Paper 1: RIAA lawsuits
Due: Friday, Feb 13. Your paper must be submitted electronically,
either via email or through the Blackboard digital dropbox.
We've
discussed in class the process the RIAA uses to sue individuals who it
believes have been downloading copyrighted music illegally. You are to propose some changes to this process to improve "fairness"; you may interpret that more or less however you wish. Some potential options are:
- Unilateral
modifications by the RIAA; after all, a big part of their strategy is
public relations and at some level the RIAA does need to have this
process perceived as legitimate.
- Involvement of other (eg
legal-assistance) organizations, funded either by the government or
privately. This might include availability within the court system of
an office that could advise RIAA-targeted defendants of basic
groundrules; it might also include web-based support of defendants. Be
aware that once you have provided legal advice on the particulars of a
case, you have taken a side, and any pretense of neutrality is then out
the window.
- Modifications to
the legal system itself, perhaps to address inequities when one party
to a lawsuit has so many more resources than the other. With this
approach, though, avoid tampering with any fundamental legal rights.
For example, the RIAA's right to pay as much as they want for their
legal team is sacrosanct. Other possible directions here might include
changes in terms of evidentiary requirements for these cases to
proceed, or changes to the penalties for "statutory infringement".
Here's a brief outline of the RIAA process:
- RIAA
agents search for file-sharers online, using file-sharing software;
many if not most downloaders also (often unwittingly) publicize through
their file-sharing software their willingness to share their own music
libraries. The RIAA gathers IP addresses and lists of all music in
"share" folders.
- "John
Doe" lawsuits are filed against a group of alleged file-sharers; the
only thing they have in common is IP addresses associated with the same
ISP.
That ISP is then subpoenaed for the actual names of the users; this
"John Doe" suit is then dropped.
- Individual
alleged file-sharers are now contacted with a settlement offer, and
also warned not to disturb or alter any evidence. Later forensic
examination of their hard drive can confirm the shared music noted in
step 1.
- If individual alleged downloaders do not respond or do not agree, a lawsuit against that individual is filed.
Your
proposal should also remain "fair" to
the RIAA, an organization not known for garnering much sympathy. You
are free to argue that fairness demands that the RIAA have no legal
recourse against individuals whatsoever, but then you would be expected
to explain why that is fair. You are also free to defend the existing
process, arguing that any appearance of unfairness is misleading or
irrelevant.
Issues
of fairness and justice lie at the heart of ethics, but in this case
you are arguing more or less completely as a disinterested third party.
A utilitarian might argue about overall fairness in a situation such as
this, but with the ultimate goal of deciding how he or she is to behave
personally. With this distinction in mind, you are free to introduce
deontological or utilitarian arguments, though you are also free not to
go there.
Your paper will be graded primarily on organization
(that is, how you lay out your sequence of paragraphs), focus (that is,
whether you stick to the topic), and the nature and completeness of
your arguments. It is essential
that all quotations from other sources be indicated as such, at a
minimum by using quotation marks or block quotes and preferably by a
citation as well.
Expected length: 3-5 pages (600+ words)