College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Illegal downloads fine begins August 1

By Robert Stewart

Contributing Writer

Print this article

Published: Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, July 7, 2009

College students may think the $50 fine they’ll soon face for illegally downloading music is a lot of money, but the alternative could be much worse.

Beginning Aug. 1, the University will fine students $50 for illegally sharing and downloading files on the LSU network in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The Recording Industry Association of America has the legal authority to take offenders to court where they could face up a minimum of $750 per song for civil penalties, according to its Web site. Criminal penalties can run as high as $250,000 and five years in prison.

Sheri Thompson, IT planning and communications officer, said she understands a typical RIAA subpoena to be $4,000.

She said the University wanted to fine students an amount that was enough to deter them from illegally sharing files but wouldn’t be an overwhelming burden.

“$50 isn’t $4,000 and isn’t debilitating and going to be the difference between them being able to live their life fully,” Thompson said.

Thompson said the fine became necessary when the number of violations increased despite the University telling students “this is not the way to go.”

“This is costing us money whenever a violation occurs,” she said. “It was really becoming a burden.”

Thompson said there was a decrease in the number of violations on campus a couple of years ago before rising back to about 200 last year.

“It had gotten down to probably about 100, but it was still too many,” Thompson said.
Thompson said the RIAA monitors ports to see if they have left any music files that belong
to the RIAA open to the public.

“When you transfer files, they’re called packets, and these packets can be identified as to what they are,” Thompson said. “Usually it’s through things like BitTorrent, or through
LimeWire, or any other things that are shareware, where people put up stuff illegally or make it available illegally.”

Thompson said many universities have been working in cooperation with the RIAA for several years.

“[The RIAA has] a list every year that comes out of the top offenders,” Thompson said. “Fortunately we have not been on that list, and we don’t want to be on that list. But there are places that have actually shut off the ability to do any sharing of files because they were getting so many complaints from the RIAA.”

Thompson said students aren’t the only ones illegally downloading music on the LSU network.

“Faculty and staff are doing it,” she said. “You just don’t get those notifications very often.”

Thompson said a first offense warrants a fine and the shutdown of a student’s port, while a second offense sends a student to the Dean of Students’ office.

“With multiple offenses, you do face expulsion,” Thompson said.

The RIAA can also pursue legal action if it decides a student’s actions are severe.

Thompson said she is not aware of the RIAA suing any University students in the past for an offense.

She said the University would have to send the student a letter if the RIAA wishes to subpoena them.

“We don’t tell the RIAA who you are. They have to get a subpoena for that,” Thompson said. “Once they get a subpoena, they say ‘OK, person X, you’ve done this, now that’s $4,000 for our time.’ And you have 28 days or something ridiculous to pay it. If you don’t pay it, the fine goes up from there.”



----
Contact Robert Stewart at rstewart@lsureveille.com

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

17 comments

Your name
Tue Oct 20 2009 17:15
Wow, what a dumb article, and an even dumber IT officer.
Your name
Fri Jul 24 2009 13:32
You can bet good money that Sheri Thompson will be putting all of her comments in writing from now on.
Your name
Thu Jul 23 2009 21:53
For Matt-did you even go to high school? You cannot compose a complete sentence!!! Your grammar and puctuation is astoudingly horrible. Even a dictionary won't help you.
For Shoeless Sam-It would be great if you never mentioned LSU-you don't even deserve to lead people to think you even went to college much less graduated!
Your name
Thu Jul 23 2009 21:12
Don't any of you that have commented understand that this is a student newspaper with student writers that are leaning about reporting? They are being taught to report what is reported to them. Which is the way the media should be.
You all seem to be a bunch of losers with nothing better do to.
Dick Strong-o
Wed Jul 22 2009 04:43
Yeah! What They Said!
Your name
Tue Jul 21 2009 11:55
How about not downloading stuff illegally?
Negrodamus
Tue Jul 21 2009 11:12
Sheri Thompson is a nothing more than a tool, I assure you no one on campus knows how to determine between normal traffic and p2p traffic, the entire technology department here is a joke.

Break my encrypted transfers and then I might be impressed.

Your name
Tue Jul 21 2009 10:54
Oh my goodness; my IQ dropped 10 points after reading this article. If this is an accurate depiction of LSU's level of understanding of the issue then I feel really sorry for their students, alumni, and faculty.

How did LSU end up as the "enforcer'" for a cartel that wants to prop up an obsolete business model?

What a joke!

JP
Tue Jul 21 2009 05:09
Great to see a place of learning promote such ignorance.
Benjamin Wonders
Mon Jul 20 2009 20:08
After reading this story, I must assume that either Ms. Thompson has little to no understanding of the issue at hand, or she was talking down to the reporter based on the assumption that he has no understanding of the issue. First, nowhere in the DMCA is it made legal for an internet service provider to fine users for allegations of copyright infringement.

Second, the letters from the RIAA are not subpoenas. They are soliciting outrageous settlements for unproven, often erroneous, allegations of copyright infringement against users. The RIAA has zero authority to charge people criminally in court, yet the article presents things in such a way as to make an uninformed reader believe that industry lawyers can threaten ordinary citizens with prison time.

