WHAT IS ONLINE PIRACY?
Music theft is a real, ongoing and evolving challenge. Both the volume of music acquired illegally without paying for it and
the resulting drop in revenues are staggering. Digital sales, while on the rise, are not making up the difference.
Common Examples of Online Copyright Infringement:
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought
expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy
on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of
other people can download it.
Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a
file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the
copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other
network members.
In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of
other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing
network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of
copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all
the music you want.
You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging
service.
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn
copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of
your friends.
Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a
copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to
all of your friends.
WHO MUSIC THEFT HURTS
It’s commonly known as “piracy,” but that’s too benign of a term to adequately describe the toll that music theft
takes on the enormous cast of industry players working behind the scenes to bring music to your ears. That cast
includes songwriters, recording artists, audio engineers, computer technicians, talent scouts and marketing
specialists, producers, publishers and countless others.
o
While downloading one song may not feel that serious of a crime, the accumulative impact of millions of songs
downloaded illegally – and without any compensation to all the people who helped to create that song and bring it
to fans – is devastating. One credible study by the Institute for Policy Innovation pegs the annual harm at $12.5
billion dollars in losses to the U.S. economy as well as more than 70,000 lost jobs and $2 billion in lost wages to
American workers.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
While the music business has increased its digital revenues by 1,000 percent from 2004 to 2010, digital music theft has been
a major factor behind the overall global market decline of around 31 percent in the same period. And although use of peerto-peer sites has flattened during recent years, other forms of digital theft are emerging, most notably digital storage lockers
used to distribute copyrighted music.
Consider these staggering statistics:
o
Since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in
1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 53 percent, from
$14.6 billion to $7.0 billion in 2011.
o
From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs
were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks.
o
NPD reports that only 37 percent of music acquired by U.S.
consumers in 2009 was paid for.
o
According to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation,
the digital theft of music, movies and copyrighted content takes
up huge amounts of Internet bandwidth – 24 percent globally,
and 17.5 percent in the U.S.
o
Digital storage locker downloads constitute 7 percent of all
Internet traffic, while 91 percent of the links found on them were
for copyrighted material, and 10 percent of those links were to
music specifically, according to a 2011 Envisional study.
The music industry, while enormous in its economic, cultural and personal impact, is by business standards relatively small.
So theft on this scale has a noticeable and devastating impact: employment at the major U.S. music companies has declined
by thousands of workers, and artist rosters have been significantly cut back. The successful partnership between a music
label and a global superstar – and the revenue generated – finances the investment in discovering, developing and
promoting the next new artist. Without that revolving door of investment and revenue, the ability to bring the next
generation of artists to the marketplace is diminished – as is the incentive for the aspiring artist to make music a full time
professional career.
THE LAW
Unauthorized Copying is Against the Law
Copyright law protects the value of creative work. When you make unauthorized copies of someone’s creative work, you are
taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission. Most likely, you’ve seen the FBI warning about
unauthorized copying at the beginning of a movie DVD. Though you may not find these messages on all compact discs or
music you’ve downloaded from the Internet, the same laws apply. Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties
for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17,
United States Code, Sections 501 and 506).
What the Law Says and What it Means
Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings is against the law and may subject you to civil and criminal
liability. A civil law suit could hold you responsible for thousands of dollars in damages. Criminal charges may leave you with
a felony record, accompanied by up to five years of jail time and fines up to $250,000. You may find this surprising. After all,
compact discs may be easily be copied multiple times with inexpensive CD-R burning technology. Further, when you’re on
the Internet, digital information can seem to be as free as air. U.S. copyright law does in fact provide full protection of sound
recordings, whether they exist in the form of physical CD’s or digital files. Regardless of the format at issue, the same basic
principal applies: music sound recordings may not be copied or distributed without the permission of the owner.
What the Courts Have to Say
A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that it’s against the law both to upload and download copyrighted music
without permission. It doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with sound recordings, pictures, software or written text. The
courts have consistently ruled that many peer-to-peer (P2P) programs and other unauthorized uploading and downloading
inherently amount to copyright infringement and therefore constitute a crime.
Common Examples of Online Copyright Infringement:
o
o
o
o
o
o
You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought
expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy
on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of
other people can download it.
Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a
file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the
copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other
network members.
In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of
other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing
network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of
copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all
the music you want.
You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging
service.
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn
copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of
your friends.
Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a
copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to
all of your friends.
Do The Crime, Do The Time
If you do not have legal permission, and you go ahead and copy or distribute copyrighted music anyway, you can be
prosecuted in criminal court and/or sued for damages in civil court.
o
o
Criminal penalties for first-time offenders can be as high as five
years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Civil penalties can run into many thousands of dollars in damages
and legal fees. The minimum penalty is $750 per song.
