Trail of technophobia

This publication, in the eyes of some students, is entirely responsible for the demise of DC++ (the file-sharing hub) and completely to blame for students no longer being able to illegally and rapidly download all the music and videos their hearts desire.

That has been made clear through the many comments posted online.

While The Diamondback has certainly contributed to a wider knowledge of DC++, it has not targeted involved students, advocated the closure of the network or suggested others do so. All it has done is report on a subject important to students, try to make sense of the associated legal and political dynamics for its readers and, most importantly, document a period of university history that may one day be referenced by scholars writing dissertations about how demonic the RIAA was during our present decade.

The life and times - as well as the death - of DC++ were and are news. They are indicative of a wider trend alive across the country and at many universities. This publication has never and will never shy away from covering controversial news, reflecting the campus culture or seeking out uncomfortable truths regardless of whether certain students are angered by them.

The Diamondback is involved in all of this - that is obvious. There is no denial there. However, it is not responsible for the closure or disruption of the hub. That responsibility lies solely with the RIAA and the Office of Information Technology.

Everyone who works on the content of this publication is a student. We are not estranged from the student population. We didn't want the hub shut down any more than any other student. We did, however, have a responsibility to report on a technological phenomenon that was unique to this campus and used by hundreds of students each day.

Still, people commented on reporter Carrie Wells' story ("DC++ operator says he will pull plug on hub today," Oct. 11) that The Diamondback "got [its] wish," that it is "screwing" students and that student journalists working at the publication are "hated by at least 1,000 people on this campus."

Instead of wasting time complaining about this publication's role in the fall of DC++, angered students should instead direct their complaints toward the bodies responsible for that fall: the RIAA and OIT.

Did OIT bow down to the RIAA? Yes. Is it disregarding the fact that resourceful students will find other ways to download music? Absolutely. OIT has a responsibility to listen to university lawyers, to weigh the litigation the RIAA could use to hold the university hostage and to make a decision. It's our sense that OIT knows the market hasn't adjusted to the digital revolution. They know the RIAA is out of line and will become increasingly obsolete as long as they continue to embrace their technophobia.

But OIT sold out. They listened blindly to the lawyers. They chose to remove a system that helped foster the free exchange of ideas - a hallmark of American universities. And worst of all, they turned back the clock on technological advances.

Pardon our coverage of the inevitable demise of DC++. We'll be around five years from now when hindsight is 20/20 and the university is regarded as having been foolish enough to slam down an iron fist upon file sharing, refusing to step into the future.