The University, after months of pressure under a federal
subpoena from the Recording Industry Association of America,
finally had no choice but to release the names of eight students
and one staff member who have been accused of sharing music
illegally. The University spent the greater part of two months
reviewing the subpoenas and unfortunately, in the words of the
University's Assistant General Counsel Jack Bernard, found them to
be "substantively valid." While it may be argued that the
University could have fought more vigorously against the subpoena,
the real blame and animosity should rest with the RIAA. The RIAA is
subverting intellectual property legislation and exploiting it
beyond its original intent under the guise of the 1998 Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.

Copyrights were originally granted useful and even noble purpose
of protecting the work of academics and artists. The RIAA is using
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to exercise copyright law
where it was never intended. The act aims not only to outlaw
electronic piracy, but also any programs which facilitate
electronic piracy. Corporations and organizations like the RIAA are
exercising their new powers to aggressively act in what they claim
is the interest of artists: the elimination of electronic file
sharing.

Attacking the RIAA on its enforcement of copyrights is not the
most effective, or legally tenable, strategy. While the RIAA does
not fully control what users do with its music, it still does,
unfortunately, control the intellectual property rights. Hence, the
distribution of these materials without compensation to their owner
? the RIAA in this case ? is still technically illegal. Thus, the
RIAA is entitled to protect its property, even though it is merely
in the name of making money. While this may not seem just, it is
unfortunately the way copyright law is designed.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, however, fundamentally
violates the public�s right to privacy in an effort to give
corporations more power. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, companies have the right to subpoena Internet service
providers, and force ISPs to reveal users' personal information if
they feel users are illegally sharing files. This information is
often not something which users want to make public, and the RIAA
should not have the legal right to simply request (and receive) it
as part of a routine investigation.

Furthermore, the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act which outlaw the creation of technology that can facilitate
digital piracy are blatant limitations on personal freedom. While
it is illegal to shoot a person with a rifle, the rifle can still
be manufactured. Similarly, while it may be illegal to rip DVDs and
CDs into DivX and .mp3 files, the technology to do so should not
be. By preemptively banning the creation of technology, the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act fundamentally abrogates individual
freedom.

While the RIAA will continue to pursue individuals who they
claim are grossly in violation of copyright statutes, it should not
receive the extra help provided by the provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. This act, which threatens individual
rights to privacy and creativity, is an unfortunate piece of
legislation that substantially diminishes the liberty of
individuals.