10/10/2007

in

One juror from the landmark Capital Records vs. Jammie Thomas reports that some members of the jury had hoped to fine Thomas over $3 million for her infractions.

Susie Kopecky

Some wanted $18,000, others wanted $3.6 million. Are these the demands of celebrities? No -- in fact, they are some suggested fines for Jammie Thomas, the individual whom the RIAA took to task (and to court) over 24 downloaded songs. In the end, Thomas was fined $9,250 per downloaded song, totaling up to $222,000 in the RIAA's zealous mission to punish music sharers.  
  
In a report in DailyTech, one of the jurors from the case, Michael Hegg, spoke out in an interview with THREAT LEVEL. Hegg reported that the jury, like many Americans, was split over how to to punish Thomas, if at all. According to Hegg, one juror wanted to fine Thomas the minimum amount, $750 per song for a total fine of $18,000, while two other jurors wanted to slap Thomas with a maximum fine of $150,000 for every piece of copyrighted artistic material, i.e. song, for a grand total of $3.6 million in damages. A lesser, but still hefty fine of $222,000 was levied in the end.  
  
Hegg's biggest complaint with Thomas? Her tactics to evade getting in trouble, such as claiming to have been hacked and handing in a different hard drive as evidence: "She's a liar. She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. \[The verdict was\] a compromise, yes, we wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned... She lied. There was no defense. Her defense sucked."  
  
It is interesting to ponder whether or not Thomas' punishment may have been more lenient if she had been honest and straightforward in the details of the case.  
  
Hegg explained that he and other jurors aimed to make a point -- let the punishment fit the crime. However, did this punishment truly fit the crime?  
  
Whether or not Thomas' appeal will win out will be the next step in the new era of questions regarding digital copyright infringement.