Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Rationale

The trade groups also claim that widespread copyright infringement on the Internet hurts sales, in turn affecting the artists who depend on royalties. Various economic studies support these claims, but not always to the degree the trade groups report.Glenn, David. Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies, Chronicle.com, July 17, 2008. Other studies show mixed effects,"Thesis, Bjerkøe and Sørbo". Norwegian School of Management. scribd.com. and sometimes overall net social "welfare" benefits."Ups And Downs (authorised translation)" . IVIR.nl. 2009

Actions against Internet service providers In March 2007, Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) members sued Eircom Limited, the largest broadband provider in Ireland, over alleged illegal file sharing by subscribers. IRMA had previously demanded that Eircom install filtering technology or take other steps to block IRMA's copyrighted music from being shared.

In November 2008, a group of 34 film and television studios (including Village Roadshow, Warner Brothers, Sony Pictures, Disney and the Seven Network), represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) launched action in the Federal Court of Australia against iiNet, Australia's third-largest internet service provider. AFACT alleged that iiNet customers had breached its members' copyright by using peer-to-peer software to share and download films and television programs, and that iiNet had not acted against the alleged file-sharers despite 18 notifications of copyright infringement.Foo, Fran: Film giants pursue file sharers, The Australian, 25 November 2008. The Federal Court found that this was not the case. The case was taken on appeal to the High Court of Australia where it was dismissed unanimously, finding that iiNet "had no direct technical power" to stop users from downloading copyrighted material illegally.

Actions against file sharing services

Litigation

The RIAA first noticed that Internet sites were offering unauthorized recordings in early 1997, so the organization began sending cease-and-desist letters to the operators of such sites, leading to voluntary shutdowns of some.

In mid-1997, the RIAA took the recording industry's first collective legal action against online file-sharing of music, filing copyright infringement claims against the operators of three U.S.-based MP3 file-sharing sites.A&M Records, Inc. v. Internet Site Known as Fresh Kutz, Case No. 97-CV-1099 H (JFS) (S.D. Cal., filed June 9, 1997, order to show cause issued June 10, 1997) (settled January 1998).Sony Music Entertainment v. Internet Site Known as FTP://208.197.0.28/, Civil Action No. 97 Civ. 4245 (S.D.N.Y., case filed June 12, 1997) (settled January 1998).MCA Records, Inc. v. Internet Site Known as FTP://Parsoft.com/MP3s, Case No. 97-CV-1360-T (N.D. Tex., case filed June 9, 1997) (settled January 1998). Each case could have resulted in a statutory damage award of over $1 million, but all three were settled out-of-court with permanent injunctions in January 1998.

In 1998, the RIAA sued the operators of two more sites, resulting in permanent injunctions and monetary damage awards against the defendants, who were also required to perform community service.

In late 1999, RIAA labels sued Napster for providing a peer-to-peer file sharing network for MP3 files. The plaintiffs claimed that Napster "facilitate[d] piracy of music on an unprecedented scale.""Frequently Asked Questions — Napster and Digital Music". RIAA Website. Napster became bankrupt during the case; and has since been taken over by Roxio and provides a download service which is sanctioned by the RIAA.

In 2002, the RIAA sued Aimster, which provided a similar service.

In 2003, MPAA studios sued Grokster and other file sharing services in a case that would eventually go to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that producers of technology could be held liable for intent to induce infringement.

In 2006, RIAA labels sued the developers of LimeWire, a client for the Gnutella file sharing network.

Support of police actions

In a controversial May 2006 raid, Swedish National Bureau of Investigation and local police seized the servers of BitTorrent tracker The Pirate Bay, causing a three-day outage.Swedish police shut down major piracy site, AFP. June 1, 2006. The raid appeared to be motivated by pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a group that filed police complaints in Stockholm and Gothenborg in 2004 and 2005 against The Pirate Bay and sent a letter to Sweden's state secretary requesting action.Roper, Louis. "US government behind Pirate Bay raid", The Local. June 2, 2006.Doctorow, Cory. MPAA's PirateBay letter to Swedish Sec'ty of State, Boing Boing, June 20, 2006. The raid was publicized as a success by the MPAA, but ridiculed by The Pirate Bay's operators. The 2006 raid was detailed in the documentary Steal This Film.

In January 2012, the Hong Kong-based file sharing website Megaupload was discovered to be hosted on servers in the state of Virginia, allowing the US government to take action against it. On January 19, the website was shut down and its founder, Kim Dotcom, along with four others involved in the website, were arrested. The indictment issued claims that Megaupload has cost copyright holders $500 million due to its facilitation of illegal downloads. The MPAA requested Carpathia, Megaupload's server host, to retain Megaupload's 25 petabytes of data in case the MPAA decided to sue Megaupload for copyright infringement. While this data includes information on 66.6 million Megaupload users, the MPAA stated that it is not interested in the identities of individual users.

