Does anyone REALLY get fined or sent to jail for using file-sharing programs?

Answer 1

In an order granting summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles acknowledged that people used the file-sharing programs to violate copyright, but said that the companies were not liable for that activity.

He cited a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case by Universal City Studios against Sony Corporation of America, a manufacturer of videocassette recorders. In that case, because VCR's were found to have valuable capabilities for noninfringing use, Sony was not guilty of contributory infringement. The case for Grokster and Morpheus is comparable, Judge Wilson ruled. Grokster, for example, has had valuable noninfringing uses in promoting and distributing the music of independent bands and musicians.

Also, the judge noted that to be liable for contributory infringement, a company must know about specific infringing activities and must be able to do something about them. The distributors of Grokster and Morpheus cannot be sure how someone is going to use the peer-to-peer software when the person downloads it, so the companies are not responsible for misuse, he said.
=========
from other source:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a donor-supported group which seeks to protect and expand digital rights. Its activities include litigation, political lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. The EFF has vocally opposed the RIAA in its pursuit of lawsuits against users of file sharing applications and supported defendants in these cases. The foundation promotes the legalization of peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted materials and alternative methods to provide compensation to copyright holders.[1]
Under US law "the Betamax decision" (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.), case holds that copying "technologies" are not inherently illegal, if substantial non-infringing use can be made of them. This decision, predating the widespread use of the Internet applies to most data networks, including peer-to-peer networks, since distribution of correctly licensed files can be performed. These non-infringing uses include sending open source software, public domain files and out of copyright works. Other jurisdictions tend to view the situation in somewhat similar ways.
Anonymous peer-to-peer networks allow for distribution of material - legal or not - with little or no legal accountability across a wide variety of jurisdictions. Many profess that this will lead to greater or easier trading of illegal material and even (as some suggest) facilitate terrorism, and call for its regulation on those grounds [11]. Others counter that the presumption of innocence must apply, and that non peer-to-peer technologies like e-mail (for which there are also anonymizing services), have similar capabilities. Further, the potential for illegal uses should not prevent the technology from being used for legal purposes.

In the European Union (EU), the 2001 EU Copyright directive, which implemented the 1996 WIPO treaty ("World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty"), prohibits peer-to-peer, claiming it is a violation of the directive. However, not all European member states have implemented the directive in national legislation. Notably, on December 22, 2005, after discussing the EU directive, the French parliament passed two amendments legalizing the exchange of copies on the internet for private use. In a later proceeding, the French government withdrew the article in question and made illegal any p2p client obviously aimed at sharing copyrighted material. The term "obviously" was not defined. The project of law (called DADVSI) has still to be discussed by the French senate and, if the decision differs too much from the Parliament's, it will be debated on second lecture back at the Parliament (Assemblée Nationale).

Interestingly, Canada stands out by authorizing, at least until the projected copyright reform, downloads on peer-to-peer networks under the "private copying" exception.

Answer 2

There have been several case that I'm aware of. However, they are costly, hard to prove (due to people using the same computer - who downloaded what) and the cases I know of I personally think are solely to make an example of a few unlucky people.

As far as I know, the only people who have actually been charged are people who upload the songs (that is share them with others). The people downloading the songs have been safe so far!

I believe lawsuits were the reason Napster was closed and made a pay site. The free programs such as Limewire now have disclaimers on them protecting themselves from liability.

Answer 3

Yes, they send people to jail, but they can't stamp it out.

Copyright laws are a violation of property rights. The artist or label initially owns a CD, but ownership passes to the store when they ship it to that store. When the store sells a CD, its owner becomes the person who purchased it. Recognizing that property rights are absolute (which is self-evidently true, even though most politicians would like to deny that), it is impossible to justify restricting the rightful owner of a CD from sticking it on the Internet if they want to.

Fortunately, DRM seems to be nearly dead. One of the labels has offered to provide DRM-free music for Apple's store.

If the music industry wants to survive, they should move toward more concerts and just give away the songs as advertisements for the concerts.

The best argument against "Intellectual Property" being property is the difficulty in ending violations of these laws. If it were really theft to download music, as the government and music industry claim, it would be far easier to contain. There is hardly any problem containing theft at Wal-Mart or trespassing against your house.

Copyright is just another form of the pork barreling that is so prevalent in governments. It increases profits by granting monopolies (patents) or by forcing non-scarce commodities to be sold (copyright).

Answer 4

Yes. The big file sharing culprits are the ones they are going after though. They don't go after the small offenders because that would take too much time enforcing it. I think they zone in on people sharing 800 files or more.

Or possibly 500 or more like Dan S said.

Answer 5

That's what changed Napster from a free site to a pay site.
There are many cases including one where a college student was sued. Just today Time Warner announced that it plans to continue its crack down.

People are getting sued every day and according to Sony they consider anyone with 500 songs or more to be a file server and so illegal and worth their time to prosecute.

Answer 6

NO ONE has ever tried to charge anyone with USING a file sharing program. Sharing COPYRIGHTED files is the crime. I can create a file and share it with anyone I want and it is perfectly legal.
Yes, sharing copyrighted materials has resulted in large fines.

Answer 7

Yes! There are many non-copyrighted materials for legal file sharing. Be careful. For years we all have copied cassettes, recorded VCR's, reel to reel tapes, and now all of the sudden everything is illegal. Be careful. Go to the library and check out an album you like and rip & burn it. You can also check out movies and audio books. This is not illegal yet. Soon everything will be illegal. Everyone will be busted for something, or not doing something, or thinking about something, or saying something politically incorrect.

Answer 8

Every day of every week! It happens a lot. Read your newspaper.... Even HIGHSCHOOL students are getting sued for it.

Answer 9

Ares.. anyday.. its superb..