The Recording Industry Association of America announced yesterday that it has filed 762 lawsuits against illegal file sharers around the nation. Thirty-two of them are members of networks at 26 different universities, including Stanford.

Unrelated to the actions taken by the music industry, the University has cracked down on file swapping. Under Stanford’s computer usage policy, several students have had their SUNet IDs disabled for sharing files on the school’s computer network.

The loss of a SUNet ID can severely hinder a student’s ability to fulfill his or her academic requirements — such as registering for classes and enrolling in CourseWork — and using Webmail. The purpose of this procedure is to protect the University from liability for copyright infringement violations.

Yesterday’s filing is the second made against a Stanford network user. Earlier in 2004, another network user was alleged to have unlawfully shared or downloaded 11 songs; the individual settled out of court by paying a fine. The University does not publicly release the names of those who are sued.

When the RIAA discovered that someone had been illegally sharing files on the Internet, it notified Stanford of its intention to file a lawsuit. Between the time when that complaint was made a few weeks ago and yesterday, when the lawsuit was filed, Stanford took action of its own.

“Even before we received any subpoena from the RIAA, the Legal Office decided that the best way to handle it was to try to identify the Stanford user as quickly as we could, and to give that user appropriate notice,” said Senior University Counsel Lauren Schoenthaler.

Litigation is one method, under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, used by copyright owners to fight piracy.

Another important tactic is to enforce the Safe Harbor Provisions of the DMCA, which requires that Stanford either terminate copyright infringers from its network or be held responsible for files that are illegally shared on the network. Often, both options are used in concert — one targets the network provider and one targets the individual user.

“Safe Harbor”

The disabling of SUNet IDs is part of an aggressive strategy, which has been in effect for under a year, to protect the University from fines of up to $150,000 for every file that is illegally downloaded on its network.

“We never look for file sharers ourselves,” said C.J. Hafner, the University’s assistant computer security officer.

Rather, she said, the University receives complaints against students from what many call “digital bounty hunters” — companies working for recording or movie studios who monitor peer-to-peer file sharing networks for illegal activity. On average, she estimates that she receives five DMCA complaints per day.

The University uses a “three strikes” approach to deal with piracy, beginning with a request to stop file sharing and ending with the revocation of the user’s SUNet ID.

After the first strike, Hafner sends a letter to the user telling them to stop downloading illegally and to remove the offending files.

On the second occasion, the user’s Internet is disabled and, for students, their residence dean is notified.

Hafner said that the vast majority of students who receive two strikes choose to cease all illegal activities. However, in the event of a third complaint, the University terminates the user’s SUNet ID account to prevent him from using public computers to unlawfully share files.

Back to the “Dark Ages”

Hafner, assistant computer security officer, reported that the first incidence of a student losing his SUNet ID occurred during 2003-2004 academic year.

She said that “several” students had already lost their IDs, with several more in the “queue” to have their privileges revoked.

When students lose their SUNet IDs, the process can be extremely traumatic for both them and their families.

“It’s like being in the dark ages,” said Acting Information Security Officer Tina Darmohray. “We’ve had parents on the other end of the phone who were crying. It’s a nightmare.”

“Some folks are quite angry about the situation, some of them are really scared, and some are just like, ‘Oh my God, what next? Help me,’” Darmohray said.

However, she noted that the revocation of the SUNet ID is not a punishment — it is done to protect the University from getting sued. The process for revocation is “completely separate” from any action the Office of Judicial Affairs takes against the student. Students can be charged with a violation of the Fundamental Standard if they accumulate three violations.

The University is currently trying to make the effects of losing the SUNet ID less severe by offering, in some cases, a way for the user to access Stanford infranet to register for classes without being able to use the outside Internet from the network.

Students unaware of consequences

Although on Sept. 13, Provost John Etchemendy released a letter to the Stanford community warning about the disabling of SUNet IDs if anyone accrues three violations, and also about students’ liabilities to direct litigation, many students are unaware of the potential consequences for illegal file sharing.

One sophomore, who asked to remain anonymous, said that neither he nor his roommates were aware that it was possible to have his SUNet ID taken away. He has never received a DMCA complaint, nor, he says, does he expect to.

“I turned uploading off on my computer so people can’t take my music off. I don’t think they can track you if you’re downloading music. Or, I just hook up to my friends’ computers and steal the music they have already stolen.”

He currently uses the LimeWire peer-to-peer program to download files and has accumulated over 1,200 files illegally over the course of about two years.

Another sophomore, who also asked to remain anonymous, said that he would continue downloading music using a peer-to-peer network even as he acknowledged the risk that he could receive DMCA complaints or even a lawsuit.

“It’s always a risk, I guess,” he said. “I think of it like safe sex: There’s always a risk, but you do what you do to minimize it.”

A preference for litigation?

Schoenthaler worries that attitudes in the recording industry are shifting toward a preference for lawsuits against individual network users rather letting Internet service providers handle the problem internally.

The Motion Picture Association of America does not currently use litigation as a tool to fight piracy, according to Matthew Grossmand of digital strategy and corporate communications.

Jonathon Lamy, a spokesperson for the RIAA, said over the phone that his organization relies on both filing complaints with universities and filing lawsuits against individuals.

“Generally speaking, these are parallel enforcement mechanisms, and we continue to utilize both tools,” he said. “We continue to send out thousands of cease and desist notices to University networks. For more egregious examples of piracy, we might decide that a lawsuit is warranted.”

“My concern is that they are no longer favoring the DMCA process,” Schoenthaler said. “It’s my hunch that they’re choosing to go straight to litigation.” She added that she feels that lawsuits might not be the most effective means of changing the minds of illegal file-sharers.

“My personal preference is strong education campaigns,” she said. “I think if you put the money into advertising you might reach a broader audience than targeting the specific folks who are on the other end of a lawsuit.”