In October 2007, a jury in Duluth, Minnesota found Jammie Thomas liable for infringing the sound recording copyrights of record companies Vivendi, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.  In the first trial actually conducted of the many lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (”RIAA”) against individuals who engaged in file sharing of sound recordings, the jury said Thomas, a mother of two, had to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs she downloaded from the music site Kazaa, for a total of $222,000.  Thomas’s attorney requested a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the award was unconstitutional.  On September 24, 2008, US. District Judge Michael J. Davis granted the motion, throwing out the verdict, admitting that certain of his jury instructions were not correct and finding the damages assessed by the jury to be excessive: “Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to make a profit does not excuse her behavior,” Thomas wrote in his 44-page opinion.  “But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.”Judge Davis’ ruling was not unexpected.  During arguments on the motion, Judge Davis had suggested that he may have erred in instructing the jury jurors that simply making music available on file-sharing networks is the same as actually distributing it.  In his ruling, Judge Davis concluded that his instruction that the record companies didn’t have to prove that Thomas had actually transfered songs on a peer-to-peer network was a mistake that “substantially prejudiced” Thomas’ rights.

The judge also urged Congress to clarify the copyright statute regarding the issues of liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases: “The parties point to no case in which large statutory damages were applied to a party who did not infringe in search of commercial gain.”

Although the RIAA has settled most of its file sharing lawsuits for nominal amounts, Thomas refused to pay and she had her day in court.  As the first trial of its kind, Judge Davis had no precedents to rely upon in fashioning his jury instructions.  Should the parties not reach a resolution, the next jury will judge Thomas’ behavior against new and improved instructions from Judge Davis.  Still reeling from the aftermath of Napster, Kazaa and similar Internet music services, the RIAA complains that improperly obtained sound recordings cost the industry billions of dollars a year in lost revenues.  As such, the ruling is a clear disappointment and major setback for the RIAA’s enforcement efforts and its ability to use the Thomas verdict to deter others.

Capitol Records Inc. v. Jammie Thomas, 06-1497, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Duluth)