Refund Unlikely for Sued File Sharers
For the hundreds of accused file sharers who already have been sued for allegedly trading pirated songs online, Friday's ruling that their Internet service providers shouldn't have been forced to hand over their names won't bring a windfall.
It was just more lousy luck. And for San Francisco defendant Marvin Hooker, that just figures.
If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had ruled before the record companies got around to suing him, his Internet provider might have shielded his identity. That would have forced the companies to pursue the more cumbersome option of suing him anonymously, then seeking his name and address.
"That would have been great," said Hooker, a bank employee who said he couldn't afford the $4,000 settlement offer from the Recording Industry Assn. of America.
Defense attorneys said that because the RIAA already had obtained the names of their clients, it almost certainly was too late to stop record companies from exacting their pound of flesh.
"Nobody's going to get any refunds," said Joseph Singleton, a Beverly Hills lawyer who represents half a dozen clients who have paid money in settlements with the record labels or are negotiating deals.
In a criminal case, charges can be dismissed if evidence is seized with a search warrant that shouldn't have been authorized. But there is no such "exclusionary rule" for civil lawsuits.
"There's no recourse," said Sacramento civil attorney Dan Ballard. Even customers of Verizon Communications Inc., which won Friday's court case, apparently are out of luck, since a lower court already had forced Verizon to release the names.
Several accused file sharers said that was rotten. "If they obtained something they should not have, I feel we should be reimbursed," said one from Northern California who paid several thousand dollars to settle a lawsuit filed against him after the record labels got his name and address from his ISP. He asked not to be identified because, as part of the settlement, he agreed not to discuss his case.
New York photographer Tim Davis, who paid a $7,000 settlement this month, said he hoped the ruling would provide some grounds for getting his money back.
"If there was ever going to be a civil suit saying our privacy has been violated," he said, "you can imagine that this ruling would really help."
- Litigation Over Rio Portable MP3 Player Ends Aug 05, 1999
- How Piracy Opens Doors for Windows Apr 09, 2006
- RIAA Is Accused of Patent Violations Sep 09, 2004
