We just can't get enough of the recent story about the RIAA's recent victory over Janie Thomas of Minnesota, and we know you can't either. It had everything from a defendant that told different and mutually exclusive stories while under oath (albeit she did so at seperate trials) to a rare-as-hen's-teeth guilty verdict in favor of the RIAA resulting a $220,000 fine that Thomas plans to appeal after saying she was going to pay it all by herself without asking for help.
Now we're hearing that the $220,000 victory could have been a $3.6 million victory if two jurors had gotten their way. Here's the math:
“While some may feel the $9,250 per song fine levied against Thomas was extreme and unreasonable, she could have been far worse off, if a couple of the jurors had their way.
In an interview with THREAT LEVEL on Tuesday, Michael Hegg, one of the jurors from the case, reported that two jurors had tried to sway the other jurors to adopt the maximum fine per violation, $150,000 per piece of copyrighted material.
As Thomas was found guilty of 24 such violations, this would have resulted in a $3.6 million fine.”
$220,000 or $3,600,000, it honestly doesn't matter because even the RIAA can't squeeze blood from a turnip who earns less than $40,000 a year.