The Electronic Frontier Foundation is questioning whether RIAA’s recent $1.9 million award against a single mother of four will stand up to a constitutional challenge. In a retrial, a jury concluded that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed the copyrights of 24 songs to the tune of $80,000 per recording.

In a statement on its web site RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said: “We appreciate the jury’s service and that they take this as seriously as we do. We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day one, we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so.”

However, the EFF says the suit could be dismissed if a higher court finds the damages were grossly excessive. The foundation also says: “recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe.”

The Times of London reports that RIAA declared it would stop suing people in December, choosing instead to pressure internet service providers to take action. Given this change in direction, it’s unclear to me as to why RIAA would even consider continuing the suit. The recording association, it seems, has repeatedly given the PR equivalent to poking itself in the eyeball several times over by suing (but usually settling) people with limited means for ridiculous sums of money.

So the question is: Is RIAA at all concerned about its image? Since it started suing people in 2003, the association has more than stepped into the stereotypical image of an evil corporate conglomerate – it’s run right into it.

— JS