The RIAA wants its money—and, more importantly, its verdict—to be reinstated in the Jammie Thomas file-swapping case in Minnesota.

Thomas, who was fined over $200,000 last year for trading several songs online, was granted a new trial recently after the judge decided that one of his jury instructions was incorrect as a matter of law. That instruction said that jurors should consider Thomas guilty of "distributing" music even if the evidence only showed that she "made the files available."

After reconsidering that point, the judge ordered a new trial. This was a blow to the RIAA, as the Thomas case was the first file-sharing lawsuit to proceed all the way to a jury verdict. The trade group said that it would no doubt win any new trial, since it also had evidence that Thomas had actually distributed several of the songs, but it would obviously prefer not to go through the entire expensive ordeal once more, especially since the verdict would be issued anew (and might not go in the industry's favor).



Who knew Duluth, Minnesota's

courthouse could be so exciting?

Instead, the RIAA wants to appeal (PDF) to the Eighth Circuit—not the whole case, just the question about the jury instruction (hat tip to lawyer Ray Beckerman for pointing out the filing). The idea is that if the appeals court agrees with the RIAA, there's no reason to have a new trial, since we already have a verdict from a trial in which that instruction was used.

"Either now or after a full retrial, the September 24 Order will be appealed," says the RIAA. In its view, better to answer the question about the jury instruction now than to waste time and money on another trial first. Should the appeal be rejected, the new trial would simply continue as planned.

One wonders if Jammie Thomas had any idea when she decided to fight the case that it would consume several years of her life. After seeing this sort of case play out, it's clearer than ever why most people who receive prelitigation letters settle for a few thousand dollars rather than face years of legal uncertainty, the possibility of obscene verdicts, and the intensity of the public stare.