Testimony in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset file-sharing re-retrial concluded today as Thomas-Rasset took the stand and told the jury that she considers herself a big supporter of the music industry (read our coverage of day one). “I was buying my music,” she said. “I wasn’t getting it for free off KaZaA.”

But the jury in this case was tasked with deciding damages, not liability, which has already been assumed from her previous trial. Could Thomas-Rasset convince them this time around to hand out a lower damage award than the last $1.92 million decision? Or would the RIAA win out with its argument that distributing music freely through the KaZaA peer-to-peer network causes more harm than charging for it?

Read the comments on this post

See the original post here:
RIAA: giving music away for free worse than charging for it