No harm, no foul? P2P user says $1.5M award should be zeroed out; ArsTechnica.com, 12/8/10

Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; No harm, no foul? P2P user says $1.5M award should be zeroed out:

"Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first US citizen to take her file-sharing lawsuit all the way to a verdict, has been hit with three separate damage awards: $222,000, $1.92 million, and recently $1.5 million. The judge has made clear that these figures are absurd; after the second trial, he declared $54,000 the most that he could possibly allow.

But what does Thomas-Rasset think she owes? Nothing."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/no-harm-no-foul-p2p-user-says-15m-award-should-be-zeroed-out.ars

Did Jammie Thomas case backfire on file sharers?; CNet News, 11/7/10

Greg Sandoval, CNet News; Did Jammie Thomas case backfire on file sharers?:

"Tyler Ochoa, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said that the big problem isn't Thomas-Rasset's case.

"The law is on [the copyright owners'] side right now," Ochoa said. "The notion that there is a personal use exception to copyright has pretty much disappeared in recent years.""

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20021947-261.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related#ixzz14keFz6mX

Judge: Third trial against P2P user Jammie Thomas will go ahead; ArsTechnica.com, 10/22/10

Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; Judge: Third trial against P2P user Jammie Thomas will go ahead:

"The first file-swapper to take her copyright infringement case all the way to a verdict will have a remarkable third trial next month. Jammie Thomas-Rasset has fought the RIAA through four years, two trials, a name change, and a $1.92 million judgment; on November 2, she gets to do it again."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/judge-third-trial-against-p2p-user-jammie-thomas-will-go-ahead.ars

A copyright ruling no one can like; CNetNews.com, 7/13/10

Greg Sandoval, CNetNews.com; A copyright ruling no one can like:

"Legal experts sympathetic to copyright owners as well as those known for supporting technology companies are criticizing a federal judge's decision to lower a jury award in a high-profile lawsuit about file sharing.

A year ago, a jury found college student Joel Tenenbaum liable for willful copyright infringement for sharing 30 songs, and later set a damages award of $675,000. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner dramatically reduced the award to $67,500.

Gertner wrote in her decision that the original amount was too high and "unconstitutional." With regard to statutory damages in a copyright case, her decision is believed by some legal experts to be unprecedented. Not only are copyright owners attacking Gertner's reasoning, but so are some well-known lawyers from the pro-technology side.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University who is often critical of entertainment companies in copyright litigation, predicted much of Gertner's ruling is vulnerable to appeal, which the RIAA will likely do, a high placed music industry source told CNET on Tuesday.

"This ruling is critically important," Goldman wrote on his blog on Monday. "It has the potential to [affect statutory damages for every copyright case that involves them]." Goldman said that despite feeling sympathy with the judge's aversion to the size of the award, brought on by what he called a "bad brew of an aggressive copyright lobby and pliable politicians," her arguments "did not completely convince me."

Statutory damages are a dollar range determined by Congress that sets limits on what juries can assess for copyright infringement. For willful infringement, a jury can assess damages as high as $150,000 per incident. Gertner's ruling is more proof that the damage amounts lawmakers have enabled the music industry to claim for copyright infringement are too high are the courts--as well as much of the public--to stomach. In major file-sharing cases, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the four largest record companies, is 0-for-2 in seeing jury awards held up by the courts.

Last year, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the accused music-pirating Minnesota woman, saw U.S. District Judge Michael Davis slash the jury-awarded damages from $1.9 million to $54,000.

"The damages range within the law are an important signal about the potential penalties for illegal conduct," the RIAA said in a statement. "A jury decides, after hearing all the facts, what is the appropriate penalty. If a judge can disregard those facts and simply impose his or her own personal views, that undermines an important deterrent message established by Congress."
Judge's authorityIn her ruling, Gertner gave consideration to the fact that there's no proof Tenenbaum shared music for commercial gain. But by reducing the award, Gertner overruled the jury as well as Congress.

"I don't think the law gives the judge the authority to lower the jury's award," said Ben Sheffner, an entertainment attorney and frequent blogger on copyright issues. "I don't think she should have altered it. I don't mean to say that I'm entirely comfortable with the amount as a matter of policy...but her decision seriously undermines the authority of Congress to set the range of statutory damages."

Not everybody sees it that way. Corynne McSherry, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocate group for tech and Internet users, on applauded Gertner decision.
"Gertner found there is quite a bit of evidence that Congress did not intend statutory provisions to be applied this way," McSherry said. "She concluded that the [original] damages award went far beyond what Congress intended or contemplated."

Gertner's decision will trigger all kinds of other problems, Goldman predicted.

"I expect more litigation battles over statutory damages," Goldman said. "Almost every copyright infringement defendant can advance a non-frivolous argument that statutory damages in their case would be unconstitutional. As a result, statutory damages cases will take more time and money."

