Monday May 5, 2008 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com be,, ichioan lEail13 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu EMMARIE HUETTEMAN EDITOR IN CHIEF GARY GRACA MANAGING EDITOR KATE TRUESDELL EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Ripped off RIAA claims noble intentions, but actually exploits students hanks to the aggressive legal tactics of the Recording Industry Associa- tion of America, in addition to worrying about finals, some college stu- dents over the past to weeks have also had to worry about their criminal records. Campuses across the nation saw huge spikes in subpoenas delivered by the organization, including here at the University. This is the latest development in a long history of unfair targeting of college students, a practice that is unfair and only works to make a quick buck rather than facilitating any meaningful legal decision. HARUN BULJINA E-MAIL BULJINA AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU FPcE BOOI AIIDS Supreme slip-up Voter laws fighting fraud severly flawed 4 4 Students who illegally download files onto their computers are often discov- ered by the RIAA, which then notifies their University. When this piracy is done on University property, such as in dorms, violators can be tracked by their IP addresses. It is then the responsibility of the University to notify the students that they can either take the RIAA to court or set- tle outside of it. While the average out-of- court settlement of roughly $3,000-$4,000 is hardly a fate students would relish, it's a much more appealing option than taking the orga- nization to court, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's no surprise, then, that students are known for taking settlement options, a fact the RIAA is well aware of and uses to its advantage. Not that the organization will ever admit that. The offi- cial story is that students are notorious file-sharers. On the RIAA website, the organiza- tion admits to purposely tar- geting students, claimingthat according to "some recent surveys" slightly more than half of college students par- ticipate in illegal downloading. While file-sharing is hardly rare on college campuses, there's evidence to suggest that this practice isn't quite the epidemic the RIAA claims it is. The Motion Picture Asso- ciation of America, which strives to protect intellectual property rights in much the same way the RIAA does, recently admitted to overesti- mating the amount of money they lost due to college piracy by almost 30 percent. If these piracy estimates were so far off, the legitimacy of ones the RIAA uses as justification for its actions should certainly be called into question. The accuracy of these numbers is important - statistical errors like the MPAA's indicate that students aren't necessary the problem, just an easy mark. Unfair targeting isn't the only beef students should have with the RIAA. It is no coincidence that the number of lawsuits against file-shar- ers increases dramatically at the end of each semester. The organization steps up its dubious prosecution of these offenses during exam time because it knows that stu- dents are less likely to go to court over the matter when they have to worry about finals, too. With out-of-court settlements netting the RIAA several thousand dollars, it's clear that the organization is more focused on profit than bringing about a case that could change policy. Rulesregardingfile-sharing undoubtedly need to be set. If the RIAA is serious making this happen, it should pursue an opponent with the time and resources to actually go to court. The current strategy may be effective at exploiting students, but it does little to move toward real progress. Candidates aren't the only ones causing controversy this election season. Fren- zy over poll policies flourished in the wake oflast Monday's Supreme court ruling regarding voter iden- tification laws. In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld the constitu- tionality of Indiana's 2005 voter identification law requiring that voters show valid photo ID before casting a ballot. Michigan, which also requiresvoters toproducethis type of identification before step- ping into the booth, should not be distracted by the Supreme Court's decision, but instead use this as an opportunity to reexamine its own policies, prioritizing voter access to polls to ensure that elections are a representative as possible. More than 20 states require some form of voter identification at the polls, including Michigan. Photo IDs put an added burden on voters. They cost money, and generally require individuals to take time off work to make it to the Secretary of State's office dur- ing its rigid hours. This adds to the burden of voting and dispro- portionately affects those who do not have the need to acquire ID for other reasons and lack resources or transportation to do so simply for the purpose of casting their ballots such as senior citizens. Although intended to combat voter fraud, the necessity of these policies has not yet been proven. As the dissenting justices point- ed out in the Indiana case, little evidence has been brought forth proving that fraud is occurring at rates high enough to warrant these measures, especially con- sidering the barriers they create. Even Indiana's Secretary of State Todd Rokita admitted that there were no such persecutions cur- rently underway in his state. As things stand now, the benefits of exclusive voting laws don't out- weigh the drawbacks. If evidence of fraud can be pro- duced, it may then - and only then - be reasonable to imple- ment photo ID requirements. The state needs to realize, though,that if this requirement stands, it is its job to minimize the burden this policy puts on voters. It becomes the State's job to get creative and provide disadvantaged voters with IDs through voter outreach. Programs like Missouri's are a good example. Until the sum- mer of 2006 when its photo ID requirements were struck down, the Missouri state government sent vans out to issue photo IDs to the elderly and other voting groups that might otherwise have had trouble obtaining them. At this time, photo IDs are an unnecessary measure undertak- en for unsubstantiated reasons. Voter fraud may be a problem, but until that is proven there is no excuse for rash voting laws that effectively leave a part of the elec- torate without a voice. I I a 4 Editorial Board Members: Harun Buljina, Robert Soave, Matt Trecha