Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas

Date: 10-05-2007

Case Number: 06-CV-01497

Judge: Michael J. Davis

Court: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Andrew Mohraz,

Richard Gabriel,

David Tonini Tim Reynolds of Holme, Roberts & Owens, LLP, Denver, Colorado

and

Felicia Boyd, Laura Coates, and

Kara Benson, Faegre & Benson, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Defendant's Attorney:

Brian Toder of Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Description:

Capitol Records, Inc.; Arista Records, LLC; Interscope Records; Sony BMG

Music Entertainment; UMG Records,

Inc. and Warner Bros Records, Inc. sued Jammie Thomas on a Copyright

Act, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, et seq. violation theory claiming that Thomas

downloaded and/or distributed 1,702 sound recordings on KaZaA.

Plaintiffs are recording companies that own or control exclusive rights

to copyrights in sound records, including 24 recordings specifically

described in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. On February 21, 2005,

Plaintiffs' investigator, SafeNet, Inc., detected an individual

distributing the recordings at issue using the Kazaa file sharing

service at IP

address 24.179.199.117. Plaintiffs claimed that Thomas owned and

controlled the

computer to which the IP address had been assigned by an ISP in

Minnesota and that she was distributing copyrighted sound records to

others without Plaintiffs' authorization. Defendant's ISP Charter

Communications identified Defendant as the subscriber associated with IP

address

24.179.199.117 on February 21, 2005 at approximately 11:00 P.M., when

the alleged unauthorized

downloads and distributions occurred. Defendant used the KaZaA

file-sharing program to download Plaintiffs' copyrighted Sound Records

to her computer and to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted Sound

Recordings from the KaZaA shared folder on her computer to the public

through her Internet account with her ISP. Plaintiffs claimed that

Defendant knew such conduct was unlawful, and acted willfully in

violating Plaintiffs' copyrights. Plaintiffs further claimed that

Defendant intentionally concealed her infringement and tried to escape

responsibility for her actions by providing the wrong hard drive to

Plaintiffs for inspection.

Thomas denied wrongdoing.

Outcome:

Plaintiffs' verdict for willful infringement in the total

amount of $222,000 or $9,250 per infringement.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Dr. Doug Jacobson, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Defendant's Experts:

None

Comments:

Editor's Note: This is one of approximately 26,000 cases filed by the RIAA recording companies against individuals who it claims downloaded and shared copyrighted sound records without authorization. The individuals who have been sued represented a small fraction of those worldwide who have engaged in the unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted sound records manufactured and sold by the recording industry. In the Editor's opinion, this lawsuit and others similar to him represent the last gasps of a business paradigm based on the recording methodology developed by Thomas Edison in the 19th Century. The ability to copy such records has existed since the development of the cassette recorder in the 1980s. The copying of sound recording from LPs to cassettes was common but time consuming and normally done for personal use. The development of digital recording technology when combined with the personal computer, the Internet and file sharing technology virtually guaranteed the end of the recording industry business model that has existed for decades. While the RIAA can use the copyright laws of the United States and its court system to punish a few for downloading and sharing copyrighted, the lawsuits are essentially being used to terrorize potential violators into stopping. It is essentially no different that a traffic cop catching a small percentage of the speeders on a highway. The suits will persuade some not to download copyrighted sound records out of fear of being caught but many will continue to do so. The question is: "Will the recording industry be able to survive in its current form?" I think not.

Judge Michael J. Davis granted Thomas a new trial on September 26, 2008.

About This Case

What was the outcome of Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas?

The outcome was: Plaintiffs' verdict for willful infringement in the total amount of $222,000 or $9,250 per infringement.

Which court heard Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County), MN. The presiding judge was Michael J. Davis.

Who were the attorneys in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas?

Plaintiff's attorney: Andrew Mohraz, Richard Gabriel, David Tonini Tim Reynolds of Holme, Roberts & Owens, LLP, Denver, Colorado and Felicia Boyd, Laura Coates, and Kara Benson, Faegre & Benson, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant's attorney: Brian Toder of Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

When was Capitol Records, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas decided?

This case was decided on October 5, 2007.