Hurting 'Hurt Locker' For the music industry, this may not mean much. The top labels gave up on filing copyright complaints against individual file sharers in December 2008. Gertner's decision, however, could come into play for Voltage Pictures, producers of the Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker."

D.C.-area law firm Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver has begun filing lawsuits against individual file sharers on behalf of independent production companies. Voltage is among about a dozen filmmakers that have signed up with Dunlap, which is reportedly intending to sue a total of 50,000 people for allegedly illegally sharing movie files.

In letters, Dunlap notifies the accused that they can settle the case quickly by paying $1,500 but that if they refuse, the company could eventually ask for $150,000 if they can prove the person is liable for willful infringement. That kind of claim coming after award reductions in both the Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum cases could ring hollow.

Gertner's decision will also make settling copyright much harder, Goldman said.

"Defendants will have increased confidence in their low case valuations (given the possibility that statutory damages will be Constitutionally capped at $2,250/work)," Goldman wrote, adding that "most copyright owners will not accept this discount. As a result, due to the doctrinal uncertainty, the litigants will have an even harder time reaching a compromise."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010428-261.html

Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award; Wired.com, 1/22/10

David Kravets, Wired.com; Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award:

"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”

A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.

“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”

The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”

Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”

The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.

Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.

“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.

The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.

Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.

The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.

More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.

One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.

Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"

First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day; Wired.com, 6/21/1

David Kravets, Wired.com; First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day:

"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.

In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.

But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.

That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.

“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.

“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.

The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.

U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”

Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.

A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.

Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.

Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.

Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.

He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.

The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.

Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:

‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It; Wired, 12/8/09

David Kravets, Wired; ‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It:

"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.

Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...

What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.

“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...

Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.

“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.

But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.

The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.

Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.

Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854

Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads; CNN, 8/4/09

Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads:

A college student who shared music he downloaded talks about the $675,000 fine:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/08/04/am.tenenbaum.music.fine.cnn

Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song; Ars Technica, 7/31/09

Ben Sheffner via Ars Technica; Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song:

After a brief deliberation, a federal jury has ruled that PhD student Joel Tenenbaum willfully infringed on the record labels' copyrights, awarding them $675,000 in damages, $22,500 for each of the 30 songs in question. Ars reports with reaction from Tenenbaum and his attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson.

"A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. The figure is closer to the $222,000 award in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial than the $1.92 million figure from the second trial.

The verdict came down at late Friday afternoon after a little more than three hours of deliberation."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars

Judge rejects fair use defense as Tenenbaum P2P trial begins; Ars Technica, 7/27/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Judge rejects fair use defense as Tenenbaum P2P trial begins: Hours before the second P2P file-sharing trial in the US gets underway, the judge finally rules that defendant Joel Tenenbaum cannot claim "fair use" in the case. The proposed defense would be "so broad it would swallow the copyright protections that Congress has created," she wrote:

"There will be no fair use defense for Joel Tenenbaum at trial this week...

That won't happen, because Judge Gertner this morning granted the record labels' request for summary judgment on the issue of fair use. Noting that defendants only have the right to a jury trial when there are material facts in dispute, Gertner went on to point out that Tenenbaum has admitted to the activity in question and that she may therefore rule on the issue of fair use as a matter of law...

Gertner has been no fan of the labels' litigation campaign, telling industry lawyers in the past that they were "basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it."

But that hasn't stopped her from taking on Team Tenenbaum's attempt to eviscerate copyright. As Nesson wrote in his pretrial outline of the case, "the idea of imposing law on the global ocean of free bits that has flooded into cyberspace is a gross and harmful over-extension of the power of the state and authority of the law." Gertner, whatever her own feelings on these kinds of cases, sees clearly that such claims amount to abolition of copyright in the digital age and are at odds with the law as currently written."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars

Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect; Ars Technica, 7/20/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect: The second US trial of a file swapping defendant begins next Monday in Boston. Ars previews the arguments to be used by graduate student Joel Tenenbaum and by the recording industry:

"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.

But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars

Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award; TechDirt, 7/2/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award:

"Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0049325431.shtml

Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence; Ars Technica, 6/29/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence:

"The year's second major P2P trial kicks off in one month, and Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson wants to mount some of the same attacks that failed in the first case. Nesson argues that all of the RIAA's MediaSentry investigative evidence must be banned from trial, as the company violated wiretap law and private detective licensing law."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/second-times-the-charm-tenenbaum-team-try-to-toss-mediasentry-evidence.ars

RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing; TechDirt, 6/25/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing:

"That's when the RIAA tried to claim that the Jammie Thomas jury provides a representative sample of "music industry outsiders" whose verdict disproves the theories of certain "pundits" who believe the digital economy should be a "new wild west" where "the rule of law" is not obeyed.

