The Jammie Thomas case was a landmark event for the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) and their pricey legal war against file sharing, marking their first trial to go before a jury for a verdict.  The RIAA secured a record $220,000 verdict from the jury, with some jury members calling on single mom Jammie Thomas to pay over three million dollars for two dozen named tracks allegedly infringed.

However, the RIAA's joy was killed when a judge tossed the verdict and called for a retrial.  U.S. District Judge Michael Davis who originally presided over the case said he misled jurors when it told them that simply sharing the file to others (making available) is tantamount to infringement.  A new trial was scheduled for March.

The RIAA appealed the decision to toss the verdict and yesterday was dealt another setback when it lost its appeal.  The case will indeed be going back to court for a retrial.

The case is being scrutinized as it marks the first time that the RIAA has actually officially charged someone with copyright infringement in court as it has threatened to do to 26,000 other people it has settled with over the course of its campaign.  While the others had settled for a few thousand dollars, Ms. Thomas refused, maintaining her innocence and denying that she used peer-to-peer service, Kazaa to share files.

While the case is significant, it has lost some of its luster due to the RIAA's recent decision to shift its focus from its lawsuit campaign.  While new lawsuits may be continuing, the RIAA has pledged to make its focusing getting internet service providers to adopt "three strikes" provisions like France has.

Under the RIAA's plan those found with a connection that's downloading or sharing songs will be warned by mail.  If the activity persists after another warning, the people's internet will be cut off.  The RIAA has not disclosed how it plans to monitor activity, setting off red flags for consumer advocates.

The key question in the Thomas case pertinent to the ISP plans as well is how to legally prove someone has violated the copyright law.  According to Judge Davis the burden is on the RIAA's shoulders to prove that the songs shared were actually downloaded by someone; "making available" does not equate to infringement.  The RIAA says proving such a transfer occurred is virtually impossible, so in the past it has primarily relied on the "making available" argument in its other legal cases.

Some believe that the Thomas case is destined to be appealed after the verdict, regardless of what it is and will travel up the federal appellate courts to the Supreme Court.  Already a landmark case, some analysts believe that the case will be brought before the supreme court to resolve whether making available equates to copyright infringement, something many judges have argued is legally flawed.