Citing the court's failure to classify Thomas-Rasset's actions as a "distribution" under 106(3) of the Copyright Act, the RIAA believes the defendant will likely repeat her previous actions and violate the Copyright Act.
If the jury can define "distribution" as the RIAA wants it, it will likely result in a third trial.
Here is the backstory:
In 2006, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was sent a letter asking her to settle (for $3300) over alleged unauthorized file sharing of 24 tracks.
She refused and decided to take the case to court.
In 2007, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for $1.92 million in damages, but a retrial saw the fine dropped to $220,000. In 2010, however, a judge reduced the award to $54,000. The RIAA told Thomas-Rasset that they would accept $25,000, if she would agree to ask the judge to remove the decision from the record. She did not accept the terms of the deal and the trial went to part 3. Later that year, Thomas lost again in court, with a jury finding her liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages. The Minnesota woman appealed.
in July, the judge reduced the verdict to $54,000 again, calling the original jury award "appalling."
The RIAA has now prolonged the longest saga ever involving pirated music tracks.
Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 23 Aug 2011 1:52
