Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Jammie Thomas-Rasset's judgment lowered by district court judge

Copyright infringement judgment reduced from $1.5 million to $54,000

It seems as if the case has dragged on longer than Iron Butterfly's "Innagadavida." Today, there's another update in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset-Recording Industry Association of America saga. And it appears to be good news for Thomas-Rasset. A U.S. District Court Judge has reduced Thomas' original judgment of $1.5 million down to $54,000.

The RIAA sued Thomas-Rasset in 2006, claiming copyright infringement for uploading 24 songs, and the case has bounced around in the courts ever since. Thomas-Rasset refused to settle the copyright complaint brought against her. But when it went to trial, two juries found her liable for large awards, but both of those were tossed out by Davis. It was the third jury that came down hard—slamming Thomas-Rasset with a judgment of $62,500 per song (or $1.5 million total).

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis wrote, "The court is intimately familiar with this case. It has presided over three trials on this matter and has decided countless motions. It has grappled with the outrageously high verdict returned in a case that was the first of its kind to go to trial. The court is loath to interfere with the jury's damages decision. However, the Constitution and justice compel the Court to act."

Read more about the decision.


Cathleen Flahardy

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.