Capitol v. Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitol v. Thomas (previously named Virgin v. Thomas) was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to be tried to a jury. Jammie Thomas was found liable for 24 acts of infringement and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages.

Contents

[edit] Background

Jammie Thomas (born 1977) is a single mother of two from Brainerd, Minnesota. Thomas was sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement, by illegal sharing of songs, in Duluth, Minnesota. She was represented by Minneapolis attorney Brian Toder.[1]

On October 4, 2007, the final day of her trial, presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. Davis, the jury returned a verdict against her in the amount of $222,000, which came to $9,250 per song file, deciding that Thomas willfully violated the copyright of 24 music files consisting of such bands as Aerosmith, Green Day, and Guns N' Roses on Kazaa, under the user name of tereastarr@KaZaA.[2][3]

According to Billboard Magazine, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The RIAA however focused on only 24 of these. In addition, the RIAA first warned Jammie Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter. Jammie refused and the RIAA then asked for a (comparatively small) settlement. Jammie again refused and the case went to court.

Jammie Thomas' legal defense was to claim that she had not shared the files. Juror Michael Hegg later commented, "She's a liar".[4]

A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial. Jammie Thomas turned over a hard drive that contained neither Kazaa nor the infringing files to the RIAA attorneys.[5] There was no evidence showing that the Kazaa account had allowed others to effectively download the files,[1] but jury instruction number 15 instructed the jurors that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights, even without proof of any actual distribution.[6][7]

[edit] Retrial

The judge in Thomas's trial is considering a retrial because recent caselaw has cast doubt on the theory of "making available" as sufficient for infringement.[8]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Freed, Joshua (2007-10-04). Brainerd woman loses music download case. Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
  2. ^ Krauskopf, Lewis; Gavin Haycock (October 5, 2007). "Music industry wins song-download case". Reuters. 
  3. ^ Freed, Joshua (October 5, 2007). "Woman to pay downloading award herself". 
  4. ^ RIAA Juror: 'We Wanted to Send a Message' | Threat Level from Wired.com
  5. ^ Kravets, David (October 3, 2007). Defense Planting Seeds of Doubt with RIAA Jurors. Wired News. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
  6. ^ Jury Instructions in Virgin v. Thomas
  7. ^ Bangamen, Eric (October 4, 2007). Debate over "making available" jury instruction as Capitol v. Thomas wraps up (updated). Arstechnica. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
  8. ^ Judge Says First-Ever RIAA Piracy Trial May Need a Do-Over | Threat Level from Wired.com

[edit] External links