So, the long running Jammie Thomas P2P legal case continues. As previously reported, Thomas was the first recipient of the Recording Industry Association Of America's many P2P legal actions to go before a jury, and that jury found her guilty of copyright infringement for illegally making 24 songs available to share via that ah-yes-remember-the-old-days P2P file sharing network Kazaa. As a result she was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages to six affected record companies.
But, as also previously reported, some legal experts said that the judge in the case - US District Judge Michael J Davis - gave incorrect instructions to the jury before they considered their verdict, and that those instructions "substantially prejudiced" her rights. Davis yesterday admitted that he had, indeed, made an error in his briefing of the jury, and as a result said Thomas could opt to have a retrial.
There has been some concern in parts of the legal community also as to the size of the damages Thomas was ordered to pay, and Davis yesterday also called on Congress to cap such damage payments so that in future similar cases individuals guilty of sharing a handful of tracks via P2P won't face such steep financial penalties. He didn't, however, overrule Thomas' original fine, though given she now has the option of a retrial there was possibly no need.
On the size of the damages, he said that while he recognises that record companies have lost out because of illegal file sharing, and that "the Court does not condone Thomas' actions" that "it would be a farce to say that a single mother's acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market".
The issue on which Davis incorrectly briefed the jury was the old chestnut of whether a record company has to prove that someone actually illegally downloaded the music which the defendant, ie Thomas, made available via P2P. The labels downloaded copies themselves - so the potential to download was undeniably there - but the law is a bit grey on whether being responsible for enabling potential infringement is sufficient to be found guilty of actual infringement. The labels say it is, but those who support those accused of P2P copyright infringement argue that the law does not go that far.
Of course it's a technicality really, though in theory if a court found that enabling the potential for infringement wasn't sufficient, it could have an impact on past and future legal cases where the RIAA has only gathered evidence that files were made available, not that those files were actually downloaded.
Thomas's legal rep Brian Toder is yet to comment on Judge Davis's ruling, or on whether Thomas will request a retrial. The RIAA says it is reviewing the ruling and will comment later this week.