Over the past few years, we’ve been asked just about every question imaginable about downloading music. We try to answer all of them and present here answers to the ones we get most often. To see the Q & A on our current lawsuit against Napster, click here.

Q. Does uploading music on the Internet hurt anybody? Isn’t it promotion for the artist?
A. When you post digital music files on the Internet for anyone to take and keep, it’s not promotion but distribution. It's up to the artist and copyright owner to decide how their music will be heard, distributed and promoted. Though most people do not realize it, only about 15 percent of all releases sell enough copies to make a profit and those record sales support the other 85%, including those from new and emerging artists. When someone decides to take distribution into his or her own hands, that decision can impact not only the artist whose music is being taken, but the artists that may have been supported by those sales. It’s also important to remember that sales of recordings don’t just support the musical artist. Piracy cheats producers, composers, sound engineers, studio musicians, publishers and vocalists out of their share of royalties on which they generally depend for their livelihoods.


Q. Is uploading music from a CD that you own onto an Internet site for other users to download a violation of copyright law?
A. Yes. Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising. But it’s a very different matter – and clearly neither legal nor fair – to make a copy of that CD or even one song available on the Internet for others to take.

The sound recording copyright holders own the music itself, and have a number of rights under current federal law that include the right to control the reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and various digital transmissions of their works. Therefore,

Creating unauthorized MP3 sites by copying sound recordings to a server for other people to download and/or offering such recordings for download is a violation of copyright law.
Making tapes or CDs of recordings downloaded from the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law.

Q. Isn’t it within my First Amendment right to post recordings to my site for other people to download?
A. The First Amendment does not grant a right to infringe copyrighted works.

The RIAA and the music industry as a whole are dedicated to protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans, including the rights of artists to be heard, even if their lyrics are offensive to some. If you are interested in learning about First Amendment issues that are currently facing artists, you should check out the Freedom of Speech section.


Q. What can happen to me if I am caught infringing a copyright law?
A. If found guilty of copyright infringement, federal law provides for civil remedies that may include substantial monetary damages and liability for attorney fees incurred in bringing an action. Criminal penalties may be imposed if someone willfully infringes a copyrighted work, even if no profit is derived from the activity. Thus, people who barter, trade or even give away copies of infringing works may still be criminally liable and subject to prosecution. The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act specifically outlaws this activity on the Internet. Criminal penalties for copyright infringement include up to six years imprisonment, up to $250,000 in fines, or both. Students may also be subject to disciplinary action at their school, by the school’s own faculty, if it is determined that school computer policies have been violated.


Q. What is the relationship between offering music files for download and the Fair Use Doctrine?
A. The Fair Use Doctrine allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the copyright holder, but the limitations are significant. Typically you can use quotations from copyrighted books and articles and musical compositions for education, comment, criticism and other such uses. Whether the court allows you to reproduce, distribute, adapt, display and/or perform copyrighted works under this doctrine depends on many circumstances and includes the following determinants:

the nature of the use (i.e., was it for commercial purposes or not);
the length of the excerpt (i.e., how much of the whole work; does the excerpt use the most distinctive part);
how creative the work is (and sound recordings are always creative); and
how the use will impact the market for the original work.

Q. How can I legally put music on the Internet?
A. The answer to this question may depend on how you propose to use these works. For example, if you plan to offer a webcasting service, you may be eligible for a statutory webcasting license whereas if you plan to offer an interactive service, you will need to obtain rights from each copyright holder. See the Licensing section for more information.

In general, if you want to reproduce, distribute, and digitally transmit recorded music online, you will likely need licenses from several organizations and companies. For example, for the copyright in the sound recording (the song as it’s recorded), you’d need a license from the copyright owner, typically the record company, or for an artist owned company, from the artist. For the copyright in the musical composition (the song itself), you might need a "DPD" (or Digital Phonorecord Delivery) license from an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency and you might need a license from the performance rights organization that represents the songwriters, typically BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC. You can usually find who you’d need to contact by looking at the liner notes from the CD of the artist you are interested in reproducing and/or distributing.


Q. Is it illegal to post music on a website for downloading even if I don’t charge for it?
A. Yes. The question of whether or not you are charging does not impact the answer to whether or not you are violating copyright law. If you don't hold the copyright, you can't sell or even give away unauthorized copies of the sound recording without permission. In addition, the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act, which amended Section 506 of the Copyright Act, clarified that even if a site barters or trades infringing materials and doesn’t charge or otherwise make a profit there still may even be criminal liability. Additionally, you may face civil liability, including statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copyright infringement, even if you’re just giving away the files.


Q. Doesn’t the First Sale Doctrine allow me to share my own music?
A. The First Sale Doctrine does allow you to resell or give away the copy of the music that you bought, but it does not allow you to distribute copies of that music by making it available on an Internet site for download, or sending digital files to friends. For example, if you buy a CD and then choose to give that CD to your friend, that’s ok. But you can’t take that CD and make infinite copies available on the Internet – while you keep the CD or a copy for yourself.


Q. Can I offer music for download from my site without permission from the copyright owners if disclaimers are posted on the site that say "promotional use only," "buy the CD," "educational use only," etc?
A. No. If you reproduce and/or distribute sound recordings without a license, you are violating copyright law no matter what your website says.


Q. If I just download sound recordings, is it still a copyright violation?
A. Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.


Q. The digital music files I upload/download are less than CD-quality. Doesn’t this make it OK to copy and trade?
A. The quality and file format of a recording has nothing to do with whether a copyright is infringed. Whether the sound quality is good or not is beside the point. To make reproductions and/or distributions of sound recordings, regardless of sound quality, you need the authorization of the sound recording copyright owner.


Q. If I upload or download a sound recording and leave it on my drive for less than 24 hours, am I still liable for copyright infringement?
A. Whether you upload or download a sound recording for 24 hours, 24 minutes or less has nothing to do with whether or not you are violating copyright law.


Q. If a website doesn't display a copyright notice, is the music still copyrighted or is it okay to reproduce, distribute, or download?
A. In the U.S., almost every work created privately and originally after March 1, 1989, is copyrighted and protected whether or not it has a notice.


Q. Is offering downloadable sound files of recordings that are no longer in print still a violation of copyright law?
A. Copyright law grants the owners of sound recordings the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their recordings. Thus, even where a recording may be difficult to find or is out of print, it is illegal to reproduce and/or distribute it (even as a sound file and for free) without the permission of the sound recording copyright owner. The term of a musical work copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years, after which the work becomes a part of the public domain. The term of a sound recording copyright is generally 95 years, after which the work becomes a part of the public domain.


Q. Does moving an unauthorized music site to a server outside the U.S. make it legal?
A. U.S. law may well apply when the uploading and/or downloading takes place in the United States, even if the server is physically located in another country. Additionally, the copyright laws of foreign countries are, in many cases, similar to those in the United States. U.S. trade law allows the Office of the United States Trade Representative to take action against those countries that fail to provide adequate and effective copyright protection and market access.


Q. Is it illegal to link to other sites that have unauthorized sound files, even if my own site doesn’t offer any?
A. Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.

Contributory liability may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. A link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files.

Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a linking site, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and receiving revenue from banner ads may be evidence of a financial benefit.



Q. What is the relationship between digital download devices (such as the Rio) and the Audio Home Recording Act? Didn’t the RIAA lose that court case?
A. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 covers devices designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings and provides these devices, and their manufacturers, with some protection from contributory copyright infringement claims. The RIAA recently settled its case against Diamond Rio on this issue, but the outcome of this proceeding does not impact the rights of copyright holders to protect their music.

When digital recording devices such as the DAT and Minidisc became available to the public, consumers had for the first time the means to make very high quality recordings of the music in their collections, and to make copies of those copies with virtually no decrease in sound quality. To compensate for the fact that some level of piracy would result, and to provide the manufacturers and consumers immunity from a contributory copyright infringement liability suit, the AHRA required manufacturers of digital recording devices and media (such as DAT tapes) to: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty (to the copyright holder or artist) on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial copy management technology which prevents the copying of copies. To learn more about the royalty system of the AHRA, see the section on AARC.

When digital download devices (such as Diamond’s Rio player) were introduced, the RIAA felt they should be considered digital recording devices under the AHRA. This finding would make them subject to the same laws – and would also provide them with the same protection from contributory copyright infringement liability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that, since these devices were considered to be computer peripherals, that made them multipurpose devices (such as general computers and CD-Rom drives), which are not covered by the AHRA. This means that manufacturers are not required to pay royalties or incorporate serial copyright management technology protections. However, it also means that neither the device manufacturers nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from a suit for copyright infringement.


Q. Does the RIAA want to make MP3s illegal?
A. No. MP3 is simply a compression technology. Its use has had a very positive impact in terms of allowing the music industry to discover consumer interest in online music. At the same time, the RIAA has had some concern with this technology, arising from the fact that it can be used to distribute pirated copies of music. The RIAA does not endorse – or veto – the technologies that its members use to promote and distribute their recordings. Several of our members have used different formats to electronically distribute their music. MP3 is a 1992 technology and it appears likely based on current industry trends that its use will be supplanted by newer, faster, higher quality technology that also offers the ability to protect copyrights when desired.


Q. Does the RIAA want to censor the Internet?
A. The RIAA – and its members – are committed to the widespread use of the Internet as a new means for reaching music fans. The Internet offers exciting ways to do everything from helping music fans discover new artists to actually delivering that music to them. Record companies are excited about, and are actively pursuing, the vast promotional opportunities of the Internet. For more information about what RIAA members are doing online, visit Member Labels Online. At the same time, the RIAA will always be committed to fighting music piracy, whether it is online or off.


Top of Page

printing instructions

There's one imporant thing I didn't see here: What if (copyrighted) music was purposedly released on P2P networks or the Internet in general, by the artist(s) themselves? Ie., a local, unsigned band that wishes to promote its songs.

I think the question is too generic.


It should be illegal to download copyrighted works without permission but there should be a places where you can 'legally' purchase the music. The music that is obtained legally should be in such a form that the buyer can use it in any (legal) way.

For instance, if I purchase some new song that comes out over the internet, I would like the ability to play it with a player of my choice and burn it to a CD to play in my car and stereo. As far as I have seen, with the current implementation this is not possible. It appears most 'distributors' are releasing the music on the internet for sale in a proprietary format that must be played in their player.

I believe that until this is changed 'online music piracy' will continue.

On the other side, I think that for unsigned artists the internet can be an excellent way of getting their music to the public. Most people would not go out and purchase an unknown group without ever hearing the song, so using the internet to create awareness can really help.

Downloading music should be free.
But: If you are downloading copyrighted music which are sold in the stores it should be disallowed.

But why do you think so many people keep downloading?
Because they cant afford it? Yes and no.
They surely can afford to buy some CDs but keep in mind that the CDs are getting more expensive every year.

Why should I pay 15 - 20 bucks for a record I can download for free (of course there's the cost for the internet connection.)?
Whats the difference? If I buy a CD in a store I get a plastic cd box with some plastic cover which does nothing than pollute the enviroment

What I want to say is that the big corporations shouldnt go sue everyone for downloading mp3s or sharing mp3s but to reconsider their publishing strategy.

Sorry. I voted wrong!!!!!!!! Meant to vole NO!!!

If I buy a book, I can have every friend in the neighborhood read it, without the printing industry is coming running, screaming on top of their lungs. RIAA is a big darn bully. RIAA think that because of slumping sales, the Internet and p2p is to blame, I remember when a LP was costing $1.00-$3.00 and the sale was booming. Now the same albums is costing $10.00-$16.00, which is absurd, the album have paid is self many time over to the recording industry. And the BS RIAA is running that is to protect the artist is, as we all know BS. They do not pay the artist squat. Only artist like Rolling Stones, Michael [edit] Jackson and top artist like them, is getting paid. I download music so I can get the songs I like and not have to buy 15 CD to get the song I like, but, yes, I still buy CDs. I just wish that I could buy the album direct from the artists. Without the inflated RIAA prices!!

Have to edit... we don't want you getting sued

On this issue I sometimes feel a bit like Ash in Army of Darkness (Evil Dead 3) after he breaks the cursed mirror and his evil alter-ego splits away from him.

On the one hand, I'm a musician, I like being paid for my work and I expect to get royalties for CDs that are sold with music I've written. I feel sorry for artists who have sweated blood and tears to become successful and yet lose x% of their income through piracy.

But on the other hand, I ask myself "Which do I prefer? Paying $20 dollars or downloading it free?" Doh.....let me think..... Many connected computer users have got used to loading their P2P software and getting whatever music, film or software they want. This, whatever your attitude, is going to be a very difficult tide to turn and the big labels declaring all-out war on their potential customers is not going to help things (in fact it's going to push more people towards file-sharing). The anti-copy systems that they've spent $$ developing are a complete joke as most of them are cracked before they're even released. Proprietary formats simply aren't viable and destroying one file-sharing protocol will simply be followed by the rise of another.

My evil alter ego would also argue that the artists who most suffer from piracy also earn vast amounts of money through TV appearances, concerts, endorsements, merchandising. Their label loses more, as it takes a far bigger percentage (poor Sony, poor EMI, how I weep for them). Smaller artists can actually win because having their music widely distributed will get them more concerts, TV appearances, better recording deals etc. - considering that most independent labels do a pitiful job in promotion.

But don't listen to him. He's totally immoral.

-Buy CDs, so that the big labels can purchase their own records to give them a better chart position.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can spend $$ promoting the top artist in their catalogue while neglecting the others.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can brainwash kids into listening to annodine mush with carpet-bomb marketing.

-Buy Cds, so that the big labels can swallow up independent labels and make them 'commercial'.

..I could continue, but I think you probably get the point.


Possible utopian future?

- Digital distribution by internet or shop terminals to memory-card-based walkmen or portable storage units (vastly reduced production and distribution costs).
- Premium enhanced interactive editions of albums published on DVD.
- No encryption. If you can decode it to listen to it, you can copy it so there's no point.
- Promotion almost entirely on the net (reduced advertising cost).
- Resurgence of independent labels taking advantage of reduced costs who can now use net distribution to compete with bigger labels.
- Big labels forced to spread promotion budgets over their entire catalogue instead of just the top artist to compete with the range of indie music.
- Increased diversity in commercial music.
- Low price-per-download or low subscription fee to incite people to pay for a quality service with good catalogue of music with fast, secure downloads.
- Generous free downloads to whet peoples' appetites. This results in returns through concerts, movie tie-ins, merchandising, DVD sales etc.
- Macterminator becomes world-renowned producer, svengali of several popular all-girl groups.

er...yes...quite

I thought the original one sided post rang a bell...if someone posts something why don't they have the balls to come back and answer their original post?
Spam,propaganda? possibly...

The link,lifted from the RIAA'S FAQ.... http://www.riaa.com/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm

> Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who
> created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing
> conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for
> facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links.

Flabbabbab.

You have to state, that you cannot influence, what the linked sites upload and that you take no warranty for them.

Done.

The only one responsible is the site-owner.

Top get a good and secure text for your disclaimer search for disclaimers on the web.


Addon to the future: :-)

-More regional/local and specialized artists => Downloading just shows you the song, but the artists concert is something different. That means you have more people who get paid for producing music on the stage. That means they aren't dependent on the label, only on the stages, where they play.
-Artists could play live on the web, then they can just be asked for other songs. If fifty people in a chatroom apy 1$ each, they can easily pay the artists. Jsut get the labels out and you save a hell of money.
-Paying per donate and concerts. Noone will pay 10€ for a CD, if that same CD can be downloaded, but the mp3s should contain a code with which you can pay the artist.
- A paying system, which allows you to pay with only prozentural fees in very small amounts.

Best would be to create a bank account, which takes those fees when you upload your money (IMO). In GB they have something similar iirc.
Security need not be really heavy, because they can be limited to 50$ / 50 € Accounts. Working 6 hours to crack an account just to get 50 € doesn't really pay back.

I forgot to mention,did the original spammer get permission from the RIAA to copy and paste their website?
I ask because I cannot see any permission or acknowledement given to the author(s) of the original document.

Copyright is sometimes a one way street.
Tut Tut

I read the topic and not the poll question (which are exact opposites, BTW), so I clicked on YES. If I would have read the question on the poll, I would have clicked on NO.