RIAA Defendant Seeks New Trial

As expected, Jammie Thomas, now on the hook for $222,000 in damages after being found guilty of copyright infringement, is appealing that verdict. Her grounds: The damages are unconstitutionally excessive.

Thomas's argument is an obvious one, and one that's been raised before: If songs sell for a dollar, why should she have to pay over $9,000 (and up to $150,000 according to the statute) for a single song being infringed upon? The only real reason is that the law says she has to, so her challenge is essentially a response against the excessive amount of damages set by the law itself.

She doesn't just have a logical point, she might also have a decent legal footing. During the trial, Sony BMG testified that it "had not stopped to calculate" what its actual damages might be due to Thomas's infringement. Essentially, the damages are punitive, and excess punitive damages have been considered unconstitutional in the past. (The courts have traditionally struck down punitive damages (PDF link) of more than about 10 times the level of compensatory damages.) Thomas's lawyer has asked for damages to be knocked down to the arena of about $20, roughly 20 times the cost of a downloaded song.

I think she has a case, but she also has to face a court system that's been historically tough on copyright infringement and more than happy to put stiff prison sentences on those caught, say, taking a camcorder into a movie theater. It's probably also going to take years to be resolved. Good luck, Jammie.

LINK: Appeal in RIAA case to focus on "unconstitutionally excessive" punishment