ILLEGAL FILE SHARING LAWSUIT APPEAL

In its appeal of the $220,000 judgement against her for copyright infringement, the counsel for JAMMIE THOMAS is arguing that the fine is excessive and should be lowered to reflect the minimal damages of downloading 24 songs. By their computation, that would be $151,20.

The website P2PNET reports that the RIAA testified any award above and beyond the value of the songs themselves "is purely punitive, and as such must be scrutinized by the Court to insure that it is not grossly excessive, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution."

THOMAS and her lawyer BRIAN TODER use that to argue in their document to the court that "Assuming plaintiffs receive 70 cents per song, and pretending that defendant’s downloading went to someone other than plaintiffs’ agents, plaintiffs’ damages would be $16.80.2 ... Multiplied by the maximum Constitutional limits a proper remittitur would be in the amount of zero dollars to $151.20."

PAY UP

Juror: Piracy Verdict Quick, Defendant A 'Liar'

One of the jurors who ruled against JAMMIE THOMAS in the CAPITOL RECORDS V. THOMAS trial told WIRED.COM that it took the panel only five minutes to determine that she was guilty. According to 38-year-old DULUTH steelworker MICHAEL HEGG, the remaining five hours of deliberation was spent in a heated debate on the financial penalty. At least two jurors demanding that she be hit with the full $150,0000 per track fine, while other wanted the minimum $750 fine. The settled on a $9,250 per song fine to reach the final $222,000 figure.

"That is a compromise, yes," HEGG said. "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned ... She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."

The jury, became convinced that THOMAS was a pirate after hearing evidence that the user name she used on the KAZAA account was the same she used for other Web accounts. Sealing the deal was expert testimony from an RIAA witness who showed that a wireless router was not used, which blew a hole in her defense that a hacker outside her apartment window with a laptop was spoofing her account to download music. "Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.'... She's a liar," HEGG said.

Adding to THOMAS' liability, according to the jurors, was when she turned over to RIAA investigators a different hard drive than the one used to share music. "She lied," he said. "There was no defense. Her defense sucked ... I think she thought a jury from DULUTH would be naive. We're not that stupid up here ... I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."

While her appeal will focus on the jury instruction that made her liable for copyright infringement simply for having a KAZAA file "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown," HEGG believed that his jury would have found her liable even if the plaintiffs had been required to establish that KAZAA users had actually downloaded the music.

"It would have been a lot harder to make the decision," he said. "Yes, we would have reached the same result."

Read the entire story here.

WOMAN TO APPEAL RIAA $222,000 VERDICT

Tech website ARS TECHNICA reports that JAMMIE THOMAS has decided to appeal last week's $222,000 willful copyright infringement verdict. Speaking with her attorney BRIAN TODER on CNN, she said they plan on arguing against jury instruction no. 15, where the judge told the jurors that they could find Thomas liable for copyright infringement solely by making the recordings available over a file-sharing network, "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

Even though two sides can point to previous cases that "prove" their side on this issue, this could be nothing more than a move to renegotiate the size of the judgement. Previously, THOMAS told CNET.COM that U.S. copyright laws are unjust and that the cost of proving her innocence was nearly impossible for someone in her financial situation, "It says in the Constitution that there should be no undue fines," THOMAS said in an interview with CNET NEWS.COM. "I was just fined (9,000% more) than the value of these songs."

Apparently, THOMAS is a variety of reasons for her defense. On top of daulty jury instruction argument of her appeal and her complaint that the judgement was too big, WIRED.COM column reports of another interview where she said, "I want people to know that they are being sued based on hacked, spoofed computers. They should still fight back in these cases ... I have to pay for somebody else's actions."

"I was basically forced into a situation where I had to prove a negative," THOMAS told CNET NEWS, "How do you prove that your IP address was spoofed or hacked. If I could afford an FBI analyst I'm sure it could have been proven. But I don't have the money."

Even if the verdict is overturned on appeal, both sides would have to make decide whether it's worth more cost to continue.The RIAA, of course, has much deeper pockets and seems to have no objection to continuing its admittedly money-losing campaign. For her part, THOMAS has piled up $60,000 in attorney's fees -- even if new attorneys are willing to take on the appeal pro bono.

