Thomas' Testimony and the RIAA's Near-Fatal Error

eldavojohn writes "The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in its second stage and in full swing. Yesterday, two major events took place: Thomas gave her surprising testimony and the RIAA was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel. Thomas claimed she didn't know what KaZaA was before the trial started. She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement. Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since.' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005. The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it. The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial. It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer."

Comments

What is Thomas' Endgame?

[ultraexactzz]

In this case, a guilty verdict isn't at all a bad thing, if the damages are reasonable. If damages of $200,000 or more are awarded, then the RIAA strategy is validated. They prove that they can win, and that they can win significant damages. It would also give credence to their "Settle or we'll sue for all your money" letters, as an award of that scale could easily wipe anyone out, house and all.

For Thomas, the endgame is the reverse. I'm not at all sure she can show that she is innocent, given her testimony - which is a shame, but not unexpected. Her goal must be to somehow limit the damages to a reasonable amount. Doing so sets precedent - if the RIAA can expect only a few thousand for a case that goes to trial, then it ceases to be profitable for them to try. The settlements will become more affordable, or may go away - why spend $1,000 on an attorney to get a $500 settlement back?

Were I in Thomas's place, I would be far more worried about the Perjury thing, which is an actual criminal offense. She said one thing under oath, and then said another thing under oath, and the statements are not compatible. So, we're in a position where she might win the trial (or get reduced and affordable damages), but end up in jail with a massive fine for lying under oath. Not good.