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 major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas, was found liable in a 2007 trial for infringing 24 songs and ordered to pay $222,000 in statutory damages.[1] The court later granted her motion for a new trial because of an error in its jury instructions. In the second trial, in 2009, a jury again found against Thomas, this time awarding $1,920,000 in statutory damages.[2]
Contents |
[edit] Background
Jammie Thomas (born 1977), now Jammie Thomas-Rasset, is a Native American mother of four from Brainerd, Minnesota, and works as a natural resources coordinator for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians.
The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer.[when?] Thomas refused to settle, and was then sued[when?] by several major record labels for copyright infringement, by unauthorized downloading and "sharing" of 24 sound recordings on Kazaa, under the user name of tereastarr@KaZaA. The date of the alleged infringement was February 21, 2005. The recordings included songs by such bands as Aerosmith, Green Day, and Guns N' Roses.[3][4] Rather than seeking actual damages, the plaintiffs sought relief via statutory damages, assessed in accordance with 17 USC 92 § 504(c)(2).
[edit] First trial
The proceedings and trial were held in Duluth, Minnesota and were presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. Davis. Thomas was represented by Minneapolis attorney Brian Toder.[5]
In the trial, the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21, 2005, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The plaintiffs, however, sought relief for only 24 of these.
Thomas' legal defense was to claim that she had not shared the files.[clarification needed][1] During the trial, her lawyer suggested her computer could have been under the control of people elsewhere due to "a spoof, a zombie or some other type of hack".[6] Juror Michael Hegg later commented, "She's a liar."[7]
A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial. Thomas turned over to the plaintiffs' attorneys a hard drive that contained neither Kazaa nor the infringing files.[7][6]
The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][8][9] The issue of actual distribution was raised by the defense on the first day of trial, but the court sustained the plaintiffs' objection[clarification needed] and did not permit the topic to be revisited until jury instructions were prepared just before the end of the trial.[9] Despite disagreement from the defense, the court proceeded to interpret making available as distribution for purposes of instructing the jury.[9]
On October 4, 2007, after 5 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding her liable for willful infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, for a total of $222,000.
[edit] Retrial
The judge in Thomas' trial ordered a retrial because recent case law has cast doubt on the theory of "making available" as sufficient for infringement.[10][11][12]
In May 2009, during preparation for the retrial, Brian Toder stepped down as Thomas-Rasset's lawyer. Thomas-Rasset then accepted Kiwi Camara's offer to defend her pro bono.
The retrial was held on June 15, 2009 under the updated case name Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rassett. In this trial, the jury was instructed to find the owners' copyrights were infringed provided the ownership claims were valid and provided there was an infringement of either the reproduction right (via Thomas-Rassett "downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners") or the distribution right (via Thomas-Rassett "distributing copyrighted sound recordings to other users on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners"). For each song reproduced or distributed, the infringement had to be assessed as willful or non-willful, and damages assessed accordingly. The jury was not allowed to be specific about which rights (distribution or reproduction) were infringed, and unlike in the first trial, the judge didn't attempt to define distribution.[13]
After 5 hours of deliberation, the jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for willful copyright infringement of all the songs, and awarded to the plaintiffs statutory damages of $1.92 million ($80,000 per song, out of an allowed range of $750 to $150,000).[14][15]
On July 6, 2009, Thomas-Rasset filed a motion asserting the statutory damage award was so disproportionate to actual damages as to be unconstitutional, and announcing her intention to appeal two prior court orders permitting the plaintiffs to present certain evidence at trial. The evidence in question includes allegedly incomplete and therefore inadmissible copyright registrations, and evidence collected by MediaSentry which the motion claimed should have been inadmissible because it was collected in violation of state private investigator & wiretap statutes. The motion called for either a retrial with that evidence suppressed, a reduction of damages to the statutory minimum ($750 per song; $18,000 total), or a removal of statutory damages altogether.[16]
The same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking for an injunction against Thomas-Rasset which would require her to destroy all infringing sound recordings on her computer, and desist from any further infringement of their copyrights. Their motion claims trial evidence established that Thomas-Rassett "was distributing 1,702 sound recordings…to millions of other users" and that the plaintiffs would face "great and irreparable harm" if she were to continue to infringe upon their copyrights.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ a b c Leeds, Jeff (2007-10-05), "Labels Win Suit Against Song Sharer", New York Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E2DD1739F936A35753C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
- ^ http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#1573024392128294747
- ^ Krauskopf, Lewis; Gavin Haycock (5 October 2007). "Music industry wins song-download case". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN0541841120071005.
- ^ Freed, Joshua (5 October 2007). "Woman to pay downloading award herself". Archived from the original on October 13, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071013204358/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_en_bu/downloading_music.
- ^ Freed, Joshua (2007-10-04). "Brainerd woman loses music download case". Minnesota Public Radio. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/downloadingday3/. Retrieved on October 7, 2007.
- ^ a b Kravets, David (2007-10-03). "Defense Planting Seeds of Doubt with RIAA Jurors". Threat Level / Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/defense-plantin.html. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
- ^ a b Kravets, David (2007-10-09). "RIAA Juror: 'We Wanted to Send a Message'". Threat Level / Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-juror-we-w.html.
- ^ "Jury Instructions in Virgin v. Thomas". http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/jury_instructions.pdf.
- ^ a b c Bangeman, Eric (2007-10-04). "Debate over "making available" jury instruction as Capitol v. Thomas wraps up (updated)". Arstechnica. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
- ^ http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/06/jammie-thomas-re-trial-frequently-asked.html
- ^ Judge Says First-Ever RIAA Piracy Trial May Need a Do-Over | Threat Level from Wired.com
- ^ Judge Declares Mistrial in RIAA-Jammie Thomas Trial | Threat Level from Wired.com
- ^ Jury instructions
- ^ Completed special verdict form
- ^ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
- ^ Motion for new trial