The "No Electronic Theft Law" (NET Act) is similar on copyright violations that involve digital recordings:
o
o
o
o
Criminal penalties can run up to five years in prison and/or
$250,000 in fines, even if you didn’t do it for monetary or financial
or commercial gain.
If you did expect something in return, even if it just involves
swapping your files for someone else’s, as in MP3 trading, you can
be sentenced to as much as five years in prison.
Regardless of whether you expected to profit, you’re still liable in
civil court for damages and lost profits of the copyright holder.
Or the copyright holders can sue you for up to $150,000 in
statutory damages for each of their copyrighted works that you
illegally copy or distribute.
If you make digital copies of copyrighted music on your computer available to anyone through the Internet without the
permission of the copyright holder, you’re stealing. And if you allow a P2P file-sharing network to use part of your computer’s
hard drive to store copyrighted recordings that anyone can access and download, you’re on the wrong side of the law.
Having the hardware to make unauthorized music recordings doesn’t give you the right to steal. Music has value for the artist
and for everyone who works in the industry.
What the Courts Have to Say About Illegal Uploading and Downloading…
…and Copyrighted Sound Recordings:
"As stated by Record Company Plaintiffs in their brief, "Aimster predicates its entire service upon furnishing a 'road map' for
users to find, copy, and distribute copyrighted music." …We agree. Defendants [Aimster] manage to do everything but
actually steal the music off the store shelf and hand it to Aimster's users."
Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002).
"…they [Aimster] apparently believe that the ongoing, massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of Record
Company Plaintiffs' copyrighted works by Aimster's end users somehow constitutes "personal use.’ This contention is
specious and unsupported by the very case on which Defendants rely."
Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002).
"Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights . . . .Napster users who upload file names to the
search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted
music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights….[V]irtually all Napster users engage in the unauthorized downloading or
uploading of copyrighted music . . ."
A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
"Although defendant [MP3.com] seeks to portray its service as the ‘functional equivalent’ of storing its subscribers’ CDs, in
actuality defendant is re-playing for the subscribers converted versions of the recording it copied, without authorization, from
plaintiffs’ copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act . . . ."
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
…and Copyrighted Images:
"Distributing unlawful copies of a copyrighted work violates the copyright owner’s distribution right and, as a result,
constitutes copyright infringement. . . . . [Unlawful distribution occurs where] [f]iles of [copyrighted] information are stored
in the central system, and subscribers may either ‘download’ information into their[computers] or ‘upload’ information from
their home units into the central files . . . ."
Playboy Enterprises v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ohio 1997).
"[The Copyright Act] provides that an owner of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies . .
. [and] to distribute copies of the work to the public . . . . [A]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner … is an infringer of the copyright."
Playboy Enterprises v. Webbworld Inc., 991 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Tex. 1997).
…and Copyrighted Software:
"Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the
copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the
copyright laws . . . ."
Ohio v. Perry, 83 Ohio St. 3d 41, 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1998).
"The unauthorized copying of copyrighted computer programs is . . . an infringement of the copyright . . . . [U]nauthorized
copies . . . are made when such games are uploaded to the BBS [Bulletin Board Service] . . . [and] when they are
downloaded to make additional copies by users . . . ."
Sega Enterprises v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
"‘[C]opying,’ for the purposes of copyright law, occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage
device to a computer's random access memory. In this case, copies were made when the Sega game files were uploaded to
or downloaded from [the defendant’s] BBS [Bulletin Board Service]."
Sega Enterprises. v. Sabella, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20470 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
…and Copyrighted Text:
"Defendant Free Republic is a ‘bulletin board’ website whose members use the site to post news articles to which they add
remarks or commentary . . . . The Plaintiffs' [Los Angeles Times and Washington Post] complaint alleges that unauthorized
copying and posting of the articles on the Free Republic site constitutes copyright infringement . . . . [P]laintiffs' motion for
summary adjudication with respect to fair use is granted . . . ."
L.A. Times v. Free Republic, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
"When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the [copyrighted] Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in
the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary
one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the
Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright."
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
When It Comes to Copying Music, What’s Okay … And What’s Not:
Technology has made digital copying easier than ever. But just because advances in technology make it possible to copy
music doesn’t mean it’s legal to do so. Here are tips on how to enjoy the music while respecting rights of others in the digital
world. Stick with these, and you’ll be doing right by the people who created the music.
Internet Copying
o
o
o
o
It’s okay to download music from sites authorized by the owners
of the copyrighted music, whether or not such sites charge a fee.
Visit our list of Legal Music Sites or Music United for a list of a
number legal and safe sites where permission is granted and
content is available for downloading.
It’s never okay to download unauthorized music from pirate sites
(web or FTP) or peer-to-peer systems. Examples of peer-to-peer
systems making unauthorized music available for download
include: Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus.
It’s never okay to make unauthorized copies of music available to
others (that is, uploading music) on peer-to-peer systems.
Copying CDs
o
o
o
o
o
It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for
commercial purposes.
