EDITORIAL: Wrongly accused citizens should recoup court costs
A San Antonio man on Monday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether those who beat RIAA infringement lawsuits are entitled to legal fees. The Supreme Court has yet to say whether they'll review the petition, but they should, and they should side with the people in the rare situations when the Recording Industry Association of America is barking up the wrong Internet Service Provider.
The man who's suing, Cliff Thompson, was initially sued by the RIAA in 2006 for his use of the file-sharing program Kazaa. The RIAA dismissed the case against him and instead sued his daughter after they found that he wasn't responsible for the alleged infringement. Thompson now wants his legal fees back, and he's basing his claim off a 2002 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, as well as general inconsistencies in different courts' decisions.
Thompson's attorney said that "an absence of uniformity between the circuits, concurrent with an onslaught of litigation by the music companies against internet account holders, only serves to provide innocent defendants with even little, if any, incentive to fully litigate any meritorious defenses they may have."
Of course, the 5th Circuit has already told Thompson he's not entitled to the money, because the RIAA had sufficient evidence to sue him in the first place. Only twice, according to Wired.com, have courts awarded attorney's fees to falsely accused defendants.
This is an interesting issue, and it's particularly relavent to college students, who are of the age group that bears the brunt of these suits. Right now, the RIAA continues to grow richer by suing its customers, most of whom pay a few thousand dollars in fines in lieu of fighting it, as they're guilty anyway. But those who aren't guilty should choose to fight it, and right now they're encumbered with thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting an organization on a blind crusade with little interest other than its pocketbook in mind. The Supreme Court ought to offer at least some measure of relief for them.
This whole shebang doesn't address the heart of the issue - the RIAA is trying to use legal methods to protect an outdated business model, instead of being innovative and coming up with a new way to bring in the dough. Until then, though, hopefully the Court gets this one right and sides with the little guy and not the corporate greed machine preying on the innocent.
The man who's suing, Cliff Thompson, was initially sued by the RIAA in 2006 for his use of the file-sharing program Kazaa. The RIAA dismissed the case against him and instead sued his daughter after they found that he wasn't responsible for the alleged infringement. Thompson now wants his legal fees back, and he's basing his claim off a 2002 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, as well as general inconsistencies in different courts' decisions.
Thompson's attorney said that "an absence of uniformity between the circuits, concurrent with an onslaught of litigation by the music companies against internet account holders, only serves to provide innocent defendants with even little, if any, incentive to fully litigate any meritorious defenses they may have."
Of course, the 5th Circuit has already told Thompson he's not entitled to the money, because the RIAA had sufficient evidence to sue him in the first place. Only twice, according to Wired.com, have courts awarded attorney's fees to falsely accused defendants.
This is an interesting issue, and it's particularly relavent to college students, who are of the age group that bears the brunt of these suits. Right now, the RIAA continues to grow richer by suing its customers, most of whom pay a few thousand dollars in fines in lieu of fighting it, as they're guilty anyway. But those who aren't guilty should choose to fight it, and right now they're encumbered with thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting an organization on a blind crusade with little interest other than its pocketbook in mind. The Supreme Court ought to offer at least some measure of relief for them.
This whole shebang doesn't address the heart of the issue - the RIAA is trying to use legal methods to protect an outdated business model, instead of being innovative and coming up with a new way to bring in the dough. Until then, though, hopefully the Court gets this one right and sides with the little guy and not the corporate greed machine preying on the innocent.
Copyright © 2009 - Iowa State Daily