After an arduous week of further deliberation, the long fight between the RIAA and Jammie Thomas-Rasset shows no sign of ending anytime soon. Out of the thousands that have been sued for music piracy, Thomas-Rasset’s case is only one of two that have gone to trial (the other was Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum who had to pay $675,000 for 31 songs).

For downloading 24 songs and sharing them on file-sharing service Kazaa, in 2007 Thomas-Rasset was originally ordered to pay $222,000 to the RIAA. After winning an appeal to have a new trial, earlier this year she was fined a harsher $1.92 million, a whopping $80,000 per track.

U.S. Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis, who originally over turned the first case, reduced the fine from $1.92 million to only $54,000 on January 22nd. Davis said the first trial’s amount was “disproportionate” to the actual damages the RIAA incurred and this reduced fine was “significant and harsh” but no longer as “monstrous and shocking” as the original award had been. The RIAA was given the choice to accept the fine or ask for a third trial.

In response the RIAA went one step further and offered to settle the case for only $25,000 in a letter to Thomas-Rasset’s attorneys, who resiliently rejected both resolutions. The letter from the RIAA to Thomas-Rasset noted a third trial is not in anyone’s interest and would be “unwise and pointless”, but now it seems to be inevitable.

There are many ways to look at this. If a third trial will be held it will only focus on the issue of damages. That in itself will be extremely hard to decide. Judge Davis noted that statutory damages have both a deterrent and a compensatory purpose. Yet the reason why Davis reduced the fee in the first place was to hone in on an amount that related to the actual loss suffered by the record labels. There is also the case that rights groups such as EFF.org are questioning the constitutionality of ‘damages’, whether personal use should be included when the laws “were meant to be applied against commercial copyright infringers and not individuals such as Thomas-Rasset”.

On the other hand the accused has absolutely no intention of paying any fines whatsoever, and her representation is sticking with her. MediaPost reports, “Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers, says he intends to pursue the argument that damages of more than around $1 a song (the cost of a track online) are unconstitutional because they have no relationship to the actual damages in the case”.

Also Joe Sibley, Thomas-Rasset’s attorney released a statement, siding with his steadfast client that “she is going forward on principle…we believe the copyright damages provisions are unconstitutional because they bear no relationship to any actual harm to the copyright holders. Jammie will never agree to pay them anything and will fight until the bitter end”.

It’s hard to do anything but hide your head and wish for it to be all over, but a few things could come from this case if it ever does come to a close. If Thomas-Rasset was telling the truth that others used her account to infringe, and with mishaps in the past like Cathi Paradiso versus Qwest (being falsely accused by the MPAA of copyright violations and threatened with disconnection), it could call for some legislation for more precise methods and safeguards to prevent people from being wrongly accused. Also like I reported on last week, the balance between the courts, ISPs and the RIAA has yet to be found and depending on who the courts side on, it could give the RIAA the advantage, or it could give the ISPs more fuel to rebel as well.

Regardless of who is right, neither party is getting much support for dragging out this case. Whether the RIAA appeals the fine reduction or starts a third trial, it will add further negative press and could also be a huge waste of resources for little payout. Also Thomas-Rasset is no martyr. Her irregular testimonies have come under scrutiny, switching from swearing to have had no content on her computer to implicating her children and ex-boyfriend committing the crime…her refusal to accept responsibility doesn’t win her any favors either.

For now there is still a lot to be settled. The RIAA requested extra time to make their decision on whether or not to appeal Davis’s decision, or to prepare for a third trial. The precarious situation will certainly be one to follow, as the association seems to have been backed into a corner. How they choose to fight it out will determine both their remaining strength in the courts and how they will continue to battle against piracy.

Other readers also read:

R-O-C-K In The USA – ISPs START SINGING ALONG

Three Strikes Not a Done Deal in Europe

Net Neutrality Debates Relevance To Online Piracy