"She's not interested in settling …. she wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages. That's one of the main arguments that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm".When the decision came out, Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontiers Foundation said “The disproportionate size of the verdict raises constitutional issues", adding “was the jury punishing her for what she did, or punishing her for the music sharing habits of tens of millions of American Internet users?”
“Now the record industry has a $2 million award against me. The only thing I can say is good luck trying to get it, because you can’t get blood out of a turnip”.The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that it had contacted Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers Joe Sibley and law partner Kiwi Camara last week to ask whether Thomas-Rasset wanted to discuss a settlement. An RIAA representative said that its lawyers were told by Sibley that Thomas-Rasset wasn't interested in discussing any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money. Said an RIAA spokesman:
"The defendant can, of course, exercise her legal rights, but what's increasingly clear, now more than ever, is that she is the one responsible for needlessly prolonging this case and refusing to accept any responsibility for the illegal activity that two juries decisively found her liable for".Sibley told CNET that following Thomas-Rasset's first trial, the trade group offered to settle for $25,000. The Thomas-Rasset case has set an important precedent in the US by establishing that simply offering up music tracks for sharing is sufficient to establish infringement; in a separate US case a New York judge has ruled against internet aggregator Usenet.com, saying the online service is guilty of direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and of inducing others to infringe.