New trial granted in Internet piracy case

A judge granted a new trial Wednesday for a Brainerd woman ordered in a landmark verdict to pay $222,000 to record companies for sharing music illegally over the Internet.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he erred in jury instructions and that his error "substantially prejudiced" Jammie Thomas' rights, but he also implored Congress to reform copyright law to prevent similarly "oppressive" awards in music file-sharing cases.

In a verdict hailed by the recording industry last fall, a jury in Duluth found that Thomas, 30, willfully violated the copyrights of six recording companies and owed them $222,000.

Though the Brainerd woman denied sharing any music files and suggested she may have been the victim of a computer "spoof," jurors said the evidence proved she made 24 songs on her computer available to users of the Kazaa file-sharing network. The jury set damages of $9,250 for each song.

But in May, Davis notified attorneys in the case that he may have made a "manifest error of law" when he instructed the jury that simply making the songs available for sharing could be considered illegal distribution, even without proof that anyone actually downloaded them.

Attorneys for the industry argued in a hearing last month that they showed proof that the songs were downloaded -- by recording industry investigators. Thomas' attorney argued that downloads by investigators authorized by the industry to receive them do not constitute copyright infringement.

The case drew national attention as the first Internet piracy suit by the recording industry against a customer to go to trial. The Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] said at the time that the verdict and its aggressive letter-writing campaign to colleges were spreading the word that people can pay a severe penalty for illegally sharing music.

In addition to ordering a new trial, Davis also wrote that Congress should change the Copyright Act to prevent excessive awards in such cases. He said the damage award against Thomas was more than 4,000 times the actual cost of the 24 songs, and that damages more in the range of 100 times the cost of the songs would be sufficient to deter illegal sharing.

"Her alleged acts were illegal, but common," he wrote. "Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive."

Reached by telephone last night at her home, Thomas said she felt "vindicated" by the ruling. She said she was grateful to Davis for recognizing his error.

"Anyone willing to do that pretty much tells you what kind of person they are," she said. "He's being more than fair. He's reading the law the way it's supposed to be read."

Thomas, who early on turned down an opportunity to settle her case for a nominal amount, said she remains committed to fighting the industry if it pursues a new trial.

Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, said, "The decision was not unexpected, given the court's previous comments. Regardless of this narrow issue, a jury of her own peers unanimously found Ms. Thomas liable for copyright theft and for causing significant harm to the music community."

He said the industry remains confident of its case and "will assess our legal options and make an appropriate decision for moving forward."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.