Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who recently was fined $1.92 million for allegedly downloading and sharing 24 copyrighted music tracks over a popular peer-to-peer file sharing network, is seeking a new trial.
Thomas-Rasset's attorneys, who are outraged at the $80,000 per song fine, want the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to consider taking one of three possible actions in the case:
A). Toss out the $1.92 million fine, as Thomas-Rasset's attorneys claim the ruling is based on a possibly unconstitutional provision of the rarely understood Copyright Act.
B). Assuming the Copyright Act – more notably its statutory-damages provision – is ruled constitutional, then Thomas-Rasset is willing to pay an $18,000 fine.
C). A third retrial, which could lead a new jury to reduce the fine.
Thomas-Rasset first went to trial in 2007 for sharing music files through Kazaa, which she was found guilty and fined $222,000 for her alleged copyright infringement. The judge later declared the case a mistrial, admitting that having a file available to download doesn't mean anyone actually downloaded the file.
The second trial, however, focused on Thomas-Rasset's downloading of the files, which helped the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) avoid the possibility of another mistrial based on the previous argument.
The Supreme Court recently said “grossly excessive” punitive damage awards can be considered unconstitutional – an issue the RIAA may have to tackle due to the heavy fines levied against Thomas-Rasset.
I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas-Rasset receives a new trial, especially if her lawyers argue that her fine is unconstitutional, though an ill-informed jury may end up still awarding a ridiculously high number. I wonder if the RIAA is willing to end its constant public relations disaster by letting Thomas-Rasset off the hook with the $18,000 fine, allowing both sides to avoid another high-profile legal case.
