The following is opine from the Daily Bruin

Editorial: Punishments don’t fit the crime of file sharing

The Recording Industry Association of America knows if you've been bad or good – and it wants you running scared.

On May 26, an additional 91 college students were sued for illegal file sharing, and for the first time, seven of the defendants are UCLA students.

The RIAA says sharing music is a crime similar to other forms of stealing – i.e., downloading or sharing a song is the equivalent of stealing a candy bar from a store. On some levels the RIAA might be correct; sharing music without consent is illegal, and record companies have the right to seek reasonable punishments.

But the RIAA uses its power to sue individuals as a weapon meant to strike fear in people via the threat of tremendous – and unreasonable – penalties.

In fact, the recording industry shares much of the blame for the current state of affairs. It is unfortunate (one could almost say criminal) that it has resorted to targeting colleges for lawsuits. Students from 51 colleges have been the recipients of RIAA lawsuits since April.

The studios of the RIAA ripped customers off for years with expensive CDs and ignored the constructive potential of the Internet. The industry essentially waited for the release of Apple's iTunes Music Store in April 2003 before it had a serious answer to illegally sharing music online.

More generally, the RIAA's response to file sharing hasn't been to make music more affordable or accessible. Instead, the RIAA spent its energy and money lobbying for extreme punishments for those who share their files.

Let's look at the comparison of stealing a candy bar and the punishment it carries. Stealing anything worth less than $400 is considered petty theft and is punishable by no more than six months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both.

But in reality, few petty thieves receive the maximum penalty, especially for first offenses. In some cases, California law permits the victims of minor crimes to completely forgive the perpetrator.

Even a more serious crime like driving under the influence is counted as a misdemeanor for the first offense, with a punishment of 96 hours to six months in jail.

But sharing 10 or more "phonorecords" with a total value of $2,500 or more can result in up to five years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and civil penalties.

And a new law signed by President Bush makes possessing a single unreleased song or movie a crime that can result in up to 10 years in federal prison.

In the past, equally ridiculous penalties have been proposed by the attack dogs of the recording industry.

In 2003, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys, introduced legislation that would have made uploading a single song or movie over the Internet carry a penalty of five years in federal prison.

Instead of fixing their own industry model, the RIAA and Motion Picture Association of America use their political clout to push for harsher and harsher punishments for file sharers. Copyright owners deserve to profit from their work, but they must moderate their desire to punish with the understanding that copyright infringement is not a violent crime.

It is the responsibility of both the studios and the politicians to make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Not exactly. It is the responsibility of the PEOPLE to make sure politicians don't let the studios "get away with murder" by letting them deciding what the crimes and punishments are!

"It is unfortunate (one could almost say criminal) that it has resorted to targeting colleges for lawsuits. "

It's criminal because it violates the statute regarding racketeering. The RIAA has become on the same level as the mafia.

"But sharing 10 or more "phonorecords" with a total value of $2,500 or more can result in up to five years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and civil penalties. "

Since when does 10 "phonorecords" equal $2,500? I know the price of RIAA CD's today is exhorbitant, but 10 of them still doesn't total $2,500. And, if the premise is that they are downloaded many times, resulting in multiple loss sales, where's the proof? Prove to me who downloaded the CD's, and prove to me that they would have bought them instead. Nothing but pretzel logic.

Gee, if this article is right, then 10 years in prison for possession of one unreleased song or movie would also be "cruel and unusual punishment", and therefore make this law unconstitutional.

The RIAA was in part founded by the mafia. (Yup, it's true!)

"And a new law signed by President Bush makes possessing a single unreleased song or movie a crime that can result in up to 10 years in federal prison."

I just skimmed through the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. I didn't see that. I did see "commercial distribution" and "recording devices" a number of times. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I try to do my best to be as bad as possible and I am not running scare!
Whatch out RIAA!

So anyone condaned to 5 year in jail for file sharing have the right to kill Shitman and Gluman for free?

wait till you hear about all the other unfair laws! Who is making those things anyway?

i got scared into stopping my modest mouse full discography download on bit torrent, the riaa claims another victim.

This is the product of UCLA's journalism department? Are they in training to work at Fox News, aka the Paranoia Channel?

I really had faith in the college students last year.

"It's criminal because it violates the statute regarding racketeering."

Wrong! As usual.

"The RIAA was in part founded by the mafia."

Right! Sort of. I don't know if they were involved in the founding of the RIAA, but they were heavily involved in the music business. Just google "Morris Levy" and "mafia" for more info.

The mob owned the juke boxes, which saved the industry following the Depression and leaving it owing a favor.

mroop "Wrong! As Usual"

Annoying... as usual.

" "It's criminal because it violates the statute regarding racketeering."

Wrong! As usual. "

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Racketeers .. Broken legs
Extortainment .. Broken lives

Their acts may not "technically" be
"under color of law" .. but what does that
mean .. exactly

They ( my opinion ) are using the techicalities in the law for purposes
it may not have been intended for, to
force those that cannot afford to fight
to submit to their will.

Whether the damage be physical or financial, it still smells of extortion,
large scale, and "legally" sanctioned.

Your opinion is noted.
Also note that your opinions have been
slowly chipped away in courts.
Not in a large way, just little by little.