This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Labels & Publishers Legal
Thomas knocks back RIAA damages olive branch
By CMU Editorial | Published on Thursday 28 January 2010
The Jammie Thomas dispute could go to a third trial, despite the RIAA reportedly offering to settle for under half the revised damages figure, which was already 35 times smaller than the record industry was originally awarded by the jury at the second court hearing.
As previously reported, Thomas was one of the highest profile of the individuals targeted by the Recording Industry Association Of America’s file-sharing lawsuit campaign during the last decade. She chose to fight the lawsuit rather than settle out of court, and has subsequently been found guilty of copyright infringement for sharing unlicensed music via P2P networks on two occasions. The first time she was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages and then, on appeal, $1.92 million. But then last week a US judge reviewed the level of damages awarded in the case and dramatically reduced what Thomas must pay to a more realistic $54,000.
Both Thomas and the RIAA have since been considering whether to appeal that judge’s ruling, knowing that doing so would necessitate a full third trial. Bosses at the RIAA – who are known to be tiring of their outstanding P2P litigation, having put their campaign of sue-the-fans behind them – are reportedly keen to settle. So much so, that not only were they willing to accept the $54,000 damages ruling, but, according to Digital Music News, they proposed to Thomas’ lawyers that they would even be happy to settle for a mere $25,000.
But, DMN reports, Thomas has rejected that offer, meaning a third court hearing is now looking likely. It is unclear what Thomas’ motives are, given the last time she appealed a court’s ruling on this matter the damages she was due to pay went up eightfold, and it seems unlikely any court is going to completely clear her of any liability for copyright infringement. Though it is possible that Thomas’ team reckon the RIAA are so desperate to be rid of this legal dispute they might be persuaded to settle for next to nothing, or maybe the lowest damages payment the court could demand under US copyright rules, which is eighteen grand.
