• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

If the Recording Industry Association of America and Sen. Orrin Hatch get their way, the day may soon come when a court clerk can give your name to the RIAA, and within hours your computer will be attacked, leaving you with a non-functional hulk.

This scary scenario seems to be the end goal of those who seek to toughen copyright “enforcement.” Unfortunately, this path may lead to the RIAA becoming judge, jury and executioner for an entire category of electronic crime. But, rather than target individual file-swappers, the RIAA must fundamentally change its business model. Fifteen-dollar CDs simply cannot be expected to compete with internet-based file-swapping.

Instead of reform, the RIAA and its friends are pushing for two new enforcement powers: the authority to collect the names of suspected file-swappers, and the ability to target and “destroy” file swapping computers.

Unfortunately, individual people are being targeted for what is a systemic problem. The RIAA has ordered universities to threaten students who use residential computer networks for file-sharing. As if to prove a point, university students at Princeton and other schools were recently fined $12,000 to $17,000 for file-sharing activities.

Similarly, Verizon Internet Services recently lost a court battle to protect the privacy of its customers when the RIAA sought to investigate alleged peer-to-peer file-sharing of copyrighted songs. Thus, the first of the new enforcement powers is already practicable policy.

The second power, the ability to destroy computers, will require a new federal law. However, Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supports the destruction of personal computers used for file-sharing.

“If that’s the only way, then I’m all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize the seriousness of their actions,” Hatch said in an Associated Press article. “There’s no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws.”

According to the AP, Hatch would consider a law “to enact an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging computers.” Such an exemption, coupled with the ability of record companies to collect names, would allow private companies to invade people’s homes and punish them without the normal legal process. This idea flies in the face of all that the United States stands for: privacy, due process and freedom.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that this process would actually stop file-sharing.

On a practical level, the industry is to blame for its file-swapping woes. When average, hardworking people turn on MTV and watch “Cribs,” they see music stars with fabulous, nouveau riche, $10-million castles (often complete with a moat). These artists obviously do not seem to need more money, and most likely, neither do the RIAA lawyers and executives.

Admittedly, the record companies, like any company, have a right to protect their product. If they stop spending all their time attacking university students, they might actually have time to develop workable solutions.

There are many alternatives to electronic and legal attacks against individual computer users who balk at spending $15-$20 per CD.

According to CNN, an average $17 CD includes $6.23 of retail markup, $3.34 of “overhead” and “shipping,” $1.99 of royalties to the artist, $0.75 of CD printing costs, and $0.59 of pure profit. So if the studios sold the music direct over the internet, assuming maybe $0.50 of “overhead,” the music could cost $9.82 less and still give the artist and company equal profit. As a reward for good behavior, I suggest letting the lawyers keep the $0.82.

Studios might also consider the many cryptographical options available to them. They could begin to sell MP3s specially encoded to encrypt themselves as soon as they have been downloaded. These files could “bond” themselves to the original computer, and be unplayable on other machines. Physical protections could be built into future computers that “track” copyrighted material and prevent free swapping.

The bottom line in the case of music swapping is that consumers are voting with their actions. So long as music is extremely expensive in retail stores, people will seek alternatives. Hatch and his fellow legislators should remember that the new generation of voters grew up with computers and the dreaded MP3s. These voters do not take kindly to threats of imminent destruction of their computers, nor do they contentedly accept that politicians are the bedfellows of major industries.

Lazzaro is the Daily Bruin Viewpoint Editor. E-mail him at dlazzaro@media.ucla.edu for fun times or to deliver hate-filled messages.