The case is at least 4 years old now, but that doesn't mean it's over. Jammie Thomas trial was described as a "first of its kind" trials where a file-sharer was sued for sharing music in the US. Now, a new development has unfolded in this long-running trial which may very likely be seen as a major blow to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

[A]n award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first‑time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file‑sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

The revolutionary social music platform edges closer to legitimacy by striking a licensing deal with the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, but will the RIAA still manage to kill anything that smacks of innovation?

The PROTECT IP Act, the legislation that would erect the "Great Firewall of America" has had been building increasing resistance from the American people. Recently, ninety law professors have signed a letter opposing the legislation.

We, the undersigned law professors who teach and write about intellectual property and Internet law, strongly urge the members of Congress to reject the PROTECT IP Act (the "Act"). Although the problems the Act attempts to address - online copyright and trademark infringement - are serious ones presenting new and difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet's addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign polocy and strong support for free expression on the Internet around the world. The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It requires Internet service providers and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers "dedicated to infringement activities." But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all. The Act goes still further. It requires credit card providers, advertisers, and search engines to refuse to deal with the owners of such sites. For example, search engines are required to "(i) remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the court order, or (ii) not serve a hypertext link to such Internet site." In the case of credit card companies and advertisers, they must stop doing business not only with sites the government has chosen to sue but any site that a private copyright or trademark owner claims is predominantly infringing. Giving this enormous new power not just to the government but to any copyright and trademark owner would not only disrupt the operations of the allegedly infringing web site without a final judgement of wrongdoing, but would make it extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.

Says hacktivist group's campaign against public websites like the US Senate, CIA, and more recently, the Arizona Police Dept, prove a "lawless Internet" is not a "good thing," and that legislation like the PROTECT IP Act that would mandate DNS filtering of "rogue sites" is needed to restore order.

Number of ISPs reportedly on the verge of an agreement with the entertainment industry to combat online copyright infringement; White House "instrumental" in brokering the deal; disconnection optional.

Spends $2.1 in Q1 2011, up 74% from the $1.51 million it spent the quarter previous, to lobby on intellectual property rights in various countries and to end radio’s long-standing exemption from having to pay performance royalties.

PROTECT IP Act would give the Department of Justice the power to force ISPs and search engines to block access to infringing sites. Bill now moves forward to a full vote by the Senate.

When COICA was introduced in the Senate last fall, EFF wrote about its dangerous implications for the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). These remain true for PIPA, despite the removal of a provision that would have required registrars and registries to block domain names pointing to sites “dedicated to infringing activities.” Because blocking via registries and registrars underlies Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ongoing practice of seizing domain names, taking this device out of PIPA is small gain. The bill will still require targeted DNS server operators like ISPs to prevent an identified domain name from resolving to the domain's IP address, thereby preventing their users from accessing those sites. As a result, the warnings that we and others gave last year about serious security vulnerabilities and a fractured Internet are unchanged.

Call the move "baffling," and a form of a "corporate imperialism." Say proposed US net filter doesn't compare to China's "Great Firewall" because China's filter isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored."

Three of the four major labels said some of the $105 million settlement will be shared with artists, but after the RIAA deducts the cost of 5 years of litigation artists are likely to see little, if any of that money.