I know, I know, we can’t ask or post about how to flout the law.
My question is different.
Let us suppose, hypothetically, that an individual downloaded shared copyrighted music before file sharing became illegal (or before the RIAA started suing people, if you prefer). FTR, I didn’t.
What is the duty of that person under the law regarding files already downloaded? Is he/she required to destroy them, or just not to distribute them?
I’m not sure what you mean by file-sharing becoming illegal. File sharing in and of itself is not illegal; it’s the sharing of copyrighted material that is illegal. And it’s always been illegal to share copyrighted material, even before file sharing software was invented and people did it by copying tapes or even copying down books by hand. Any copyrighted material copied without the consent of the copyright holder is unauthorized material that you’re not legally entitled to have (as I understand it; the usual caveats about me not being a lawyer apply).
Practically speaking, of course, if you don’t share copyrighted files, chances are that nobody will ever know about you having them. But you’re asking about duty under the law.
Email them to the RIAA with a note that says “sorry”. 
What chorpler said.
The unauthorized sharing of copyright material was always (well, at least since copyright law was written) against the law. The mix tapes i made for my high school buddies back in the 1980s constituted copyright infringement, just the same as uploading a bunch of songs to a file-sharing network nowdays constitutes copyright infringement.
The big difference, and the reason that this has become such a huge issue over the past ten years, is that the newer copying technologies allow for a very large number of files to be distributed to a very large number of people very easily. It’s no longer a matter of sitting next to your tape-to-tape boombox for hours, recording each song individually onto a cassette, which you could then give to only one person. Computers and the internet allow unlimited distribution to unlimited numbers of people.
Also, the fact that the recordings now consist of digital information means that every copy you make is as good as the first copy. Cassette tapes wear with age, and quality degrades as copies of copies of copies are made, so the common pre-digital methods of distribution were both slow and generally of mediocre quality. But now, you can distribute thousands of copies of a song, and every recipient will have a copy that’s as good as the original. And those recipients can copy the song for someone else, and so on, and every copy will be as good as the first one.
So it;s not that people only started violating copyright when computers and the internet and file sharing became popular. Rather, it’s the fact that these new technologies allow for a quality and a volume of copyright infringement that makes it worthwhile for the copyright holders to pursue the issue.
Personally, i think the RIAA and similar content producers have gone about their pursuit in a hamfisted and boneheaded way, but that’s a debate for another thread.
I just looked up bad idea in the dictionary. It linked to your post.
Hypothetically, you’re suggesting that one or more ex post facto laws were enacted which criminalized previously legal behavior. That’s not the case here.
As **chorpler ** said, copying copyrighted materials has always been prohibited. Just because MP3 files didn’t exist 20 years ago doesn’t mean it wasn’t already illegal to make and distribute copies of CDs or LPs. Back when music existed only as radio broadcasts or in physical media like tapes and discs, widespread copying was impractical so it wasn’t anywhere near as common as it is now where someone can rip a CD and put the files out on the web for everyone to grab in a couple minutes.
Just because the RIAA wasn’t making very public displays of raining lawyers on people 20 years ago doesn’t mean they weren’t prosecuting people that were bootlegging or copying back then.
The OP also says ‘‘before the RIAA started suing people.’’ I’m curious about the answer. Let’s say someone downloaded shared files out of ignorance of the law. What is the best (most legally honorable) thing to do in that circumstance, with the files? Destroy them? Can someone still be sued if the files are destroyed? What if they were never shared?
Note my disclaimer - “or before the RIAA started suing people, if you prefer”.
I was trying to give a better idea of when the hypothetical action took place, not rehashing the debate about whether or not the action is illegal (and/or subject to suit).
Well, i’m not sure that “legally honorable” is really the appropriate term here. What is legal (or illegal) and what is honorable (or dishonorable) might not be the same thing, depending on who you talk to. It is generally the case that ignorance of the law does not excuse you from violations of it.
If you believe, legal issues aside, that unauthorized file-sharing is immoral or dishonorable, then you should probably delete them for that reason alone.
If you have violated copyright, and they can prove it, then deleting the files won’t make much difference, legally. Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman recently ordered to pay over $200,000 for sharing music files, had her computer’s hard drive replaced before the trial, and the hard drive that allegedly contained the infringing songs was never actually presented at the trial. Nonetheless, she was still found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay.
The question of whether they were shared or not is probably a relevant one. The RIAA has not, to my knowledge, ever gone after someone who ONLY downloaded a song. They have only gone after people who make the songs available to others. It’s not quite clear to me whether this is merely a strategic decision designed to focus attention on people who share lots of files, or if there is a legal reason for only pursuing sharers rather than downloaders.
But if you OFFER your songs on a file-sharing network, even if no-one downloads them, you could still be found liable. In the Thomas case, Jury Instruction Number 15 (pdf; see p. 18) made this clear:
It’s worth noting that quite a few intellectual property lawyers and copyright experts believe that this instruction was wrong, as a matter of law, and that it rests on a misinterpretation of the Copyright Act. These folks argue that “distribution” necessarily implies a subject, someone who downloads or receives the material, and that merely making it available does not constitute distribution if no-one actually takes it.
Well, I’m sure you’ve heard the mantra that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It probably applies here, however intent might be a mitigating circumstance. If we’re talking about someone who has downloaded a few files for his/her personal enjoyment, there’s probably nothing to worry about. If we’re talking about someone who has turned it into a major pursuit by actively trading (uploading and downloading) copyrighted music files over peer-to-peer networks, even if you own a license to the music you upload, you are expected to know that it’s against the law. After all, it is noted on the original packaging (“All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws”).
Actually, probably not. If you were putting them on audio tapes, then a portion of the purchase price of the tape was paid to the RIAA or ASCAP (I forget who actually collected the money), which made the tapes “approved media” and thus copying was allowed. When MP3s came around, the CDs and computer hard drives had not paid any such fee, so were infringing.
(To be technical, you didn’t have the right to copy onto approved media, either, but you could not be sued for infringement if you used it.)
But i was under the impression that, approved media or not, the DISTRIBUTION part would still leave you liable to being sued for infringement.
Are you saying that, as long as the blank media i use is approved media, i can make as many copies as i want and hand them off to my friends?