Jammie Thomas-Rasset verdict: The aftermath

By Eriq Gardner

Is there anybody who isn't stunned by yesterday's jury verdict in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case?

Thomas-Raset was found guilty of willfully violating the copyrights of various recording companies and ordered to pay $1.92 million, amounting to $80,000 per song she infringed.

The case may be heading for settlement now. 

"Kiwi Camara told reporters that settlement is indeed a possibility, as he candidly acknowledged that the jury did not believe his client," writes Ben Sheffner.

Echoing that thought, RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth is already saying that the industry is willing to put the case behind them. "Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," she said.

The RIAA has made the point it wanted to make. 

Originally, after U.S. District Judge Michael Davis threw out the original $222,000 verdict, the decision was hailed as one that would prevent the music industry from having enough legal ground to pursue individual pirates. Even after the RIAA declared it would be backing away from its aggressive legal posture against individual file-sharers, it pursued Thomas-Rasset, believing it couldn't let the only trial to reach a jury verdict end with the wrong message.

The RIAA won big yesterday — maybe too big.

The large monetary judgement has sparked anger from some non-legal observers, like Stan Schroeder at the Mashable blog, which calls yesterday's news "one of the most ridiculous verdicts I’ve seen."

As a result, many in the copyfight side are arguing that it's more important than ever to fight this case on appeal.

EFF's Fred von Lohmann outlines two potential constitutional challenges, including the "grossly excessive" punitive damage award and whether the jury is allowed to send a message to other potential infringers.

Still, since the RIAA's main motivation for pursuing this case seems to be PR, we believe this one will be wrapped up shortly.