Students facing copyright infringement suits related to music downloading may have new legal alternatives.

A recent court case called into question one of the Recording Industry Association of America's main legal arguments used to justify its prosecution of alleged music pirates.

A U.S. District Court in Connecticut ruled last month in Atlantic v. Brennan that making copyrighted works available on the Internet does not, by itself, constitute copyright infringement.

In her opinion, Judge Janet Bond Arterton wrote that plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases must establish both that they own the copyright and that the copyrighted works were indeed duplicated and not just made available.

Arterton ruled that the RIAA failed to do this because it offered no evidence that defendant Christopher Brennan, a senior at Boston University, had actually distributed the copyrighted works in question.

This decision may have implications for cases currently pending against students at Duke and other universities. Last Friday, a motion to dismiss the RIAA's charges against Christopher Vines, an Indiana University sophomore, cited the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.

Freshman Pat Light, who received a warning letter from the RIAA via the Office of Information Technology, said the decision would serve as a useful counterweight to the RIAA's legal muscle.

"I think most of [the RIAA's] legal practices up to this point have been dubious at best," Light said. "It's a good precedent as far as putting the RIAA in their place."

But the debate is not over just yet. Friday, the RIAA submitted a motion for reconsideration of the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan.

The motion states that every court that has ruled on the issue has held that making copyrighted materials available constitutes infringement.

The motion also alleges that the court misinterpreted Perfect 10 v. Amazon Inc., a prior copyright infringement case.

"Perfect 10... expressly supports the making available right of distribution in [the context of the case]," the motion states.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston and Bird professor of law and professor of political science, said he agreed with the RIAA's judgment of the current law regarding copyright infringement.

"The government is allowed to prohibit people from taking actions that contribute to infringement of copyrights," Chemerinsky said, citing the Supreme Court case MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster. "To my knowledge... [the court in Atlantic v. Brennan] is the first court to take this approach, which would narrow what constitutes contributory infringement."

Chemerinsky said it was uncertain whether the ruling in Atlantic v. Brennan would actually help students with pending infringement cases.

"Certainly this will give them a precedent to be able to argue that they can't be held liable," he said. "Whether other courts will follow, it's too soon to know."

Kip Frey, an adjunct professor at the Sanford Institute of Public Policy who specializes in intellectual property, said although the RIAA's legal arguments appear to be solid, it is questionable whether the damages being claimed are appropriate.

A student who settled with the RIAA, who asked not to be named, said the lawsuits threatened against many students claimed up to $300,000 in damages. He said that settlements, generally ranging from $3,000 to $5,000, were tempting for many students threatened with litigation.

The student added that he was frustrated with the University's response, noting that when other universities have refused to divulge students' names, the RIAA has backed off.

"I believe [the RIAA has] a valid claim... but they're going after kids who have to go their parents," the student said. "It's so easy just to settle and not worry about it, but in reality most people wish they could fight it."