I’m a criminal, and you likely are as well. Regardless if you tried Kazaa once to hear the latest Kelly Clarkson single or if you keep your sharing ratio high with a private tracker, you and I are guilty by the standards of the Recording Industry Association of America.

But as the RIAA scrambles to file lawsuits against file sharers in an attempt to alienate consumers – I mean “hunt down terrible criminals” – maybe it’s time we evaluate the youth mindset today and adjust industrial business models to reflect the new digital era.

I like to think of pirating music as a modern day library. You download, or borrow, the music you may be interested in. If you enjoy the product, you support the artist by spreading their talents via word of mouth, pay exorbitant fees to attend live concerts, purchase merchandise or buy a higher quality version of their work. If you don’t enjoy it, that’s the last time you give those guys a spin.

As we see their homes on shows such as “MTV Cribs,” it becomes difficult to feel empathy and remorse about stealing artists' music. We often perceive temporary artists as “rich enough” and feel they produce a low quality of music. Music has simply gone downhill. I’m sorry, but if you think you can squeeze another $16.99 out of me by telling me to crank, super soak or superman “dat ho” for four straight minutes, you are sadly mistaken.

The newest iPod classic has 160 gigabyte storage capacity. That’s nearly 40,000 songs, or $40,000 if you use iTunes to purchase music. But the music purchased there is crippled by Digital Rights Management – meaning it has a relatively low bitrate and can only be stored on one iPod and five platforms. The contents found on OiNK and other torrent sites are studio quality, play on any platform and – most importantly – are free.

It does not take a genius to realize the route the average competent consumer will choose – legally correct or not.

The public has made its choice on file-sharing clear and I only wish WSU would reflect this new standard. Schools such as the University of Washington inactively monitor file-sharing traffic, but do not vilify individuals who elect to file-share, according to the UW file-sharing website.

In fact, programs such as DC++ run actively on the university’s bandwidth, almost encouraging file-sharing. Users get in trouble if the RIAA sends a pre-settlement copyright infringement letter, but UW only forwards the letters when the accused are “reasonably identifiable.” Only 15 letters have been passed to students to date, according to the website.

In contrast, WSU’s ResNet actively monitors internet traffic looking for file sharers. If found, the offender’s network access is immediately terminated, they must take a copyright class and their hard drive is thoroughly inspected. Furthermore, Student Computing Services submits violators to the Student Conduct Board or law enforcement.

I’m not saying file-sharing is acceptable, but I would like to see WSU revisit their outdated, unrealistic and cumbersome policy. Instead of wasting time inspecting and clearing hard drives, it may be more beneficial to perform other tasks, such as solving student computer issues in a more timely fashion.

Public opinions on file-sharing have changed, and it’s time we see the industry and WSU reflect and accommodate this change.