PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.

Jammie Thomas Refuses To Pay $1.5 Million Fine For Illegal Downloads

 & Sara Yin Junior software analyst

Our team tests, rates, and reviews more than 1,500 products each year to help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.

Our Expert
LOOK INSIDE PC LABS HOW WE TEST
65 EXPERTS
43 YEARS
41,500+ REVIEWS

A Minneapolis mother is refusing to pay a $1.5 million fine for illegally downloading 24 songs, arguing she simply "can't."

Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been battling the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for the last four years in one of the RIAA's "top 3" longest-running cases, an RIAA spokeswoman said, basically since the industry body discovered 1,700 songs in her shared folder on P2P site KaZaA. The big four record labels successfully sued her on 24 of those songs.

"Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," the RIAA said in a statement.

But according to the Associated Press, that won't be happening.

"I can't afford to pay any amount. It's not a matter of won't, it's a matter of 'I can't,'" Thomas-Rasset said Thursday, according to the AP. "Any amount that I pay to them is money that I could use to feed my children. Any amount that I pay to them is money I could use to clothe my kids, and pay my mortgage so my kids have a place to sleep."

Her attorney, Joe Sibley, called the fine amount unconstitutional and will move the district court to have the judgment struck down. If that fails, he will appeal to the 8th Circuit, he told PCMag.

Wednesday's verdict is the third in four years, along with multiple settlement offers from the RIAA. In 2005, when Thomas-Rasset's file-sharing actions were first picked up by the RIAA, Duckworth said the defendant was offered a $5,000 settlement. Thomas-Rasset refused on the grounds that she never used KaZaA.

That's when the recording companies brought Thomas-Rasset to court. In the first trial of Capitol v. Thomas held in October 2007, Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $222,000, or $9,250 per song. The verdict was thrown out when the judge decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

In the second trial held last June, she was ordered to pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song, which Davis later reduced to a total of $54,000. Capitol rejected the adjustment. The RIAA also offered to settle for $25,000, or $1,041 per song, with the money going to a charity for struggling musicians, Music Cares. Thomas-Rasset refused again.

According to Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, the more troubling issue is Thomas-Rasset's denial of any wrongdoing.

"Even her lawyers agreed that she broke the law," said Duckworth, who attended the trial this week. "But when she's on the stand she continues to deny responsibility."

"We are always willing to work with people when they call us and own up to their actions, we've done that with other defendants," she added.

And in case you're wondering, how does someone who won't settle for $5,000 afford four years' worth of legal fees? Sibley says her legal representation, worth roughly $100,000, was either pro bono or donated through a legal defense fund.

About Our Expert

Sara Yin

Sara Yin

Junior software analyst

Sara Yin is a junior analyst in the Software, Internet, and Networking group at PCmag.com, pouring most of her energy into app testing and security matters at Security Watch with Neil Rubenking. She lies awake at night pondering the state of mobile security (half-true). Prior to joining PCMag.com, Sara spent five years reporting for publications in New York City (Huffington Post), Hong Kong (South China Morning Post), and Singapore (Campaign Asia, Men's Health). Follow her on Twitter at @SecurityWatch and @sarapyin, or contact her the old school way: email. That's sara_yin AT pcmag.com.

Read full bio