After Thomas’ original lawyer stepped down in May, 2009 while preparing for the retrial, Thomas accepted Joe Sibley’s offer to defend her. The retrial was held on June 15th, 2009 and the jury was then instructed to find the owners’ copyright was infringed upon provided the ownership claims were valid and provided there was an infringement of either the reproduction or the distribution right. For every song reproduced, the jury had to decide whether it was willful or non-willful, then damages had to be assessed accordingly.
Again after just five hours of deliberation on June 18th, 2009 the jury found Thomas liable for willful copyright infringement of all the songs in question, and awarded the plaintiffs damages of $1.92 million $80,000 per song. In the months following. the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction against Thomas that would require her to destroy all infringing recordings on her desktop. Also, on the same day Thomas filed a motion saying the damages awarded to the plaintiffs were to high compared to the actual damages and that it was unconstitutional. She then announced that she planned to appeal the two prior court orders saying that some of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs should have been inadmissible because it was collected in violation of a state law. The motion called for one of the following three; a retrial, reduction of damages, or removal of statutory damages.
In January of 2010, a Minnesota judge reduced the amount of the damages to $54,000 under the common law doctrine of remittitur, saying the original damages were “shocking.” Later that month the plaintiffs proposed a $25,000 settlement to Thomas which she quickly declined, then the plaintiffs then rejected the damage reduction ordered by the judge.
After unsuccessful negotiations, a third trial was set for October 4th, 2010 but was then was later moved to November 4th, 2010 to determine the amount of damages. A jury in Minnesota decided that Thomas was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages. Apparently, the penalty is somewhat heavy considering the 24 songs that she is being accused of illegally sharing would only cost approximately $24 on iTunes, which was also one of Thomas’ arguments.
Thomas helped the music industry bring copyright infringement to the front page of newspapers everywhere in this nation, and it is a topic that we will not soon forget. It is said that the law is always one step behind technology, and with computer technology advancing as much as it is these days, it is important for the music industry as a whole to take a stand against copyright infringement.
I believe that the impact of this court case is going to be felt and noticed for many years to come. The music industry has taken many hits over the past decade with the introduction of peer-to-peer file-sharing services but upon the resolution of this case it will have been able, in my mind to finally get a leg up in the battle against copyright infringement.
Adding to a Minnesota mom’s debt isn’t the most publically accepted move the music industry could of made so rather than center this trial around cash, the RIAA has focused on trying to make this trial into a cautionary tale for anyone considering illegally downloading or sharing music. As shown by the constant downslope of music sales, not much has scared music fans from illegally downloading their tunes. Just last month, the most popular peer-to-peer file-sharing service at Western Michigan University was shut down leaving many students such as myself looking for other ways that are fiscally possible, (on a college budget) to download our music.
Over the past decade there have been many cases surrounding the music industry and the topic of copyright infringement, one of the most recognizable being A&M Records v. Napster. Although A&M Records v. Napster wasn’t the first case of its kind, it was the largest and at the time the music industry felt like they finally sent a message to America letting them know that copyright infringement is not a joke and they plan on handling the matter in as serious of a manner as possible. I personally remember when the court came down with its verdict regarding the case, I remember feeling like it was the end of an era but just as quickly as Napster shut down, two more peer-to-peer file-sharing programs popped up. The music industry is currently engaged in a losing battle with technology, and with the recent judgment of the Thomas v. Capital, I believe that the industry finally has something to look forward to. As I stated before, it has been said on multiple occasions that the law is always one step behind technology, but today, law gained a step.
Citations