If you, like the untold millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens, have downloaded popular music for free on the Internet over the years, you should be worried.

Consider the plight of Joel Tenenbaum. The 24-year-old Boston University student will face a judge in U.S. District Court in Boston next month for downloading seven songs and making 816 music files available for distribution on the Kazaa file-sharing network in 2004. Capital Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are seeking a $1 million judgment, or about $150,000 per song Mr. Tenenbaum downloaded.

Over 30,000 complaints have been filed against people who share music files online since the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999. None of these complaints have been resolved in court. The lone jury ruling, an October 2007 case against Duluth, Minnesota mother, Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay $220,000 to various record companies for illegally copying and distributing 24 songs, was overturned in September by US District Judge Michael Davis saying that his instructions to the jury were unclear on the question of whether making music available for download by itself constitutes infringement. It is a good question and one that has yet to be definitively answered in a court of law. He also wrote that he didn’t discount the industry’s claim that illegal downloading has hurt the recording business, but called the award “wholly disproportionate” to the industry’s losses and he called on Congress to change copyright laws to prevent excessive awards in similar cases. The industry backed legislation sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. In Tenenbaum’s case, record companies contend that the damages allowed by the law are “intended not only to compensate the copyright owner, but also to punish the infringer (and) deter other potential infringers.”

The chances of Tenenbaum being convicted and ordered to pay a $1 million dollar fine are miniscule. The industry, flush with the deepest of pockets, is hoping to force Tenenbaum into legal submission. To avoid damages and limit the attorney fees and legal costs that would escalate over a protracted court battle, he, like many others charged with illegal music downloading, tried to settle his case out of court not having the financial resources or legal representation to fight the charges brought against him. Tenenbaum offered to settle the case for $500, but the music companies and the RIAA rejected that, demanding that he pay $12,000 in restitution for his crimes.

He refused. Now it is up to the courts to decide.

Taking Tenenbaum’s case is Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. His legal contention is that the act is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group, the RIAA, carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court. Nesson, the founder of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal in taking Tenenbaum’s case is to “turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency.”

Nesson’s challenge against the music labels is one of the most determined attempts to derail the industry’s flurry of litigation. The RIAA counters in court documents filed in Boston that their effort to enforce the copyright law is protected under the First Amendment and they have the right to petition the courts for redress of grievances. The group also contends that Nesson failed to notify the U.S.

Attorney General that he wanted to challenge the law’s constitutional status.

Nesson is due to meet attorneys for the music industry for a pretrial conference next Tuesday, ahead of a trial set for Dec. 1.

Stay tuned for the latest developments. You could be next.