Woman hit with $220k bill in file-sharing case

A woman from Minnesota must pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels after a US federal jury found she violated their copyright.

Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out in court with the recording industry instead of settling for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury.

Many of the 26,000 persons sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (Riaa) since 2003 have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Thomas, who could not be reached for comment, has always maintained her innocence. Accused of sharing music with peer-to-peer file-sharing service, Kazaa, she argued that she didn't even own a Kazaa account.

The jury didn't buy her argument. Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the Riaa concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs. The decision is important in that it sends a message to file sharers that the anonymity the internet provides won't protect them from lawsuits, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and long-time music industry executive.

He said it's easy to hide on the web and very difficult for copyright owners to prove who was sitting at a computer at any given time. What is precedent setting in this case is the jury decided that it doesn't matter who was sharing music on Thomas' computer.

Castle said: "The answer that the court gave was 'it's your account, you're responsible'. It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it."

This is unlikely to be the end of the case, according to Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). After the jury returned its verdict on Thomas, he said he had heard from several copyright attorneys who had expressed interest in representing her should she want to appeal the decision.

He said: "There are a lot of copyright lawyers who would be interested in helping her if that she wants to continue this. I'd imagine that she doesn't want to pay $200,000. We'll see what she wants to do."

The recording industry has claimed to have lost billions of dollars to online file sharing. Ever since the original Napster emerged in the late 1990s, the Riaa has been playing - and some say losing - a game of cat and mouse with file sharers.

The Riaa has always said suing individuals is a last resort. The group combats file sharing through a combination of tactics that include educational programmes and legal action against sites accused of encouraging file sharing.

When the Riaa does sue individuals, settlements and judgments are generally reinvested into the group's anti-piracy programme, said a Riaa spokesman. "This is not a money-making venture," he added.

About the judgment he said: "This decision affirms what we've said all along. This kind of action is illegal and when people break the law there can be real consequences."

Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director, called the verdict "heartbreaking" and said it was proof of how out of step damages for copyright law have become.

Cohn said: "The laws were written for pirates, guys pressing scores of DVDs. I think this judgment is a clear indication that damages for copyright laws need to be adjusted to reflect today's reality. A mom in her home isn't the same as a pirate but the copyright law doesn't see any difference."

Ira Rothken, who has defended dozens of companies accused of encouraging copyright violations, noted the jury made its decision without finding that Thomas had actually shared files. Jurors ruled against Thomas based on the fact she had only made files available.

Rothken, who is currently defending TorrentSpy, a search engine accused by the movie industry of violating copyright, said: "That may be a basis for an appeal. There are lots of people who theoretically make things available unintentionally. It happens all the time, whenever you deep link and there is something out there that you are not aware of. Availability alone may not be enough to show copyright infringement."

As to whether the court's decision will discourage file sharing, people from both sides of the copyright argument, said "no".

Cohn said: "This lawsuit campaign is misguided. I would predict that this would have zero effect on the people using file sharing networks. The record industry has sued over 20,000 so far and there's been no slow down. We may see a temporary drop in the near term but I would predict that the levels would be back within six months."

But that's not the point, said Castle, the attorney and former record-industry executive. He said the music industry has no interest in bankrupting music fans but has a duty to curb the theft of its property. He predicted that the Riaa will not require Thomas to pay the full amount of the jury award.

Greg Sandoval writes for CNET News.com