Despite the bluster of the RIAA's "sue 'em all" scorched earth legal campaign, they've only won one case in court, against Jammie Thomas, a Native American single mother of two from central Minnesota. When contacted by the RIAA Thomas refused to settle for the initial $3,000, instead taking her case to court. In some cases that makes sense -- given RIAA evidence is often flimsy or nonexistent -- but in Thomas's case the evidence was clear her family shared 24 copyright-protected songs.

When tried in 2007, a jury awarded the music industry $9,250 a song, or $222,000. Last year a Judge declared a mistrial. The case has since been retried, and Thomas has again been found guilty. What's particularly interesting is the totals: the jury has valued each of the 24 songs at $80,000, for a grand punishment of $1.9 million, which Thomas obviously can't pay.

The EFF has been quick to jump into the post ruling fray, questioning the constitutionality of awards that are so far distorted from the actual product value.

According to the EFF, the Supreme Court "has made it clear that �grossly excessive� punitive damage awards violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution." The EFF also argues that recent court rulings suggest a jury may not award statutory damages for the purpose of imposing fear on others not-involved in the case.

That of course was the entire point of the RIAA's legal campaign to begin with -- to instill fear into those who'd download copyright-protected music. It didn't work. P2P use continues to soar, and now the RIAA and MPAA are more interested in the idea of forcing ISPs to filter pirated content and boot repeat offenders from their networks.

The ruling will of course buoy the entertainment industry and supporters, though those who've watched this cat and mouse game long enough know that piracy simply isn't going to be stopped -- and the entertainment industry's only real option is to create new, compelling business models that can somehow "compete with free."