Comments for Final Verdict in Jammie Thomas Retrial: $1.92 Million

Final Verdict in Jammie Thomas Retrial: $1.92 Million

2009-06-19T15:16:49Z

As we reported earlier this week, the retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was accused of illegally sharing 24 songs on Kazaa, was about to come to an end this week. In an earlier trial, Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $220,000 to the music companies, but today, a different judge and a different jury came back with a new verdict that was surely not what Thomas-Rasset was looking for. A federal jury, clearly unconvinced by Thomas-Rasset's defense, awarded the recording companies $1.92 million - which comes out to $80,0000 per shared song.

]]> "Kind of Ridiculous"

After the verdict, Thomas-Rasset told the Associated Press that the penalty was "kind of ridiculous," but also pointed out that she simply can't pay $2 million, so she is "not going to worry about it now."

As we pointed out in our earlier stories about this trial, the evidence clearly incriminated Thomas-Rasset, and the jury found that her conduct was willful. According to the Copyright Act, the jury could have awarded the music companies between $750 and $150,000 per song, but the jury, which clearly wasn't convinced by Thomas-Rasset's defense, came down in the middle at $80,000.

Could They Still Settle?

Ars Technica's Nate Anderson points out that RIAA spokesperson, Cara Duckworth, told reporters that the recording industry would still be willing to settle with Thomas-Rasset.

It seems like the RIAA is mostly interested in setting a precedent here, and if the two parties do eventually settle on a much smaller number (typically these cases ended in $5000 settlements), it surely wouldn't get the attention this current verdict received, leaving most of the public under the impression that a $80,000 fine per shared song is a real possibility.

Comment from MIKEliversedge on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T16:00:05Z

She should have taken the deal that was offered. She is a criminal and a bad influence as a parent. Maybe she should be sent to jail and her children taken from her as she is a poor role model

Comment from Ranger Six on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T16:24:32Z

No, MIKEliversedge, the RIAA should be disbanded under RICO statutes (because these lawsuits are extortion in disguise) and the jury/judge in this retrial should be indicted as accomplices.

I mean, seriously - how could ANYONE think that nearly two million dollars is a reasonable fine?

If Jammie'd been, say, a high-powered executive with a $250K+ yearly salary who worked for a company that actively encouraged such things, then yeah, I could see it. (I could also see going after said company and tearing it down for such things.)

But that's not the case here.

Is it any wonder - given the current track record of the RIAA/MPAA, with their extortionate legal threats - that people have been referring to them as the MAFIAA?

Comment from Nico on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T18:12:32Z

Yes, this is ridiculous. I'm not supporting illegal downloading, nor do I like stealing of let's say a music CD. But would stealing a CD with let's say 24 songs would lead to such a decision? And if I may compare sharing these songs with concealment of stolen CDs - would the latter lead to such a decision? I guess not. Let's come back to earth and try to figure out, what the real damage was. Where people would have bought the music, if it wouldn't have been offered on Kazaa. I tend to believe we are talking about more or less zero US$ here, plus a few thousand bucks for the lawers.

Comment from myname on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T20:48:49Z

stealing 1 cd w 24 songs is not the same as what this lady is charged with. stealing 1 cd w 24 songs and then making 100s of 1000s of copies of it and distributing them is more like it. my guess is that RIAA/MPAA is making the case that the distribution of the music on KAZAA by Thomas is what is worth 200k per song. This is plausible if they made the case that each song was downloaded from Thomas 100k-200k times.

Comment from myname on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T20:55:23Z

one other thing i'd like point out: Thomas' lied under oath on different occasions, otherwise, my guess is that her defense could have gotten her a better deal. the problem with electronic sharing is that it's difficult to say that any one person on Kazaa is responsible for the 100s of 1000s of distributed copies of any file you had possessed. Thomas' defense should not have been the blatant lie that she didn't even know what Kazaa was. It should have been that while yes, she downloaded 24 songs, she did not know those songs would subsequently be shared with 100s of 1000s of other Kazaa users. It was the software that enabled that by default and she did not willingly distribute the files. this would (perhaps) of made her less responsible for distributed copies and a lesser fine.

Comment from me on 2009-06-19

2009-06-19T23:16:45Z

Jail?? Surely you jest. Are you the least bit aware of what she was accused of doing? Apparently not because you don't seem to understand the very basics of the trial.

As for the decision, it's too bad the jury couldn't have bought some common sense on eBay. They obviously had none of their own.