$1.92 million to the music industry.

[Nickswitz]

MINNEAPOLIS - A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address - the online equivalent of a street address - and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,"' he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp. , Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

From USA Today, I don't have the link because I used my USA Today app on my iPod touch. Sorry.

[Tsukiyumi]

I read this myself yesterday. $80,000 a song. Riiiight.

I'm a musician myself, so I understand why this could be a problem, but the most outspoken critics of filesharing are invariably people who already have millions of dollars, plus massive endorsement deals (which means free instruments and equipment). Losers.

Radiohead let people just download their latest album for free, or pay if you felt like it. That's class.

[Tyyr]

And if I recall they weren't doing too bad in terms of the money they were making from it.

I'm hard pressed to declare this woman unjustly punished since what she did is in fact illegal. However on the flip side that's like handing the woman a twenty year jail sentence for a rolling stop at a stop sign.

The music industry is a dinosaur that's fighting its own extinction tooth and nail but doesn't realize its already a skeleton mounted in a museum. It's internet roadkill but won't admit it. Rather than work with new technology they tried to fight it and got raped by progress instead. The movie industry is heading the same way. Monopolies don't innovate terribly well.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well this is just ridiculous.

[Teaos]

I can see it both ways as weel. What she did was illegal, but they must know they will never get that moneu off her so why bother with her.

And I still dont really get how out of the millions of people who downloaded stuff its only her that gets brought to court.

[Tyyr]

Simple, you can't bring millions of lawsuits. So they picked one average woman who they had a clear cut case against and decided to crucify her to make an example of her.

[Aaron]

And if I recall they weren't doing too bad in terms of the money they were making from it.

I'm hard pressed to declare this woman unjustly punished since what she did is in fact illegal. However on the flip side that's like handing the woman a twenty year jail sentence for a rolling stop at a stop sign.

The music industry is a dinosaur that's fighting its own extinction tooth and nail but doesn't realize its already a skeleton mounted in a museum. It's internet roadkill but won't admit it. Rather than work with new technology they tried to fight it and got raped by progress instead. The movie industry is heading the same way. Monopolies don't innovate terribly well.

I'd rather be in jail, at least I would be able to eat rather then have my wages seized until I die.

[Mikey]

The fact of how much money the people have who are bringing the suit is irrelevant. If you steal my TV, it doesn't matter if I have $5 or $5 million - you're still a thief. Class would be those rich people bringing the suit to sue for a dollar, just to get the verdict; but it doesn't bear at all on her guilt or innocence.

[Tsukiyumi]

The fact of how much money the people have who are bringing the suit is irrelevant. If you steal my TV, it doesn't matter if I have $5 or $5 million - you're still a thief. Class would be those rich people bringing the suit to sue for a dollar, just to get the verdict; but it doesn't bear at all on her guilt or innocence.

Okay, I'll agree partially with that.

If the album or song in question is no longer in production, the artist won't get any money for it's resale. Why, then, would it be an issue to them if I download it for free?

[Mikey]

If the album or song in question is no longer in production, the artist won't get any money for it's resale.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Apple Records isn't still around, but Sir Paul still gets paid every time someone plays "Hey Jude."

[Aaron]

The fact of how much money the people have who are bringing the suit is irrelevant. If you steal my TV, it doesn't matter if I have $5 or $5 million - you're still a thief. Class would be those rich people bringing the suit to sue for a dollar, just to get the verdict; but it doesn't bear at all on her guilt or innocence.

I'm not disputing her guilt, yeah there's no doubt that she is that but this verdict is essentially making her an indentured servant.

[Aaron]

[

I'm not sure that's accurate. Apple Records isn't still around, but Sir Paul still gets paid every time someone plays "Hey Jude."

That's because copyright law in regards to music and video is fucked, why should a musician (or rather the company) get paid essentially forever for a work? Music isn't like drugs, mechanical devices or things of that ilk. It doesn't provide us with anything to make the world better, it's entertainment.

[Tsukiyumi]

If the album or song in question is no longer in production, the artist won't get any money for it's resale.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Apple Records isn't still around, but Sir Paul still gets paid every time someone plays "Hey Jude."

Yes, but if someone buys a used copy of the album from a record store, he doesn't. Plus, they still put out "greatest hits" compilations with some of those songs on them, and so still make money from it.

The same can't be said for Helmet's Meantime, or Frank Zappa's Burnt Weeny Sandwich, for example.

[Lazar]

And if I recall they weren't doing too bad in terms of the money they were making from it.

IIRC, no one has actually proved that illegal downloads hurt sales.

I'm hard pressed to declare this woman unjustly punished since what she did is in fact illegal. However on the flip side that's like handing the woman a twenty year jail sentence for a rolling stop at a stop sign.

What I don't get is how the hell did she cause them $80k in damages per song?

[Tyyr]

IIRC, no one has actually proved that illegal downloads hurt sales.

I don't think they've had the negative impact that's claimed simply because I don't buy CD's anymore, I buy MP3's. So while I've "hurt" record sales by not buying a physical record I'm still paying for the song.

What I don't get is how the hell did she cause them $80k in damages per song?

Punitive damages.