Though the record companies had a minor victory in the MGM V. Grokster case, the Record Industry Association of America had came to terms with the fact that even the president of the United States shares files on his portable music player. Even though, the RIAA was not satisfied from this decision. People were still downloading files and sharing music on the internet. Something had to be done. It took only four years of filing lawsuits, dismissing them on inability to state claim (Interscope v. Rodrigues) or by stating that merely paying for internet connections is not a cause (Capitol v. Foster), the time where the defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit had to come to terms with hearing her case in court.

This case was brought against a jury. However, one should understand that a jury trial is the default rule when material facts are disputed in legal cases in the US. Unlike the US, the Israeli court system does not have a jury panel, and the jury’s position, on determining facts, is taken by the judge. Therefore, in the end of the trial, the jury is presented with a question, or a set of questions, where their answer results in the case’s outcome. The question the jury faces usually is “Did X happen?”; stating the right question is the only way where the jury can get the just result. For example, in Embry v. Hagadine the Court of Appeals in Missouri the court reversed the Jury’s finding that no contract was made between parties since:

It is assigned for error that the court required the jury, in order to return a verdict for appellant, not only to find the conversation occurred as appellant swore, but that both parties intended by such conversation to contract with each other for plaintiff’s employment for the year from December, 1903, at a salary of $ 2,000. . . . Therefore it remains to determine whether or not this part of the instruction was a correct statement of the law in regard to what was necessary to constitute a contract between the parties; that is to say, whether the formation of a contract by what, according to Embry was said, depended on the intention of both Embry and McKittrick. Or, to put the question more precisely, did what was said constitute a contract of re-employment on the previous terms irrespective of the intention or purpose of McKittrick?

Therefore, the question brought to the jury is quite important. As Ray Beckerman explained, the question the jury had to answer was whether the defendant had made the files “Publicly Available”. That’s all. If the jury found the answer to that question positive, all her other claims were moot. No reasons given, no big words, no other matters, all this case was narrowed to this one question. This is how it works under the US legal system. (see also)

On a side note, unlike Israel’s Themarker.com article about the case, Thomas was not convicted but found liable, this is not a criminal case and Thomas is not considered a criminal. This is a concept one has to grasp if he wishes to understand this case and to deal with future cases. As long as we are discussing civil lawsuits, it is only for the money

The question in Capitol v. Thomas can shed light on most infringement cases that will come later. The first of many jury trials usually marks an Icon. Failure to hold liable in this case would have meant that the RIAA would have to work harder and spend millions of dollars in more lawsuits just to lose the money to the fans the sue. Different outcomes would have set standards of proving copyright infringement occurred, where claims such as hacking into your wireless connection occurred or someone hacked into your system. These claims might have assisted someone, but now, when Thomas was found liable, none could use them as a “general excuse”.

Defending yourself against a file-sharing lawsuit may not be the best weekend vacation, even if you’re an experienced computer Geek or a Tech-Lawyer. Thomas was found liable for making 24 songs available to the public and was ordered to pay a substantial amount. However, had she been ordered to pay the maximum amount of statutory damages, the sum of 220,000 US$ would have been just a minor portion of her payment.