It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs,
and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) –
but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted
music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto
a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or
your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long
as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you
legitimately own
o The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal
use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it
to others for copying.
The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection
technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a
copy that you make.
Are there occasionally exceptions to these rules? Sure. A "garage" or unsigned band might want you to download its own
music; but, bands that own their own music are free to make it available legally by licensing it. And, remember that there
are lots of authorized sites where music can be downloaded for free. Better to be safe than sorry – don’t assume that
downloading or burning is legal just because technology makes it possible.
Enjoy the music. By doing the right thing, you’ll be doing your part to make sure that the music keeps coming.
* This site is intended to educate consumers about the issues associated with the downloading, uploading and consumer
copying of music. It is not intended to offer legal advice or be a comprehensive guide to copyright law and the commercial
uses of music.
Source: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading
Published September 09, 2003
NYPost.com

inShare The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who
thought downloading songs was fun.
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in
federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her
mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer
that question.
"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.
Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information
on any of the individuals."
Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock."
"My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said.
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said.
When reporters visited the apartment last night, Brianna — who her mom says is an honors student — was helping her brother with his
homework.
Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software — and thousands more
suits could be on the way.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is
being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the
Internet.
People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.
Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has
already settled some cases for as little as $3,000.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html#ixzz2Lvx6hM6D
Originally published September 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Page modified September 11, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Share:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin More Sharing Services




Comments (3)
E-mail article
Print
Woman loses music downloading appeal, owes
$222K
A Minnesota woman accused of sharing songs online owes record companies $222,000 for willful copyright
violations, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, reversing a lower court's ruling in a long-running lawsuit over
music downloading.
By STEVE KARNOWSKI
Associated Press
Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
Seems like the younger generation has their own definition of "stealing". (September 11, 2012, by Shortchanged) MORE
I could accept an argument that 10 times the value stolen might be a reasonable fine... (September 11, 2012, by
Khumak) MORE
This is complete and utter stupidity by the music industry. It is interesting that in ... (September 11, 2012, by Aman RA)
MORE
Read all 3 comments
Post a comment
MINNEAPOLIS —
A Minnesota woman accused of sharing songs online owes record companies $222,000 for willful copyright
violations, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, reversing a lower court's ruling in a long-running lawsuit over
music downloading.
A three-judge appeals panel ruled that Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis erred when he cut the award
against Jammie Thomas-Rasset to $54,000.
The Brainerd woman's case was one of only two lawsuits to go to trial out of more than 30,000 filed by the
recording industry in a drive to stop the unauthorized free downloading of copyrighted music, which the
industry says has cut deeply into its revenues. The vast majority settled for about $3,500 apiece.
The U.S. Supreme Court in May refused to hear an appeal by former Boston University student Joel
Tenenbaum of a $675,000 award in the other case, but he has vowed to keep fighting.
Juries ruled against Thomas-Rasset in three separate trials since the industry sued her in 2006. Davis said the
last award, of $1.5 million, was "severe and oppressive."
But the appeals court found the high award was not unreasonable. It sent the case back to Davis for an order that
she pay $222,000 - the award from her original trial - and for an injunction barring her from making the
plaintiffs' recordings available to the public via online media distribution systems in the future.
"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us," the
Recording Industry Association of America said in a statement.
But Thomas-Rasset said she plans to appeal again as long as her attorneys remain with her for the long haul,
and they've assured her they are. She has said she can't afford to pay anyway.
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, confirmed they'll ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying the $222,000
award is punitive.
The industry has previously offered to settle for $25,000 and donate the money to a musician's charity. Camara
said they wouldn't accept such an offer even if were made again.
The industry presented evidence that Thomas-Rasset made available over 1,700 songs to other computer uses
via the file sharing service Kazaa, though the lawsuit targeted only 24 songs.
For tactical reasons, the appeals court noted, the industry didn't seek reinstatement of the third jury's award and
was content with the original $222,000 - $2,250 per song - from her 2007 trial.
Thomas-Rasset got a second trial in 2009 after Davis concluded he made a legal error in her first. After Davis
cut the second jury's $1.92 million award to $54,000, the industry won a third trial that resulted in a $1.5 million
award, which Davis again cut to $54,000.
Source: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019124050_apusmusicdownloading.html
(NEWSER) – After five years of suing everyone from single mothers to teenage girls for illegally sharing music files, the
recording industry is dropping the legal campaign that has ensnared 35,000 individuals, the Wall Street Journal reports. Instead,
an industry group is making deals with Internet-service providers to warn those sharing music files via email. Those who refuse
may receive slower service, or be booted offline.
Though the Recording Industry Association of America reserves the right to take particularly heavy sharers to court for piracy, it
expects its caseload to slow dramatically. The new strategy also eliminates the need for ISPs to disclose their customers’
identities to the RIAA, a controversial aspect of the litigation strategy.
Source: http://www.newser.com/story/45791/music-industry-to-dump-download-lawsuits.html