## Facts

- Major record companies alleged Jammie Thomas-Rasset used the KaZaA peer-to-peer network (username “tereastarr”) to share copyrighted sound recordings.
- Investigators traced the “tereastarr” activity to Thomas-Rasset’s internet connection and computer.
- Plaintiffs alleged a shared folder containing roughly 1,702 music files was made available on KaZaA; they pursued statutory damages for 24 recordings.
- Thomas-Rasset denied using KaZaA and suggested others might have used her computer or that it was compromised.
- For purposes of appeal, it was treated as undisputed that Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed copyrights in 24 sound recordings through internet file-sharing.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause limits Copyright Act statutory damages for willful infringement such that the district court could reduce jury awards to $54,000 (three times the statutory minimum).
2. Whether the permanent injunction should expressly forbid Thomas-Rasset from “making available” plaintiffs’ sound recordings to the public for distribution.
3. Whether it was necessary to review the district court’s grant of a new trial after the first verdict based on an instruction equating “making available” with infringement of the distribution right.

## Decision

- The court vacated the reduced-damages judgment and remanded with instructions to enter statutory damages of $222,000 (the first jury’s $9,250-per-work award for 24 works).
- The court held the $222,000 award was constitutional and not “so severe and oppressive” as to be wholly disproportionate and obviously unreasonable.
- The court directed entry of a broader injunction that forbids Thomas-Rasset from making plaintiffs’ sound recordings available to the public for distribution, in addition to barring other infringing acts.
- The court declined to decide whether “making available” alone violates the distribution right, concluding the expanded injunction was proper regardless.
- The court found it unnecessary to address whether the district court erred in ordering a new trial after the first verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory damages authorized by Congress are reviewed under the standard that they are unconstitutional only if “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.”
- Due process does not require statutory damages to bear a direct or clear relationship to proven actual damages in copyright cases.
- Congress may set statutory damages within a broad range to address detection and proof difficulties and to deter infringement, including in peer-to-peer settings.
- A permanent injunction may prohibit conduct that realistically threatens future infringement, even if the prohibited conduct is not identical to the elements of liability for the past infringement.
- In peer-to-peer cases, an injunction may properly include “making available” language as a practical measure to prevent recurrence, without resolving whether “making available” itself constitutes a completed “distribution.”

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit reinstated a $222,000 statutory damages award for willful peer-to-peer infringement and required an injunction expressly barring the defendant from making the recordings available for public distribution, rejecting a due-process-based reduction tied to the statutory minimum or to actual damages.


Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)