This is a gross overreaction on the part of LSU. While I realize that the university has the right to impose usage restrictions on its network, it seems that this policy comes from fear of a poorly understood issue rather than any actual knowledge. I hope that Ms. Thompson was just taking the easy way out of the interview by spouting factual inaccuracies to someone who wouldn't know the difference. If these are actual quotes that she will stand behind, she is wholly unqualified to speak on the matter and should defer to someone with actual information.

anonymous
Mon Jul 20 2009 18:00
Everyone citizen of the United States has the 'legal authority' to take someone to civil court. The RIAA doesn't have the authority to make you pay $4000, they offer that amount as a settlement, i.e. you pay them four grand and you don't go to court. It has nothing to do with a subpoena, it's just strong-arm tactics. The court is the only one with the power to order you to pay anything. You should also look up and actually read the DMCA. The University is acting as an ISP for the students. Show me where it says an ISP has the authority to fine you for something they "think" you're doing. I'm also considering sending my resume to LSU's IT department. It's pretty clear that Ms. Thompson BS'ed her way into her position there. If there was a way to shut off file sharing, it wouldn't be a problem any more. And 'packets' and 'shareware'? It appears her 'Planning and Communications' title gets in the way of her actually working and staying in touch with tech as an IT person. She sounds more like one of those COO's that is a self-proclaimed "computer guy". So, is LSU's IT department staffed by incompetent people, or are they just trying to use scare tactics to keep the students from using P2P software? Either scenario is quite sad. They obviously don't know just how tech-savvy their students are.
As for you, Mr. Stewart, you should research your next topic a little more thoroughly. You seem quite lost as far as technology is concerned.
Shoeless Sam
Mon Jul 20 2009 15:52
I have been working in the technology sector for twenty years and cringe whenever asked where I recieved my undergraduate degree. After divulging that I graduated from LSU I am greeted with a long pause and a look that reminds me of how a sorrowful middle class mother views commercials of third world children with no shoes. This type of poorly reasoned administrative regulations and a failure to properly research new technology is why my fellow alumni and I are associated with third world refugees in the technology field.
Steve R.
Mon Jul 20 2009 15:41
Is this a joke? Since when should a University accept responsibility for "protecting" a third party from the actions of a first party. If we take this to a logical extreme, JC Penny (for example) could demand that the University fine a student for not paying his credit card bill.

Additionally there is the issue of "due process". If the University takes an adverse action (to protect the RIAA) that proves faulty, the student will sue the University. Why accept a legal liability that you don't have too?

This makes no sense.

Matt
Mon Jul 20 2009 14:55
This is quite possibly the worst article written on illegal file sharing.

First "Shareware" is not Peer-to-Peer Software, Thanks for Alienating Thousands of decent software developers. If you truely do not understand the definition of the word. Please google search "define: shareware."

Second, the "typical RIAA subpoena" is really more like the "typical RIAA SETTLEMENT"

Third, where you quote Thompson that the "RIAA monitors ports to see if they have left any music files that belong
to the RIAA open to the public." and "where people put up stuff illegally or make it available illegally.” It has not been decided, and has been at the heart of most filesharing defenses that "Making Available" and "Distributing" are two very different things, especially in discussing the difference between Civil and Criminal Cases.

5-year jail terms are for Commercial infringers and would highly unlikely to be part of a student file-sharing case.

Also, The quote where "College students may think the $50 fine they’ll soon face for illegally downloading music is a lot of money, but the alternative could be much worse." This policy set by the school does not stop copyright holders, the RIAA, or anyone else from filing lawsuits against students. If the RIAA has evidence that can identify the person on the computer, and link that person to the infringement, it does not need the college's permission to file suit against them.

If you are writing an Article, you might want to do some precedent research / consult a dictionary before you publish it.

Bubba
Mon Jul 20 2009 13:38
This article makes the LSU admin look like idiots who don't know what they are doing and do not understand technology or the RIAA.
Your name
Mon Jul 20 2009 12:31
Tell Sheri Thompson that she understands NOTHING about the law, that she seems woefully ill informed on both the legal and technical aspects of file sharing, and that LSU should be pretty embarrassed to be represented in this way.
Zac
Mon Jul 20 2009 12:15
This article is ridiculous in it's lack of depth and understanding. Not only is it simply a regurgitation of interview responses/statement snippets, the proper questions needed to probe the underlying significance of the news are completely non-existent.

Most important to LSU students and others affected by this policy is any indication of how users will be identified as "illegally sharing and downloading files". The biggest problem with these policies is that they are built on the concept of guilty until proven innocent, often without any method of rebutting the charges laid against them. Due process is necessary in such a situation, lest the policy be abused.

Also problematic is the depiction of the University and RIAA's position. The statement that the RIAA "has the legal authority to take offenders to court " is irrelevant considering any person or legal body has legal authority to take another to court over civil matters. The fact that the paragraph then digresses to criminal penalties is completely misleading since neither the university or the RIAA can initiate criminal charges against anyone. Also any implications that a civil case will lead to a criminal case are far fetched indeed.

Also of note is the statement that an RIAA subpoena costs $4,000 which in itself makes no sense. From other statements relating the $50 fine to this amount it can be surmised that this is the "settlement" amount that the RIAA initally offers to persons that it has labeled as "offenders". The accused is under no legal obligation to pay this settlement amount, as it is a settlement figure designed to persuade the user from continuing on to appearing in a civil court case. The final statement of the article stating "If you don’t pay it, the fine goes up from there.” is not an attribute of the RIAA "fine" but of it's vindictive spirit in raising the stakes if you don't submit at the soonest possible moment.

The author of this article, their editors, and the publishers of this paper should focus more on getting their readers the story the need and deserve. In depth analysis of the affects of the policy on the student and faculty body, it's implementation, and finally a well rounded, factually based analysis of the policy would provide far more value than this choppy, twitter like regurgitation.







log out