Peer-to-peer spoofing

The RIAA has apparently in the past been revealed to and may have admitted to the practice of spoofing, deliberately flooding P2P networks with "junk music". A further reference to such activity was discovered when computer software and source code along with emails were stolen from US Company "Media Defender"; their software was designed to facilitate "interdiction" on all the then known peer-to-peer file sharing networks. The contents of the emails made it clear that both P2P network monitoring and interdiction were undertaken by Media Defender.

Denial-of-service attacks Aiplex Software, an India-based technology company, revealed in 2010 that it has made denial-of-service attacks on torrent hosting websites on behalf of movie studios. Internet activists retaliated against Aiplex and industry trade groups with denial-of-service attacks of their own, coordinated through Operation Payback.

Lawsuits against individuals

From 2005 through 2008, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) saw lawsuits against individual consumers as a way to combat the problem of Internet-based copyright infringement. RIAA President Cary Sherman claimed that the large number of lawsuits filed has "arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse.""RIAA's next moves in Washington". ZDNet. May 26, 2006. As of July 2006, the RIAA had brought lawsuits against more than 20,000 people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works. Yet, through 2008, album sales continued to decline from their 1999 peak.

Participating plaintiffs The RIAA has brought file sharing lawsuits against individuals naming the following plaintiffs. EMI labels: Capitol Records, Priority Records, Virgin Records Sony BMG labels: Arista Records, Bertelsmann Music Group, LaFace Records, Sony Records, Zomba Label Group Universal Music Group labels: Interscope Records, Loud Records, Motown Records Univision labels: Fonovisa Records Warner Music Group labels: Atlantic Records, Elektra Records, Lava Records, London-Sire Records, Maverick Records, Warner Bros. Records

The MPAA has brought file sharing lawsuits against individuals naming the following plaintiffs. Lions Gate Entertainment News Corporation studios: 20th Century Fox Paramount Pictures Sony Pictures studios: Columbia Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Screen Gems Time Warner studios: New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Universal Studios The Walt Disney Company

Scope of distribution rights A critical case, which may not only determine the fate of the RIAA's litigation campaign, but also impact the scope of copyright across the internet, is Elektra v. Barker."Elektra v. Barker". Recording Industry vs. The People blog. In that case, Tenise Barker, a 29-year-old nursing student in the Bronx, moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint for lack of specificity, and on the ground that merely "making available" does not constitute a copyright infringement."Is 'Making Available' Copyright Infringement?". Hollywood Reporter ESQ. In opposing Ms. Barker's motion, the RIAA argued that "making available" is indeed a copyright infringement. Upon learning of the RIAA's argument, which sought to expand copyright law, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting Ms. Barker's motion and rebutting the RIAA's argument. The Motion Picture Association of America, in turn, submitted a brief supporting the RIAA. The U.S. Department of Justice submitted a "Statement of Interest" refuting one argument made by the EFF, but taking no position on the "making available" issue; the DOJ stated that it has never prosecuted anyone for "making available"."Statement of Interest of US Government in Elektra Barker" , page 5, footnote 3. ILRweb.com. The case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007. The same issue has been briefed in a more recent case, Warner v. Cassin."Warner v. Cassin" Recording Industry vs. The People blog. January 2007. In March 2008, Judge Karas ruled in "Barker" that simply "making available" (such as dropping a file in a shared folder) did not constitute copyright infringement.

Amnesty programs Between September 2003 and April 2004, the RIAA, through its Clean Slate Program, offered individual file sharers amnesty for past infringements, "on the condition that they refrain from future infringement", and delete the infringing material. Individuals were no longer eligible for amnesty once they had been sued. The program is now discontinued.

The RIAA states this was an educational initiative about illegal file sharing, and was stopped due to increased public awareness in the issues. The program may also have been stopped due to the low number of takers.1,108 people signed up to the Clean Slate program, according to "RIAA Drops 'Clean Slate'" . Fraser Lovatt, Digital-Lifestyles.org, April 21, 2004.

There is some doubt about whether the RIAA can offer this protection, with some attorneys claiming the offer of amnesty was misleading, and legal documents provided by the RIAA "provides ... no promise not to sue you."Ira Rothken (September 11, 2003). "Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA" . PCWorld.com.

A lawsuit brought in California state court, Parke v. RIAA, alleged the RIAA had committed fraudulent business practices by offering the program."Parke v. RIAA, Complaint" . September 9, 2003.

Collection of evidence