Downloaders beware – record companies have become increasingly willing to file lawsuits against individual users, whom they blame for declining sales figures over the past several years.

Recent court rulings have made it difficult for the record industry to go after the operators of person-to-person file-sharing programs, but have left the door wide open for copyright infringement suits against individuals.

The now defunct file-sharing Web site Napster was a fairly easy target for the recording industry to go after because it had its own central servers – computers that acted as a kind of traffic cop for the millions of file-sharing requests sent out every day on the network.

Following its success in the case against Napster, the Recording Industry Association of America filed lawsuits against the file-sharing services KazaA and Grokster. These cases were not as clear-cut as the Napster case.

These networks do not have central servers, like Napster, but they have what are called super-nodes. The nodes, maintained by private individuals, serve a similar function by directing network traffic.

In a recent case against Grokster, a person-to-person file-sharing site, a district court found Grokster to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The court went so far as to say Grokster, “may have intentionally structured their business to avoid secondary liability for copyright infringement.”

Going after individuals

In a related case, the RIAA asked a federal court to force Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers in the United States, to reveal the name and address of an individual user who operated an alleged super-node for the file-sharing service KazaA.

Verizon resisted the subpoena on the grounds it should not have to intrude on its customers’ privacy, and that as an Internet service provider, it is merely acting as a channel for its file-swapping customers.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the record industry is entitled to file such a subpoena and the ISP is required to divulge the user’s identity, but Verizon argued this is only applicable if the copyrighted content in question resides on the phone company’s servers.

The service provider’s argument is related to the “common carrier” defense used by telephone companies in other cases. The companies have argued they merely transmit data back and forth like a pipeline, without any real knowledge of whether or not that data is illegal.

“We don’t want to be the policeman in this process,” said Eric Holder, a lawyer for Verizon.

Following a January ruling and then an appeal, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled the power authorized under the copyright act does not abridge the First Amendment rights of Internet users.

“We are pleased with the court’s affirmation that individual users are accountable for illegally uploading and downloading copyrighted works off of publicly accessible peer-to-peer networks,” said Hilary Rosen, chairman and CEO of the RIAA.

“(The) decision in the Verizon matter makes clear that the individual infringers cannot expect to remain anonymous when they engage in this illegal activity,” she said.

Verizon is appealing that decision and has yet to give up the user’s identity.

The next Napster

On April 2, the RIAA filed the first lawsuits against individual users for illegally sharing copyrighted files. The students, who attended Princeton University, Michigan Technological University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, reached settlements under which they will pay between $12,000 and $17,500 apiece to the recording industry.

They also agreed to disable their Web sites, which connected users to songs and other files on computers throughout their respective campus networks.

While the record industry alleged the students were operating campus file-sharing networks, representatives of the students disagree. They said their clients did little more then run search engines, akin to Google, that let users find any kind of digital file, including songs.

Hitting close to home

The students involved in Monday’s raids at OSU allegedly operated a similar system using Direct Connect, a file-sharing program, to connect nearly 3,000 students on campus to copyrighted material on other students computers. In addition to allegedly breaking federal copyright laws, the students are in trouble for violating university computing policy by maintaining a server on the ResNet system.

“Ohio State is one of the few schools which prohibit students from maintaining servers of any kind on its resident network,” said Bob Kalal, director of OIT policy and chairman of the Big Ten Security Working Group.

According to University Police Detective Willis Amweg’s affidavit, “it was estimated that this file-sharing activity alone consumed over 10 percent of the university’s total network resources.”

Four computers were confiscated in Monday’s raids. The search warrants said the OSU students were believed to be responsible for operating the illegal file-sharing network. One of the four students said charges are expected to be filed in the case today.

Although representatives for the RIAA said it regularly notifies colleges around the country of illegal materials found on their sites, the association denied playing a role in launching the investigation at OSU.

The RIAA declined to comment on any future lawsuits, though Amanda Collins, a spokeswoman with the RIAA, said, “it appears to have been a massive pirating operation.”

“These types of pirating networks are harming everyone in the industry, not just the record companies, but also the artists, the people in marketing and promotions, even the people working at the CD manufacturing plants,” she said. “It’s stealing.”

Many of the 3,000 users of the Direct Connect system at OSU might not even be aware what they were doing was illegal.

“Unfortunately, many users of systems like KaZaA and Grokster may be under the mistaken impression that anything they do on these systems is now legal,” said Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA.

“In fact, every court decision regarding peer-to-peer networks has confirmed that distributing or downloading copyrighted music without permission of the copyright owner is illegal,” Sherman said.

Keeping safe

The freshman survey course UVC 100 used to cover safe computing, but no longer does. The Office of Information Technology is in the process of creating a safe computing Web site, which it hopes will clear up any misconceptions students have on this topic. The new site is expected to be up for fall quarter.

Until then, students can find information on the legality of music trading and OSU’s computing policy on the OIT InfoPages, which offer material on topics such as copyright laws, responsible use of networks and ethical uses of software.

To increase awareness about the illegality of trading copyrighted music, the RIAA has sent warning messages directly to millions of users of popular file-sharing programs. The music industry also uses the instant messaging function of certain peer-to-peer networks to inform users that offering copyrighted music on person-to-person networks is illegal and that they face consequences when they do so.

“The best way to avoid becoming an unindicted federal felon (music pirate), is to obey the law,” Kalal said.