On her MYSPACE blog, THOMAS said she was reluctant to accept the many offers of financial help she had received to pay off what she called "this ridiculous bill. I have not held my hand out," THOMAS said in her interview. "At best I've asked for information or advice. I have asked attorneys who are willing to help pro bono but it didn't feel right to me to ask (people) to donate to my cause."

Still, in her MYSPACE note, THOMAS listed her attorney's MINNEAPOLIS address for anyone who insists on helping.

In a CNET.COM blog, DECLAN MCCULLAGH speculated that "if the RIAA's smart, its lawyers will offer her some kind of not-entirely-punishing settlement that's one-tenth of today's damage award and strongly encourage her to take it. That would avoid the worst of the negative publicity, but still let the record labels wave around a pretty big club."

WILL THOMAS TRIAL VERDICT STOP ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING?

The jury's guilty verdict this week in a file-sharing trial could deter others from pushing back against the recording industry's copyright claims. However, it is unlikely that it will completely stop music files from being swapped on the Internet, according to a music attorney specializing in online sales and copyright, reports INFORMATIONWEEK.COM.

The RIAA won its first trial this week when a jury ordered JAMMIE THOMAS of DULUTH, MN to pay $220,000 to six separate record companies -- SONY BMG, ARISTA RECORDS, INTERSCOPE RECORDS, UMG RECORDINGS, CAPITOL RECORDS and WARNER BROS. RECORDS. The amount covers 24 copyrighted songs illegally downloaded on her computer.

"The fact that this case went to trial and there was a verdict -- whatever the outcome -- was a good thing, because there's some kind of sense that these cases don't have merit," said CHRISTIAN CASTLE, a LOS ANGELES lawyer.

As for THOMAS, she got off easy, according to CASTLE, who said she could have been fined $150,000 per copy rather than $10,000.

"I think the jury was telling her 'We don't buy your story. You're guilty of doing this intentionally. We're going to give you a verdict that will sting but is not the gross national product of a small country," he said.

WOMAN WHO OWES RIAA $222,000 CALLS SUM 'RIDICULOUS'

JAMMIE THOMAS, the woman who was ordered by a federal jury on THURSDAY to pay $220,000 to six music labels, said on FRIDAY that U.S. copyright laws are unjust and that the cost of proving her innocence was nearly impossible for someone in her financial situation, reports CNET.COM.

"It says in the Constitution that there should be no undue fines," THOMAS said in an interview with CNET NEWS.COM. "I was just fined (9,000% more) than the value of these songs."

The RIAA sued THOMAS for copyright infringement and unlike the vast majority of people sued by the group, THOMAS chose not to settle her case for what is typically a few thousand dollars. Instead, she decided to defend herself in court. She strongly denies sharing music files. But a 12-person jury in DULUTH, MN found in favor of the RIAA. They ordered THOMAS to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was accused of sharing.

"I was basically forced into a situation where I had to prove a negative," THOMAS said. "How do you prove that your IP address was spoofed or hacked. If I could afford an FBI analyst I'm sure it could have been proven. But I don't have the money."

THOMAS, the mother of two sons, ages 11 and 13, said she is still deciding whether to file an appeal. FRED VON LOHMANN, a staff attorney at the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, an advocacy group for Internet users, has said that he has been approached by attorneys who wish to help THOMAS should she decide to appeal.

"I haven't made up my mind," THOMAS said. "If I appeal this case, I would still have no protection against this verdict, and would still be obligated to pay off the judgment. It's kind of a tough decision to make."

On her MYSPACE blog, THOMAS said she was reluctant to accept the many offers of financial help she had received to pay off what she called "this ridiculous bill.I have not held my hand out," THOMAS said in her interview. "At best I've asked for information or advice. I have asked attorneys who are willing to help pro bono but it didn't feel right to me to ask (people) to donate to my cause."

Still, in her MYSPACE note, THOMAS listed her attorney's MINNEAPOLIS address for anyone who insists on helping.