Avian Gamers Network

This week's lawsuits by the record industry have raised concerns for the tens of millions of Americans who swap music regularly -- and especially for parents who often have no idea what their kids are downloading in the privacy of their rooms.

The industry clearly hopes that the 261 lawsuits it filed will deter people from sharing or downloading copyrighted music. But just how vulnerable are you or someone in your family to being sued?

Here are some of the basic questions and answers about who should be worried, and why.

What are my (or my kid's) chances of being sued?

Slim. There are millions of people using the file-sharing services at any one time -- including Tuesday afternoon, a day after the lawsuits were announced. The industry has filed suit against fewer than 300 of them so far, though it says thousands more will follow.

The RIAA has targeted people who make available a large number of songs -- typically more than 1,000 of them -- that are copyrighted by its member companies. The risk is lower if you are sharing only a couple of files, and zero if you're the kind of music swapper who only downloads, not uploads. (Downloading is basically taking a file from someone else's computer; uploading is making a file available to someone else for download.) Lawyers say that in most states, parents generally aren't liable for their kids' actions, as long as parents didn't knowingly allow them to break the law.

If the RIAA's announcement of planned suits scared you straight back in June, you won't be sued; the RIAA began collecting evidence a day after announcing the action.

If you're swapping from overseas, you're unaffected by U.S. copyright law, and the RIAA says it has no plans to pursue online pirates in other countries under different copyright codes, instead focusing on efforts to educate overseas music fans about piracy.

If I am sued, what will happen?

People who are sued face potential penalties of between $750 to $150,000 per song downloaded. But analysts expect the RIAA to settle with most defendants for much less. Four university students who allegedly ran file-sharing services agreed to each pay between $12,000 and $17,500. Other settlements have been for as little as $2,000 or $3,000.

Financial terms of settlements will depend on how many files the defendant made available for download and whether or not the case goes to trial before settlement, says Matt Oppenheim, the trade group's senior vice president for business and legal affairs.

If file sharers want to fight the cases, they may be able to find lawyers willing to take on the RIAA pro bono, or for free, for the principle and for possible publicity.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco advocacy group for online civil liberties that opposes the file-sharing suits, has been referring defendants who have called on them to subpoenadefense.org, a site that posts contact information for lawyers who expressed willingness to fight the music industry's subpoenas that were used to launch these suits. The EFF has also sent requests for assistance to about 100 attorneys it has worked with in the past, says Wendy Seltzer, intellectual-property attorney with the group.

Should I seek amnesty from the RIAA ?

The industry is encouraging people who aren't yet under investigation to sign an affidavit promising to delete illegal copies of songs on their computers. In return, the recording companies promise not to sue over their past actions. You can get the affidavit on riaa.com.

The industry says it is following the honor system, trusting people who sign an affidavit not to share or download copyrighted music. However, if it spots subsequent violations, it may assess larger fines.

Critics of the offer warn that the RIAA doesn't represent all copyright holders, so songwriters and independent musicians could use the affidavits to bring other lawsuits against you. A lawsuit filed against the RIAA Tuesday in state court in San Rafael, Calif., attacks the amnesty program for that reason. (See related article.) In response, the RIAA says people don't need to reveal which songs they swapped nor their Internet names to obtain amnesty.

The amnesty program offers the most protection for those against whom the RIAA has evidence but hasn't yet begun formally investigating. If they sign the affidavit, the RIAA will agree not to pursue the investigation.

How could I be caught?

To find the targets of the lawsuits, the record companies joined together and snooped on the popular file-sharing networks -- or paid outside technology companies to do so. They used programs that scan file names to find out which file-sharers have the most available copyright-infringing files. Then investigators can record the time and date of any file sharing.

Using readily available software, they then got the computer's unique Internet Protocol address and the name of the Internet service provider.

Investigators can subpoena Internet services to connect the IP addresses to the names of actual subscribers.

Is there any concern that the industry will eventually go after downloaders and not just uploaders?

Not much, at least in the short term. For one thing, it's much harder to track the biggest downloaders. That's because while you can easily see an entire directory of all uploaded files, people typically download one song at a time. Also, the main concern is getting people to stop uploading; the thinking is, this will deplete the file-sharing services' libraries and thus make them less attractive and drive people to legal, authorized services like Apple's.

Have people stopped file-sharing, so far?

Some have, but many are still doing it. BigChampagne LLC recorded a decline of about 15% over the summer, in line with typical drops during college recess. But the Beverly Hills, Calif., company, which monitors file-sharing for some record labels, says the sites have seen a resurgence in September, with some recording six-month highs in the past two days, after the RIAA announced the suits.

Some universities are stepping up efforts to wean their students from their pirating ways as they return to campus, but such measures have had little effect in the past.

Downloads of Kazaa on download.com were down about 7% Monday to 320,411 from the two-week average, according to a spokeswoman for CNET Networks Inc., which runs the software site. But she says downloads for the program typically fluctuate by about 10% each day.

RIAA polling has found more people are aware that file sharing is illegal since the June announcement, says Mr. Oppenheim of the RIAA.

What, exactly, is illegal?

It is illegal to share a copyrighted music file, under federal copyright law. (See the text of the law at this Library of Congress Web site.)

Why are the music companies going after individuals instead of file-sharing companies/platforms/services?

Two legal decisions paved the way. The first was the ruling by a U.S. district-court judge in January that Verizon Communications Inc. had to identify its users who were swapping files. Verizon is appealing. The second came in April, when a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. weren't violating copyright laws by distributing P2P software. The RIAA , which is appealing the ruling and hopes to get the case heard by the end of the year, says it is continuing to go after the file-sharing companies, but that individual file-sharers had received ample warning that their own actions are illegal.

By targeting individuals, the labels hope to scare file sharers away from copyright infringement. "The larger goal is one of deterrence," says an RIAA spokesman.

The evolution of file-sharing networks also helped make such actions inevitable. Today's networks differ from Napster, which pioneered online music swapping, in that directories of music files available for "sharing" are housed on users' computers rather than on a central computer. As a result, when Napster was shut down in 2001, the network was effectively shut down as well. The P2P networks have no such centrally located directories to target. That makes such networks' individual users the next logical target.

What does all this mean for legal music services?

It's good news, building on the boost they got from June's announcement of the forthcoming lawsuits. RealNetworks Inc.'s Rhapsody service has seen a doubling of usage since April, to more than 16 million songs streamed last month, a spokesman says. And consumers have bought 10 million songs on Apple Computer Inc.'s Apple Music Store since it debuted in April.

"The enforcement is certainly going to play a part," in driving people to legal services, says the RealNetworks spokesman. "The cost of the so-called free habit of file sharing is getting higher." He adds that there are other reasons people may be trying the legal services, such as expanded music content.

An increase in business for the legal services is a stated goal of the RIAA's in pursuing the suits. "The daily tick-tock of file sharing usage is not the measure of our success here," says the RIAA spokesman. "The measure is how people migrate to legal ways to use music."

Of course, usage of these services still pales before that of the free swapping platforms like Kazaa's, which some analysts estimate collectively have 60 million users.

What about for CD sales?

Sales, which have declined about 31% in the last three years through June, according to the RIAA , continued to fall after the June announcement of the suits. The industry sold 96.2 million albums in July and August, down 9.9% from the year-earlier period, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

In a bid to jump-start sales, Vivendi Universal SA's Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company and an RIAA member, last week slashed CD prices. The change will in many cases drop the retail price for new releases to $10 or less, but none of Universal's major rivals has yet matched the cuts.