Thomas-Rasset argues that a seven-figure damage award is disproportionate to any harm she caused the record industry. “The plaintiffs were not able to offer testimony about any actual damage done to them by Mrs. Thomas’s conduct beyond perhaps $1.29 per song or $15 per album in lost sales,” she argues.

In June, a jury found that Thomas-Rasset had infringed on copyright by sharing 24 tracks on Kazaa and assessed damages of $80,000 per track. The statute provides for damages of up to $150,000 per instance of infringement.

The verdict marked the second time that a jury ruled against Thomas-Rasset. An earlier trial in 2007 resulted in a jury verdict of $220,000, or $9,000 per track. But U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis in Minnesota set that verdict aside and ordered a new trial because of a mistaken jury instruction.

At the time, Davis expressed concern over the size of the award. “While the court does not discount plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by plaintiffs,” he wrote.

Thomas-Rasset now argues that the fact that two juries could arrive at such different awards shows that the damages were arbitrary.

The Obama administration recently weighed in on behalf of the record labels, arguing that damages of up to $150,000 per track are constitutional.

The record industry opposes Thomas-Rasset’s motion, but also recently said in court papers that it would be willing to compromise on the size of the award. “If the Court nonetheless determines that some reduction is both legally permissible and factually warranted, in order to achieve finality in this case, Plaintiffs would consider a remittitur rather than participating in a third trial,” the RIAA wrote in papers filed last month.