Talk about misrepresenting.

First of all, I don't know of many "pundits" who think that the digital economy should be a new wild west at all. I think that many of them are actually just focused on preserving individual rights against a constant landgrab by an industry whose history has shown it to not be above removing right after right after right from people. The RIAA and its supporters have taken content out of the public domain, making a government go back on a bargain it struck with content creators, much to the detriment of society, but very much to the benefit of a few record label execs and their lobbyists and lawyers. That's stealing from the public. It's taking a bargain and changing the terms. People don't want a wild west. They want the culture we were promised, and they want their individual freedoms.

Furthermore, calling the very specific nature of the Jammie Thomas trial a referendum on file sharing is ridiculous. Her case had a very specific set of circumstances unlike many others -- and even we (a "reliable critic" according to the RIAA) felt that she never should have gone to trial, as the evidence against her seemed strong."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090623/1651345334.shtml

What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?; Ars Technica, 6/21/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?:

"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the massive $80,000 per song judgment handed down against her. We take a look at the possibility of paying the award, settling, declaring bankruptcy, reducing the award, appealing the case, and changing the law...

Judge [ Michael] Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" Congress to "amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐to-peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court."

University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.

In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."

One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.

Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars

Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M; NPR's Two Way Blog, 6/19/09

Frank James via NPR's Two Way Blog; Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M:

""The only thing worse than losing a copyright-infringement lawsuit that ends with a $122,000 [sic; $222,000] judgment against you is getting a retrial only to end up with a eye-popping $1.9 million judgment against you...

The Associated Press gives us this paragraph explaining why we should care:

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/musicpirate_mom_shown_no_love.html

Bankruptcy could protect Jammie Thomas; CNet News, 6/19/09

Greg Sandoval via CNet News; Bankruptcy could protect Jammie Thomas:

"[I]n the past, when someone was found liable of willful copyright infringement, the law prevented the defendant from discharging, or wiping out the debt in bankruptcy court. Last year, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in the case of Barboza vs. New Form, that "willful" meant one thing in civil court and something else in bankruptcy court.

In trademark or copyright cases, "willful" means that a defendant knew what they were doing. According to the Ninth Circuit, bankruptcy laws mandate that for a debt to be non-dischargeable, a plaintiff must prove a defendant was "willful and malicious," meaning the person's intent was to cause harm.

Even entertainment lawyers agree that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Barboza makes it tougher for copyright owners to collect damages. Kathryn Bartow, an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a Los Angeles-based law firm that does extensive work for the major movie studios, wrote in a February issue of her firm's newsletter:

(Barboza) serves as a warning to trademark and copyright owners as well as the counsel who represent them in willful infringement cases. When presenting evidence and crafting jury instructions, beware. In willful infringement cases, to prevent an individual defendant from having its debt discharged in bankruptcy, the plaintiff should consider introducing sufficient evidence and including additional jury instructions to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's definitions of 'willful and malicious.'

If the jury had only found Thomas-Rasset guilty of copyright infringement instead of willful infringement, it would have been easier for her to get rid of the debt...

For the RIAA, the size of the damages stamps it with the bully label and backfires when it comes to public relations. That's the opinion of Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment lawyer and copyright proponent. He says the jury award also potentially hurts the RIAA if someone decides to challenge the damages on constitutional grounds.

"On the plus side, the decision sent a strong message," Sheffner said. Twenty-four "average Minnesotans with no ties to the entertainment industry have now said what she did was wrong and she deserves a strong punishment. On the other side, the size of the monetary damages could be used as serious ammo against the music industry.""

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10269251-93.html

Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant; Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/19/09

Alex Ebert and Curt Brown via Minneapolis Star Tribune; Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant:

"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. “For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law,” she said...

Not that [Jammie Thomas-Rasset] minds being a scapegoat. She thinks her case was a factor in the music industry’s decision to halt mass litigation against individuals accused of sharing music.

“I take a little bit of pride in the fact that at least I threw a monkey wrench into their litigation campaign,” Thomas-Rasset said."

http://www.startribune.com/local/48641077.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUHK:uUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Music Labels Win $2 Million in Web Case; New York Times, 6/18/09

Bloomberg News via New York Times: Music Labels Win $2 Million in Web Case:

"The Universal Music Group, owned by Vivendi, and other record labels were awarded $1.92 million on Thursday in the retrial of a Minnesota woman accused of swapping music over the Kazaa Internet service.

The federal jury in Minneapolis said the woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, of Brainerd, should pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs that were posted on the site so others could download them.

The first time the case went to trial, in 2007, a jury awarded $9,250 a song, or $222,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/business/media/19music.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jammie%20thomas&st=cse

Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep; Ars Technica, 6/16/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep:

"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?

Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...

The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...

Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars