In Arista v. Lime Wire, the recording industry plaintiffs seek to hold Lime Wire liable for acts of copyright infringement by users of its software. The case is among the first to apply the inducement doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster in 2005.

EFF and a coalition of industry and public interest groups filed an amicus brief urging the court to apply the law in a manner that will not chill technological innovation and to reaffirm that developers should not be held liable for copyright infringement based on misuses of their technology that they did not actively promote. In particular, the brief urges the court to preserve the Sony Betamax doctrine, which protects developers of technologies capable of substantial noninfringing uses from contributory infringement liability based on the activities of end-users. EFF was joined on the amicus brief by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Information Technology Association of America, Public Knowledge, the Special Libraries Association, and the U.S. Internet Industry Association.

Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

On September 24, 2008, the concluded that simply "making available" is not a distribution, and on that basis granted Thomas a new trial. The judge also called upon Congress to amend the Copyright Act, to avoid the award of damages in P2P cases that are "unprecedented and oppressive."

EFF filed an amicus brief in Atlantic v. Howell, an Arizona lawsuit brought as part of the RIAA's national campaign against individuals for file-sharing. Although the case also received attention over the issue of whether CD ripping is legal, the main event in the case was about something different: can the RIAA sue people for attempted copyright infringement?

EFF's brief says no, as have several courts. The district court agreed on April 29, 2008, in an order denying the recording industry's motion for summary judgment on the "making available" distribution issue.

In August 2008, the record industry plaintiffs prevailed against Mr. Howell based on their allegations that Mr. Howell destroyed necessary evidence before trial.

EFF defended a target of a recording industry lawsuit, filing a brief in a New York district court urging the judge to allow the man to fight back with counterclaims of his own.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has already moved to dismiss copyright infringement claims against Rolando Amurao. But Amurao alleges that the RIAA intended to harass him, and that their case is meritless. He has countersued for a declaration of non-infringement and a finding of RIAA copyright misuse. In its amicus brief, EFF argues that giving Amurao his day in court increases RIAA accountability in the industry's broad lawsuit campaign against file-sharing.

The RIAA has sued thousands of individuals for allegedly sharing music over the Internet since its campaign began in 2003. But sloppy investigative methods have left innocent people entangled in expensive and draining legal proceedings. When the RIAA threatens someone with a lawsuit, it offers to settle the case for a carefully chosen sum that is smaller than the legal fees required to fight the accusations. Faced with this choice, some innocent people settle simply because it's the most affordable option. However, a few individuals like Amurao have decided to battle the RIAA in court. In one Oklahoma case, EFF provided amicus support to an innocent target of a file-sharing lawsuit who is fighting to have the RIAA reimburse her attorneys' fees.

• Press Release: Recording Industry Target Deserves Day in Court April 10, 2007

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) should pay for a single mom's two-year legal ordeal fighting a baseless file-sharing lawsuit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told Washington state court in an amicus brief filed July 5, 2007.

• Press Release: RIAA Should Pay for Single Mom's Two-Year Ordeal July 6, 2007
• EFF Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant Leadbetter's Motion for Attorneys Fees July 5, 2007

Directory of information on Netherlands entertainment industry organizations' suit against Kazaa (a P2P software company) for the Dutch equivalent of contributory copyright infringement.

On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers. The recording industry has now filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against well over 28,000 individuals, and there is no end in sight. While the strategy of forcing ordinary music fans to pay thousands of dollars to avoid even bigger RIAA-member lawsuits is itself troubling, many innocent individuals are also being caught in the crossfire.

If you have been sued or need actual legal advice, consider visiting the Subpoena Defense Alliance or contacting EFF -- we may be able to refer you to a lawyer or provide other assistance.

Below, we've provided a collection of resources that may be useful to music fans caught up in the RIAA lawsuit campaign and the lawyers who defend them. Start with the RIAA v. the People paper, which recounts the long, terrible history of the RIAA's legal campaign against music fans. You can also learn about how EFF has helped music fans stand up to the RIAA's overreaching claims in court, how EFF has defended P2P software developers and their right to innovate, and how EFF has fought for a better way forward that gets artists paid without fans getting sued.

• RIAA v. the People: Five Years Later report [PDF] September, 2008
• EFF editorial about the file sharing crackdown on college campuses June 6, 2007

General Resources and Memos Related to P2P User Lawsuits

• How to Not Get Sued for File Sharing
• RIAA v. the Students: An FAQ for "Pre-Lawsuit" Letters Sent to College Students (March 2007)
• How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [off-site]
• Directory of Lawyers Defending RIAA Lawsuits [off-site]
• Parental Liability for Copyright Infringement by Minor Children (November 1, 2005) [PDF]
• Typical Claims and Counterclaims in Peer to Peer Litigation [PDF]
• Memo Re Discharge of Copyright Judgments in Bankruptcy [PDF]

Sample RIAA Documents

• Form of Doe Settlement Agreement - The document that Does targeted by the RIAA are being asked to sign. [PDF]
• Sample Recording Industry Letter Threatening to file a lawsuit [PDF]
• Sample Recording Industry Complaint Against an Individual [PDF]

Prominent EFF Work

EFF Helps Innocent Defendants Fight Back

Debbie Foster, a single mom who was improperly sued by the RIAA back in 2004 for file sharing, not only got the lawsuit dismissed but also won back her attorneys' fees. The court's decision is one of the first in the country to award fees to a defendant in an RIAA case over music sharing on the Internet. EFF and several other groups filed an amicus brief supporting Ms. Foster's motion.

Learn more: Capitol v. Foster

Related cases:

• Interscope v. Leadbetter
• Lava v. Amurao

EFF Fights to Dismiss Improper Distribution Claims

The RIAA has been making the erroneous argument that P2P users violate copyright holders' distribution right by merely placing music in a P2P program's "shared" folder, even when no downloads have taken place. While a P2P user might violate other copyrights (such as the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work) depending on the facts of a given case, the user can only violate the distribution right if an actual distribution occurs. In effect, the RIAA’s theory twists the Copyright Act to permit unprecedented liability for "attempted copyright infringement," with a dangerous consequences far beyond file sharing. EFF has filed amicus briefs in several cases on this point, and helped persuade several courts to reject the RIAA’s “attempt” theory.

Learn more:

• "Transmission + Reproduction != Distribution" February 27, 2006
• "Capitol v. Thomas: The Key Appeal Issue" October 9, 2007
• "Big Victory in Atlantic v. Howell: Court Rejects RIAA "Making Available" Theory" April 29, 2008

Related cases:

• Capitol v. Thomas
• Atlantic v. Howell
• Elektra v. Dennis
• Fonovisa v. Alvarez
• Elektra v. Barker
• London-Sire v. Doe 1 (aka Arista v. Does 1-21)

EFF Fights to Protect Anonymity

The RIAA has been cutting constitutional corners in order to get subpoenas to force universities and ISPs to identify suspected file sharers. Not only is this unfair to the defendants, but it also threatens to create a dangerous precedent that copyright claims are somehow exempt from the First Amendment protections that apply to anonymous speech online. EFF has been filing briefs on this issue since the beginning the RIAA legal campaign.

Related Cases:

• Arista v. Does 1-100
• Virgin v. Does 1-44
• Motown v. Does 1-252
• Sony v. Does 1-40
• Arista v. Does 1-21

» Archive of cases directly against music fans

Directory of info on the legal disputes surrounding the Napster peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing service (principally used for trading MP3 music files).

EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005. Though the Court set aside the Ninth Circuit's ruling in favor of Streamcast, it also declined giving Hollywood what it truly wanted—a veto over technological innovation.

In re Aimster case description.