A retrial of Jammie Thomas, who has been unique in her refusal to settle with the RIAA's filesharing gestapo, has ended with an even greater jury verdict against her. This time, instead of $9,250 per song allegedly shared on Kazaa, the jury found her guilty of "willful" infringement at $80,000 per song. As if you weren't already scratching your head at the current state of copyright law (think the failure of the DMCA to account for fair use, copyright term of 70 years plus life of the author).
The legal defense provided by attorneys Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was apparently 1. unable to cast enough doubt in the jury's mind as to Ms. Thomas' innocence, and 2. unable to convince the jury that a dollar amount more towards the minimum of $750 under copyright law ($18,000 total) would have been more appropriate.
Ms. Thomas has said the RIAA can't "squeeze blood from a turnip," and will have difficulty recouping its award. It remains to be seen whether the RIAA will do so.
From a legal perspective, the post trial motions, particularly challenging the constitutionality of the award, could just be the beginning of an interesting series of decisions.
Regardless, let's discuss openly, here and elsewhere, why Jammie Thomas' "peers" leave her with a crippling $1.9 million judgment.
How can we stand for such a judgement which vastly exceeds the damage to the plaintiffs.
