Liptak posts that the University of Oregon has refused to be a party to the persecution of its own students.  While offering little hope for the effort, Adam lauds the fact that someone has finally stood up to the Recording Industry Association of America.

When the University received a subpoena for the identities of certain students, they opposed it.  Fortunately for them, they are represented by the State’s Attorney General, who filed a “blistering” motion to quash.  This is a huge turn of events, since there aren’t many individuals, particularly college students, equipped to take on the Recording Industry.

In the past four years, record companies have sued tens of thousands of people for violating the copyright laws by sharing music on the Internet. The people it sues tend to settle, paying the industry a few thousand dollars rather than risking a potentially ruinous judgment by fighting in court.

“People get pushed into settlements,” said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. “The Oregon attorney general is showing what a real fight among equals would look like.”

You may recall  this story about Jammie Thomas, who tried to challenge the RIAA over a claim of uploading 24 songs.  It cost her $9,250 per song, for a grand total of $220,000.  This is the civil equivalent of the death penalty.

As Liptak correctly notes, there is no reason to cry for people who steal music and deprive the artists, and even the recording companies, of their right to profit from their efforts.  But what the RIAA does, and what they are permitted encouraged to do under federal law, is outrageous.

Under 18 USC 2319, the recording industry is given the power to act as a private police force.  The power is theoretically civil, but the law provides for liability to the copyright owner for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $100,000 per infringed copyright.  At the statutory amount, the incentive for the RIAA, the enforcement arm of the recording industry, to go after little Johnny and little Jammie is awfully strong. 

This law was passed in 1972, long before Napster was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.  This was back when bootlegging was bootlegging, not college kids downloading individual songs.  Not to excuse this conduct (at all), but $100,000 per song is serious overkill. 

The product has been the course of least resistance, lest ordinary people face ruinous bankruptcy.  Why has Congress permitted the recording industry to maintain this level of extortionate power over people?   The mere threat of the RIAA taking a peak under your child’s Ipod is enough to threaten the future of a family.  While this may be wrong, is it wrong enough to financially destroy families?

In another post, I question why citizens who are wrongfully arrested, beaten and denied treatment have no viable recourse against the government.  Yet the RIAA can wrong the horrific crime of file sharing by destroying the lives of kids and their families at a potential $100,000 a pop.  It strikes me that we may have a serious priority issue here.  Since we can’t all be fortunate enough to have the State of Oregon represent us when the RIAA attacks, when will our Congress revisit the enormous power granted this industry and provide a little proportionality to its citizens?  Maybe when Barbra Streisand retires?

Update:  As if there was ever any doubt that I was nowhere near cutting edge, there’s always Gideon to remind me.  Here’s the engadget post about how the RIAA takes the position that ripping legally purchased CDs and loading them on your computer is their new target.   Windypundit is less than thrilled at the prospect.  Be warned, if they hear you humming, you’re next.