Frequently Asked Questions about File Sharing Litigation

Is illegal file sharing really such a problem for the music industry?

For the past four years, sales and shipments of recorded music have been plummeting-and the downward trend shows no sign of abating. (Unit shipments have fallen 26%, from 1.16 billion units in 1999 to 860 million units last year, while revenues are off by 14%, from $14.6 billion in 1999 to $12.6 billion last year.). At the same time, sales of blank CD-R disks (the kind you copy music onto) have been soaring. What happened four years ago? That's when file sharing first became widely popular. So, yes, it really is a problem.

Is litigation really the only solution?

Litigation is only one aspect of a long-term solution that also involves consumer education and new business strategies. An unprecedented coalition of songwriters, recording artists, music publishers, retailers, and record companies has been working to educate music fans about how the unauthorized distribution and downloading of copyrighted music through peer-to-peer networks undermines both the future of music and the livelihoods of the people who make it. At the same time, the industry has responded to consumer demand by making its music available to a wide range of authorized online subscription, streaming, and download services where computer users can get music legally, reliably, and inexpensively without being exposed to computer viruses or other undesirable material.

On what basis are you bringing these lawsuits?

We are seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement under the federal copyright laws-specifically, Title 17 of the United States Code, which among other things provides penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. An unbroken series of court decisions --most recently, in the Grokster and Verizon case -- has affirmed that "sharing" copyrighted music files over peer-to-peer networks without the copyright holder's permission constitutes "direct infringement."

What kind of penalties does the law allow and what are you seeking?

Under federal law, copyright holders can sue infringers for statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 for each of their copyrighted works that have been illegally copied or distributed. We intend to leave it up to the court to decide what kind of damages we deserve to be awarded.

Didn't the courts just rule that peer-to-peer networks are perfectly legal?

In the Grokster case, a district court did rule that the Grokster and StreamCast networks couldn't necessarily be held liable for the illegal activities of their users. That ruling is now being considered by a Court of Appeals. In any case, the court also made it abundantly clear that whether or not a network itself can be held responsible, the users of that network can clearly be guilty of copyright infringement.

Don't people have a right to make copies of their CDs?

It depends on the circumstances. Consumers may be able to make a limited number of copies for their own personal use. But no one has the right to offer to distribute copyrighted music to millions of people through online peer-to-peer networks without the copyright holder's permission.

What about music fans who didn't realize that file sharing copyrighted music without permission is against the law?

While ignorance of the law is no excuse, our goal is not to be vindictive or punitive. It's to get P2P users to stop offering music that doesn't belong to them. In this spirit, we reached settlements with some of the people whose names were subpoenaed ten weeks ago. They came forward and settled. In addition, we are prepared to offer what amounts to an amnesty to file sharers who voluntarily come forward and sign a declaration promising to destroy all the music files they may have illegally copied in the past and not to make any more such copies in the future. Anyone who signs and honors such a pledge - who's not already been named in one of our anti-piracy subpoenas or lawsuits - can rest assured that we won't take any legal action against them. Detailed information on how to apply and qualify for this amnesty is available at the web site www.musicunited.org

How did you gather the evidence against the people you've sued?

To begin with, our evidence-gathering process (like all our other anti-piracy techniques) is completely legal and involves searching only for files that are readily available to every other member of the public.

Here's how it works: When you log onto a peer-to-peer network, your P2P software has a default setting that automatically informs the network of your user name and the names and sizes of the files on your hard drive that are available for copying.

Because all this information is publicly available to anyone on the network, it's relatively easy to look for and find users who are offering to "share" copyrighted music files. The networks could not work if this were not the case. Given the huge number of P2P users (there are an estimated five million of them online at any given time), we employ software to locate infringing files, searching the network in much the same way as ordinary file sharers do.

Additional information that is publicly available from these systems allows us to identify the user's Internet Service Provider (ISP). After manually reviewing the information gathered by the software, we can then decide whether it justifies serving the ISP with a subpoena requesting the name and address of the individual whose account was being used to distribute copyrighted music. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are required to provide copyright holders with such information when there is a good-faith reason to believe their copyrights are being infringed.

What gives you the right to go snooping around in people's hard drives?

We're doing no such thing. Our evidence-collecting process involves nothing more than reviewing and downloading files that members of peer-to-peer networks choose to make available to all the other users on their networks. As the court noted in the Verizon ruling, "If an individual subscriber opens his computer to permit others, through peer-to-peer file sharing, to download materials from that computer, it is hard to understand just what privacy expectation he or she has after essentially opening the computer to the world."

What sense does it make for the music industry to sue its own customers?

The same question can be asked of retailers who go after shoplifters. Retailers take action against shoplifters because they know the problem would get a whole lot worse if they didn't. The cable- and satellite-TV industries have likewise taken action -- and done so quite effectively -- against individuals who've tried to steal their services. Remember, music piracy is not a victimless crime. Because of it, thousands of record company employees have been laid off, numerous record stores are closing throughout the country, and new artists are not getting signed.

#####

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies. Its members are the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect the intellectual property and First Amendment rights of artists and music labels; conduct consumer, industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi- Platinum™ and Diamond sales awards as well as Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.