict. That means we're still a long ways off from knowing the true implications of the Jammie Thomas saga.

Read More

Posted 10/17/08 at 03:05:06 PM by Alex Castle

Everyone’s favorite trade group, the RIAA, is up to more of its usual, mustache-twirling antics as it appeals the decision to declare a mistrial in its case against Jammie Thomas. For the uninformed, the 30-year-old Thomas is being sued for $220,000 by the RIAA for file sharing. As the first person to take the music industry to court, rather than settle, her case will set a very significant precedent and could have a strong impact on the future of file sharing and the internet.

The suit was originally decided in the RIAA’s favor in October, however Judge Michael Davis threw out the ruling and declared a mistrial, declaring that “he originally misguided the jury by indicating that simply the act of making a copyrighted song available for sharing amounts to infringement,” CNET reports.

The RIAA is appealing the decision, hoping the original ruling will stick and they won’t have to conduct a whole new trial.

Read More