Differences between Jammie Thomas and RIAA
Jammie Thomas vs. RIAA
The case of Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States to be tried by a jury.[1] The legal battle between Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother from Minnesota, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing major record labels, highlighted the contentious issue of online copyright infringement and the penalties for file-sharing.[1][2] While the RIAA had sued thousands of individuals for similar activities, most cases were settled out of court for an average of $3,000 to $3,500.[3][2] Thomas-Rasset, however, chose to fight the allegations in court.[2]
The lawsuit, initiated in 2006, accused Thomas-Rasset of illegally downloading and sharing 24 copyrighted songs using the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.[1][2] The case went through three separate jury trials and multiple appeals, with damage awards fluctuating dramatically.[4][1] The first trial in 2007 resulted in a verdict of $222,000 against Thomas-Rasset, but the judge ordered a new trial due to concerns about the jury instructions regarding the concept of "making available" copyrighted files.[4][5] A second trial in 2009 led to a much larger award of $1.92 million, which the judge deemed "shocking" and "monstrous" and subsequently reduced.[2] A third trial in 2010 resulted in a $1.5 million verdict.[2] The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately reinstated the original $222,000 award in 2012.
The case brought to the forefront the debate over statutory damages in copyright law, with Thomas-Rasset's defense arguing that the awarded amounts were unconstitutionally excessive. Conversely, the RIAA maintained that the lawsuits were a necessary measure to combat widespread music piracy that was damaging the recording industry.
Comparison Table
| Category | Jammie Thomas-Rasset | Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Argument | Argued she was not the individual who shared the files and that the damages sought were disproportionate and unconstitutional.[1] | Represented record labels, arguing that unauthorized downloading and sharing of copyrighted music caused significant financial harm to the industry. |
| Legal Strategy | Contested the allegations in a jury trial, challenging the evidence and the interpretation of copyright law regarding "making available."[4] | Initiated thousands of lawsuits against individuals to deter file-sharing, with most cases intended to end in out-of-court settlements.[2] |
| Number of Songs in Dispute | 24 songs were the focus of the lawsuit.[1] | Alleged that Thomas-Rasset had made over 1,700 music files available for sharing. |
| Initial Settlement Offer | Declined an initial offer to settle the case for $5,000.[1] | Offered settlements to thousands of individuals, typically in the range of a few thousand dollars, to avoid trial.[3][2] |
| Outcome of First Trial | Found liable for $222,000 in damages, which was later vacated by the trial judge.[4] | Initially won a $222,000 judgment before it was set aside.[5] |
| Highest Damage Award | A jury in a subsequent trial awarded the RIAA $1.92 million.[2] | The highest jury award in the case was $1.92 million.[2] |
| Final Resolution | The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately reinstated the original $222,000 damage award. | Succeeded in obtaining a final judgment of $222,000 against Thomas-Rasset. |
Legal and Public Reaction
The legal proceedings in the Thomas-Rasset case hinged on key interpretations of copyright law. A central issue was whether simply making files available in a shared folder on a peer-to-peer network constituted distribution under the law, even without proof that anyone had actually downloaded them.[5] The trial judge initially instructed the jury that it did, a decision he later concluded was a mistake, leading to the first verdict being overturned.[4]
The case drew significant public attention and sparked a wider debate about the RIAA's litigation strategy. Critics of the RIAA's approach described the lawsuits as overly aggressive and intended to intimidate individuals into settling. The large, fluctuating damage awards in the Thomas-Rasset case were pointed to as evidence of a flawed system of statutory damages for non-commercial copyright infringement.[2] The RIAA defended its actions as a necessary response to the widespread illegal distribution of music, which they argued was causing a decline in album sales and harming artists and the industry as a whole.
Ultimately, the long legal battle concluded with a final judgment against Thomas-Rasset. The case remains a notable example in the history of digital copyright law and the efforts of the recording industry to address the challenges of the internet age.[2]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 "wikipedia.org". Retrieved February 02, 2026.
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 "dmcaforce.com". Retrieved February 02, 2026.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 "computerworld.com". Retrieved February 02, 2026.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 "eff.org". Retrieved February 02, 2026.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 "betanews.com". Retrieved February 02, 2026.
