Chicago (IL) – Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay a $222,000 penalty for sharing 24 songs through the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing network, is off the hook, for now. The United District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Thomas a new trial, based on the findings of a formal trial error. While the grant does not impact the penalty amount by itself, the court described the amount previously awarded to the RIAA excessive and even called upon Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address the liability and damages in P2P network cases for individuals, not businesses.
It seems that Jammie Thomas, a single mother, who was confronted with a $222,000 verdict for having shared 24 songs through the Kazaa network, has a shot a substantially reducing the penalty. A District Court found “that Jury Instruction No. 15 was erroneous and that error substantially prejudiced Thomas’s rights.” The Court’s error was found to be substantial enough to grant Thomas a new trial, whose date has still to be set.
Jury Instruction No. 15 instructed stated: “The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer‐to‐peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
“Jury Instruction No. 15 was erroneous and that error substantially prejudiced Thomas’s rights,” the document reads.
Within the 44-page filing, the Court goes to great length to argue that there are in fact differences of distribution to be considered, whether the distribution is done by an individual or a business and whether it is made for profit or by the simple motivation of gaining access to free music: “The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit. Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. 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 in the securities market.”
The Court still agreed with the RIAA that illegal downloading has an effect on its business, but it stated that “the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas infringed on the copyrights of t24 songs, about three CDs, according to the Court or a value of 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.” However, Thomas clearly may have caused more than $54 of damage, since some of the music she share may or may not have prevented other users from legally buying music. However it is virtually impossible to determine that exact impact on music sales.
Since piracy-based businesses could gain much more than $222,000 from illegally selling music, the Court does not believe that the verdict against Thomas is a general deterrent. However, in the case of an individual such as Thomas, they were excessive: “The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit.” The problem in this case is that the Copyright Act leaves to little room to protect individuals who may be downloading music illegally simply because it is “free”.
“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 filing reads. “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 myriad of copyright cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Government, in which courts upheld large statutory damages awards far above the minimum, have limited relevance in this case.” It continued: “In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.”
It is all but certain that this new ruling will fuel a new round of discussion surrounding the crusade of the RIAA against individuals.
Further reading:
Single mother loses big in music piracy case
Opinion: Can 24 songs be worth $222,000?
Attorney: Appeal of $222,000 verdict could stop RIAA’s lawsuit “machine”
RIAA juror: "We wanted to send a message"
Jammie Thomas's attorney says $222,000 award is unconstitutional
Jammie Thomas's music download appeal fails
RIAA urges judge to leave $222,000 sentence against Thomas intact
It seems that Jammie Thomas, a single mother, who was confronted with a $222,000 verdict for having shared 24 songs through the Kazaa network, has a shot a substantially reducing the penalty. A District Court found “that Jury Instruction No. 15 was erroneous and that error substantially prejudiced Thomas’s rights.” The Court’s error was found to be substantial enough to grant Thomas a new trial, whose date has still to be set.
Jury Instruction No. 15 instructed stated: “The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer‐to‐peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
“Jury Instruction No. 15 was erroneous and that error substantially prejudiced Thomas’s rights,” the document reads.
Within the 44-page filing, the Court goes to great length to argue that there are in fact differences of distribution to be considered, whether the distribution is done by an individual or a business and whether it is made for profit or by the simple motivation of gaining access to free music: “The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit. Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. 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 in the securities market.”
The Court still agreed with the RIAA that illegal downloading has an effect on its business, but it stated that “the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas infringed on the copyrights of t24 songs, about three CDs, according to the Court or a value of 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.” However, Thomas clearly may have caused more than $54 of damage, since some of the music she share may or may not have prevented other users from legally buying music. However it is virtually impossible to determine that exact impact on music sales.
Since piracy-based businesses could gain much more than $222,000 from illegally selling music, the Court does not believe that the verdict against Thomas is a general deterrent. However, in the case of an individual such as Thomas, they were excessive: “The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit.” The problem in this case is that the Copyright Act leaves to little room to protect individuals who may be downloading music illegally simply because it is “free”.
“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 filing reads. “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 myriad of copyright cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Government, in which courts upheld large statutory damages awards far above the minimum, have limited relevance in this case.” It continued: “In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.”
It is all but certain that this new ruling will fuel a new round of discussion surrounding the crusade of the RIAA against individuals.
Further reading:
Single mother loses big in music piracy case
Opinion: Can 24 songs be worth $222,000?
Attorney: Appeal of $222,000 verdict could stop RIAA’s lawsuit “machine”
RIAA juror: "We wanted to send a message"
Jammie Thomas's attorney says $222,000 award is unconstitutional
Jammie Thomas's music download appeal fails
RIAA urges judge to leave $222,000 sentence against Thomas intact