For music fans, the Metallica case represented ground zero in the battle over downloading. On May 3, 2000, the veteran metal band sued 300,000 of its own fans, claiming infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As a result, many fans had their Napster accounts cut off under threats of legal action. In 2001, the case was settled out of court, with Napster promising to compensate artists whose music was downloaded off of its network. Still, the suit left a permanent bad impression with longtime fans, who recalled that Metallica's initial fame rested on its "No Life Till Leather" demo tape--which they encouraged people to freely copy and distribute.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which Congress passed in 1998, remains the primary legislation for governing music downloading. In general, the law criminalized code-cracking technology designed to bypass encrypting devices built into commercial software. Other key provisions limited Internet service providers' liability for transmitting copyrighted material without permission. However, providers also had to remove material if someone complained. A 1997 bill, the "No Electronic Theft" Act, shut a loophole that exempted liability for distributing commercial software if no profit motive was claimed.
Denounced by academics, music fans and nonprofit groups, the laws used by bands like Metallica and the Recording Industry Association of America--the music business's key lobbying face on Capitol Hill--are credited with creating a chilling effect. A notable example of prosecution of a fan is the conviction of Kevin Cogill for posting nine tracks from Guns 'N' Roses' long-awaited "Chinese Democracy" album. Cogill received a year of probation, two months of home confinement and agreed to subject his computers to federal scrutiny.
Contrary to popular impression, the standard for proving violations is not high. Copyright owners must only show that someone had access to their music--one of eight categories protected by federal law--and that the file was "substantially similar" to an existing work, shared without their permission. Nor is it necessary to show any advance knowledge of an illegal download--just doing so without permission is considered a direct copyright infringement, one of three types that the law recognizes.
Under current copyright law, parents can also get into trouble for what their children download, even if they are not involved personally. This scenario falls under the doctrine of "contributorily infringing" on copyrights--since Mom and Dad saved money on each free download, the reasoning runs, they hurt the copyright holder by failing to monitor their child, and stop the infringement. This was the same argument that Metallica's attorneys used to pursue Napster in court.
Inevitably, the most ominous consequences for downloaders caught in the legal crosshairs happen to be financial ones. Federal copyright law allows copyright owners to claim damages for their alleged lost income, plus statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per track. That amount can shoot to $150,000, if the damages are found willful--as a federal jury reasoned in assessing $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song, against a Minnesota woman convicted of posting multiple MP3s on the file-sharing site Kazaa. In essence, the only sure defense is posting files to which the owner holds the rights.