1. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Nick Thomas 1/26/09

2. What is Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is basically when a person or persons copies someone else’s copyrighted material Copyright infringement is basically when a person or persons copies someone else’s copyrighted material It is also when a party takes music or movies illegally by pirating them off the internet or bootlegged copies It is also when a party takes music or movies illegally by pirating them off the internet or bootlegged copies

3. When is a Copyrighted work no longer Copyrighted? Copyrighted works become part of the public domain after the life of the artist plus an additional 70 years after the death of the artist. After that it is free to be used by everyone. Copyrighted works become part of the public domain after the life of the artist plus an additional 70 years after the death of the artist. After that it is free to be used by everyone. Some reasons the work may no longer be copyrighted are: The Artist is dead and the 70 year grace period is over the copyright is expired, I.E. anything before 1930, The work is a work from the US government, The author failed to satisfy the statutory formalities to perfect the copyright. Some reasons the work may no longer be copyrighted are: The Artist is dead and the 70 year grace period is over the copyright is expired, I.E. anything before 1930, The work is a work from the US government, The author failed to satisfy the statutory formalities to perfect the copyright.

4. What happens if I’m found Guilty of Infringement?  May be subject to court proceedings.  Fines  Told to destroy all material either being hard copies or downloaded copies.  Jail Time  Reimbursement to copyright holder.

5. If My work is Infringed upon, how can I remedy it? Most common remedies for copyright infringement are: Most common remedies for copyright infringement are: Injunctive Relief: When the court rules that the defendant(s) are no longer allowed to distribute or sell the material. Injunctive Relief: When the court rules that the defendant(s) are no longer allowed to distribute or sell the material. Statutory Damages: A form of damages provided by the Copyright Act. Calculated by multiplying the number of infringements by the set amount of dollars that would have been earned. Statutory Damages: A form of damages provided by the Copyright Act. Calculated by multiplying the number of infringements by the set amount of dollars that would have been earned. Actual Damages: These damages are suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement of the plaintiffs song(s) I.E. New obscene lyrics to a popular song which can no longer be commercially exploited due to the bad rep. Actual Damages: These damages are suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement of the plaintiffs song(s) I.E. New obscene lyrics to a popular song which can no longer be commercially exploited due to the bad rep. Award Of Profits: When the plaintiff receives the revenue that would have been made if it had been obtained legally. Award Of Profits: When the plaintiff receives the revenue that would have been made if it had been obtained legally. Lawyer Fees and Punitive Damages: The courts might have the defendant pay for any or all legal fees and be forced to pay a punitive damage fee for extra compensation. Lawyer Fees and Punitive Damages: The courts might have the defendant pay for any or all legal fees and be forced to pay a punitive damage fee for extra compensation.

6. Harrison Vs. Bright Tunes Music Corp. In 1976 George Harrison of the Beatles was found guilty of Copyright Infringement with his song “My Sweet Lord”. The song in question was “He’s So Fine” by The Chiffons. The courts found Harrison Guilty of Copyright infringement after the looked at their similar structures and sound. The judge ruled that “ His subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious did not remember... That is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished “ Even though he unconsciously infringed he was still held liable.

7. Napster Vs. Metallica In 1998 -1999 a college student named Shawn Fanning developed a program for peer to peer file sharing. In 1998 -1999 a college student named Shawn Fanning developed a program for peer to peer file sharing. This allowed campus pals to share their favorite music with each other via MP3. This allowed campus pals to share their favorite music with each other via MP3. After a huge number of students, teenageers and music lovewrs caught wind of this program it blew up. After a huge number of students, teenageers and music lovewrs caught wind of this program it blew up. Fanning dropped out of school to start a business with his new program. Fanning dropped out of school to start a business with his new program. He then caught the wrath of angry record labels, music big wigs, and musicians, most notable Lars Ulrich Drummer of Metallica. The Napster Battle was set for 2000 and by May 8 th of 2000 a judge ruled that Fanning was not responsible for his users illegal actions. The programers and Fanning then worked with Metallica banning over 300,000 users with illegally obtained Metallica songs. Many of those banned Napster users found ways to lash out at the band and Napster by creating their own File sharing programs I.E. SoulSeek, KaZaa, LimeWire.

8. RIAA Vs. Thomas ► More local battle of copyright infringement was in Duluth MN, where single mother of 2 Jammie Thomas was found guilty of Copyright infringement and forced to pay $222,000. ► This was the nations first file sharing case to go in front of a jury. ► The jury ruled that Thomas had to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs in question. ► The jury had the option of charging a 3.6 million dollar fine or as low as $18,000. The songs she was found liable for ranged from Journey, Aerosmith, Green Day, and more. ► The RIAA only sued for 24 of the 1700 songs found on her hard drive. ► The RIAA have brought more than 20,000 cases of infringemnt to court and stated “This is what happens when you don’t settle…I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial “

9. Sources Napster founder Shawn Fanning is taking his story to the small screen. By: Lisa M. Bowmen Oct. 3rd 2002 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-960717.html Metallica vs Napster By: Dan Cross May 15th 2000 http://guitar.about.com/library/weekly/aa051500a.htm When US works pass into the Public Domain By: Lolly Gasaway Nov. 4th 2003 http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies By: US Copyright Office Accessed: Jan. 24th 2009 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html The Musicians Business and Legal Guide By: Mark Halloran ESQ Pearson Prentice Hall 2008 Pages 75 – 81 RIAA Jury finds Minnesota Woman Liable for Piracy, Awards $222,000 By: David Kravets Oct. 4th 2007 http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html Tim McGraw Copyright Infringement Suit Grabbing Attention By: Calvin Gilbert Aug. 6th 2008 http://blog.cmt.com/2008-08-06/tim-mcgraw-copyright-infringement-suit-grabbing-attention/ George Harrison and The Chiffons Accessed: Jan 24th 2009 http://www.benedict.com/Audio/harrison/harrison.aspx