No, not militant Islam against the West, although there are certainly elements of authoritarianism vs. freedom of expression. No, I'm talking about the RIAA against the 60 million Americans who are file sharers, which comes to a head this week:

On this there has been virtually no dispute: People who share copyrighted music online with strangers are breaking the law.

Several federal judges have held as much in cases against file-sharing networks such as those of Napster Inc., MP3.com Inc. and Grokster Ltd. Even the most ardent defenders of peer-to-peer networks acknowledge that many users run roughshod over copyright rules.

But that conventional wisdom has never been tested in a case pitting copyright holders against individual file sharers.

That could change as early as this week. The recording industry is poised to sue potentially hundreds of people who offer free music online - an unprecedented action expected to ripple across the music business and the community of 60 million people in the United States who use file-sharing networks.

At the very least, the lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Assn. of America probably would provide a much clearer guide to just what's allowed as lawyers tease out previously unheard defenses and argue over the nuances of copyright law. At most, the suits could upend conventional wisdom about online piracy.

....For those who fight the suits, a key goal will be to show that enough of the facts are in dispute that they deserve to have their cases go before juries. Given that half the Internet users in the United States have used a file-sharing network, the odds are high that a jury member would know someone who has downloaded music improperly. Those jurors could be sympathetic, and multiple trials could stretch the record industry's resources.

"If everyone fights it, they lose," Singleton said. "The federal courts will shut down."

Spontaneous mass support could conceivably erupt as well. One of the four college students sued by the RIAA this year for running a small peer-to-peer network asked for donations through a Web site and recouped all of his $12,000 settlement costs.

Juries might also consider something they are not supposed to under copyright law: intent. One anticipated defense is that any file sharing was accidental.

....The U.S. Supreme Court, when it legalized the videocassette recorder by a 5-4 vote, ruled that what it called "time-shifting" - that is, taping a show now to watch later - is fine. The law on "space-shifting," which includes ripping and arguably downloading copies, is less clear.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco authorized sale of the Rio portable MP3 player in 1999 and made comments favorable to space-shifting, implying that moving a purchased song from one format to another is permissible.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4