Harvard hotshot leads defence at U.S. file-sharing defendant's retrial
The Minnesota woman who became the only music file-sharing defendant in the United States so far to go to trial is getting a replay Monday two years after losing the case, with what could be some formidable legal backing.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described "huge music fan," will be armed with aggressive new lawyers when her retrial begins in federal court here Monday.
The lawsuit is among the last vestiges of an anti-piracy campaign that the recording industry ultimately dropped amid widespread criticism. The Recording Industry Association of America said in December it had stopped filing lawsuits like these and would work instead with internet service providers to cut access to those it deems illegal file-sharers. But the recording industry plans to proceed with already-filed cases.
Thomas-Rasset is the rare defendant who has fought back.
Music companies have filed more than 30,000 similar copyright lawsuits in recent years against people they accused of illegally swapping songs through internet file-sharing services such as Kazaa. None of the others has made it to trial yet.
Faced with huge legal bills, most settled for an average of about $3,500 US, even if they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, notes the settlements add up to more than $100 million; the RIAA contends its legal costs exceeded the settlement money it brought in.
The defence is now being handled by Camara and his partner, who agreed to take the case for free after the court last month relieved her previous attorney, Brian Toder, who had put in nearly $130,000 worth of unpaid time.
Camara, who's about to turn 25, was just 19 when he became the youngest person ever to graduate from Harvard Law School, and he graduated with high honours. He and his partner at their Houston law firm, Joe Sibley, 34, a classmate, were already involved in a couple of similar cases.
He said they agreed to defend Thomas-Rasset for free in hopes of setting precedents for other cases.
The lawsuits have turned into a public relations nightmare for the recording industry, putting music companies in the position of going after their most ardent fans. Blogs and media reports have highlighted heavy-handed tactics against several improbable targets.
Previous lawsuits have attracted criticism
In 2006, for example, the industry dropped a lawsuit against Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother in Oregon. Andersen said she had been misidentified and never downloaded the music she was accused of stealing. Industry representatives allegedly threatened to question her 10-year-old daughter if she didn't pay up.
And in 2007, the companies backed off their attempt to sue an elderly Texas grandmother, Rhonda Crain, who had been displaced by Hurricane Rita in 2005 and said she never downloaded music. They settled for no money, just her agreement not to download any music illegally.
Camara said he hoped to turn Thomas-Rasset's retrial into a trial against the RIAA, both before the jury and in the court of public opinion. A win by the defence, he said, could undermine the other music-sharing cases.
"What you'll see in Minneapolis will be the first battle in what we think will be a successful campaign against the recording industry," Camara said.
RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth insisted the music companies will again prevail, just as they had in 2007 when a federal jury in Duluth found Thomas-Rasset violated copyrights by offering 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network. She was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages, or $9,250 per song.
"The facts in evidence have not changed in this case," Duckworth said. "We're confident that a new jury will see it no differently from the first time around."
Duckworth said the group doesn't have figures on cases still pending, but the industry will press ahead with them, saying it had to pursue those "who have regularly illegally downloaded music and thumbed their nose at the law and the legal process."
Nor did Duckworth have figures on how many defendants decided to settle after Thomas-Rasset lost.
"Suffice to say, the first trial generated a fair amount of attention and certainly caused a number of people to think twice about downloading music illegally," she said.
Error in jury instruction leads to retrial
Thomas-Rasset, who still denies any illegal song swapping, is getting a retrial after U.S. District Judge Michael Davis decided last September he erred in telling jurors the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
The companies suing 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.