It all started in 2007 when a jury hit Thomas with a $222,000 verdict when she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs using the file-sharing client Kazaa. In 2008 Thomas appealed this verdict and a mistrial was declared, with the judge ruling that the fines were “disproportionate to the damages suffered.”

The case went up for re-trial before a new jury in 2009 where Thomas lost and was ordered to pay $1.92 million in fines. She then filed for a re-trial and in November 2010 a jury again found her guilty and awarded a total sum of $1.5 million .

Last year the case moved in another direction. Describing the massive damages as “monstrous and shocking” U.S. District Judge Michael Davis significantly reduced the earlier fine. Instead of $1.5 million, the judge ruled that $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum consistent with due process.

“The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable,” Judge Davis wrote.

The RIAA was disappointed by the verdict of the federal court, and is now hoping to reinstate the initial $222,000 damages award through an appeal. This week the music lobby group filed a brief in which they claim that this amount is not “monstrous and shocking,” and neither was the $1.5 million fine.

“Neither the first jury’s $9,250-per-work award nor the third jury’s $62,500-per-work award is more substantial than the Constitution allows,” the RIAA concludes.

The RIAA further criticizes Judge Davis’ ruling that any fine higher than $2,250 per infringed song requires some proof of actual damages. In other words, the RIAA would have to show that there is “some” relation with actual damages suffered by the copyright holder. According to the RIAA, neither the copyright act nor the due process clause requires this.

“Neither its legal analysis nor its factual analysis supports the court’s holding that the relationship between actual and statutory damages renders any award greater than $2,250 per work unconstitutional,” writes the RIAA.

The RIAA is not alone in their assessment, as they are now joined by the MPAA who this week filed an amicus brief in the case.

“That ruling improperly would require copyright owners who elect statutory damages to present proof of actual damages. Requiring such proof would significantly alter well-established ground rules for copyright litigation, add substantial practical burdens and unreasonably increase the costs of pursuing such litigation,” the MPAA writes.

In addition, the RIAA argues that Judge Davis made a mistake by ruling that “making a work available” is not part of the distribution right protected by the Copyright Act.

“The District Court erred in rejecting the first jury’s verdict on the mistaken ground that the Copyright Act does not protect the copyright holder’s long-established exclusive right to control the terms on which a work is ‘made available’ to the public,” the RIAA writes.

Again, the MPAA sides with the RIAA in its writing to the court.

“That right is, in fact, an international copyright norm. The right has particular importance in a digital age where unauthorized third parties routinely make available valuable copyrighted works for instantaneous dissemination to millions of Internet users around the globe,” they write.

It is now up to the court to decide if the arguments provided by the billion dollar entertainment companies hold any ground.

To be continued, indefinitely.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

It all started in 2007 when a jury hit Jammie Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 verdict in her case against the RIAA. Thomas-Rasset later appealed and in 2008 a mistrial was declared, with the judge ruling that the fines were “disproportionate to the damages suffered.”

The case went up for re-trial before a new jury last year and again a guilty verdict was reached with even harsher fines than first time around. Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $80,000 per infringement mounting up to a total of $1.92 million in fines.

Fast forward a few months and this jury-awarded fine was reduced significantly to $54,000 at the beginning of this year, as the excessive damages were ruled to be unconstitutional.

Then this week, the appeal of the retrial was heard and once again the RIAA/Capitol Records came out as the big winner. The jury decided that Thomas-Rasset has to pay a $62,500 fine per shared song which adds up to a total of $1.5 million (compare that to Germany).

A massive win for the RIAA again, but not one that will benefit any musicians.

Previously, the RIAA told TorrentFreak that if they manage to recoup any of the damages, it will not go to the artists but will instead be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” RIAA’s Jonathan Lamy said.

The RIAA sees these cases not as a means to recoup money, but as a good way to communicate their anti-piracy message to the public. These cases create awareness about the consequences illicit file-sharing may have, the group argues. That they lose money on them by paying millions in lawyer fees is a calculated decision.

Even after this third jury verdict the RIAA is set to get even more exposure, as this re-retrial is probably not the end of the road. Thomas-Rasset’s legal team has already announced that they will file a new appeal.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

BDE doesn’t want to limit their service to music downloads though, and they recently introduced a groundbreaking new feature.

According to the press release issued yesterday they are about to “shake up the online media industry.” Their masterplan? They will implement new technology that will allow their users to share photos, videos and even documents with each other.

This announcement is indeed quite a shocker. However, the press release has more surprises in it, such as the following product endorsement (or warning) by a ‘web hacker’ named Jonathan James.

“Jonathan James, Web Hacker spoke of the endless possibilities the software provides to the Kazaa community. “They are going to come at you like they came at ‘tereastarr,’” the press release reads.

First of all, it is kind of strange to include an endorsement from a seemingly unknown hacker in a press release. This aside, the statement doesn’t make much sense at all to those who have never heard of ‘tereastarr,’ and even less sense to those who do.

As P2P blog points out, ‘tereastarr’ was the Kazaa username of Jammie Thomas who was slapped with a $1.92 million verdict in her case against the RIAA last month. Thomas had been found guilty of sharing 24 songs using Kazaa, and was fined $80,000 per track.

Not really the sort of person you want to refer to in a press-release to ‘promote’ a product, unless you want to imply that the people who use your legal service might face such fines as well. The strangeness doesn’t stop there though.

The quote attributed to Jonathan James is in fact a quote from Jammie Thomas’ lawyer Joe Sibley who used the one-liner in her trial.

To make things even more disturbing, the web hacker Jonathan James most likely refers to Jonathan Joseph James, a convicted NASA hacker who ended his own life last year at the age of 24. Again, not an ideal person to quote and a particularly unhelpful image to paint when promoting a product.

The sentence has now been removed from the original press release indicating that Kazaa indeed regrets publishing this fabricated and insulting quote. Nevertheless, it can still be found online on several sites that copied the original release.

So what happened here? Did Kazaa think it was funny to put the names of Thomas and James in its press release? Have they lost their minds completely? We sincerely hope that this wasn’t intentional and that they’ve been pranked by some wannabe PR-agency.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.