Ernest Gomez | Downloading away financial aid

I'm used to being the bearer of bad news.

As a former ITA manager, I've delivered many copyright-violation notices to on-campus residents who were caught downloading and sharing copyrighted music and video.

Most downloads do not result in lawsuits, but if the House of Representatives passes the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, colleges might lose eligibility for federal student financial aid if they fail to address illegal downloading on their campus networks.

Penn should be unaffected by the bill if it passes. The University subscribes to Ruckus, a service that allows for limited-license music downloads and likely meets the requirements of the bill.

However, pressuring colleges and universities into protecting the movie and music industries at the potential expense of students is a morally despicable cave-in to special interests.

Committee spokeswoman Rachel Racusen told CNET News.com that "these provisions would not put students or colleges at risk for losing financial aid."

She said schools would only have to inform students and employees of its policies and procedures related to illegal downloads, and the consequences of failing to heed the new rules would be determined by the Department of Education.

If the penalties are as light as the committee aide claims, colleges and universities have less to fear: This bill will have no teeth and illegal downloading will continue on college campuses. However, the precedent set by the bill as well as its ambiguity should be a cause for concern.

Section 494 of the bill says, "Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable . develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading . as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

Does this mean that the "plans" need only to be developed and not implemented? Does the word "shall" not imply a requirement but a strong suggestion? What exactly determines the "extent practicable" for an institution?

The vagueness of the bill's language, especially given the committee's fact sheet, opens the door for more stringent regulation in the future should the music and movie industries pressure their friends in Washington further.

Furthermore, the House Education and Labor Committee's "fact sheet" in response to public criticism over the bill tactlessly attacks the bill's opponents. The committee's responsorial fact sheet says, "supporters of intellectual-property theft are circulating myths about the bill." Who could these evil proponents of piracy be?

None other than officials of the University of Maryland, Stanford, Yale and Penn State, who voiced their opposition in a letter to Congress: "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

It seems odd that a committee that works hand-in-hand with educational institutions would indirectly label university officials as criminals.

Meanwhile, the Motion Picture Association of America has cited a list of college campuses that have already begun monitoring and filtering file transfers on their networks. The MPAA claims these efforts have decreased copyright complaints from as much as 50 per month to none.

However, at a large, research-heavy institution such as Penn, the possibility of overly restrictive network oversight can inhibit legitimate file transfers and hurt productivity. This is Penn's rationale for not having a centralized firewall or filter for University network activity.

While network monitoring can virtually eliminate copyright violations, colleges should not be legally bound to do the dirty work of the music and movie industries. Instead of imposing regulatory burden onto colleges and universities, the music and movie industries should consider alternative courses of action.

For example, the MPAA has already begun charging fines for downloading and sharing copyrighted content. By acquiring user information from a school, the MPAA can penalize students without affecting the school's network activity. The deterrent of a fine also imposes individual accountability whereas the proposed bill spreads punishment to the entire university community.

The music and movie industries should also consider decreasing their prices or finding alternative business models to create incentives to purchase media from them. Radiohead recently made their newest album available for download with an option for donation. While the effect of this model on the band's revenue has yet to be determined, the prospect of artists selling their work at low prices without record-label contracts should be a red flag for needed change.

With the Internet community consistently seeking ways to circumvent efforts by the MPAA and RIAA, morality may be the only force driving demand for legal music and movie sales.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel morally obliged to purchase anything from someone who holds my financial aid hostage.

Ernest Gomez is an Engineering and Wharton senior from Beverly Hills, Calif. His e-mail address is gomez@dailypennsylvanian.com. Please, Call Me Ted appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.