Record labels sue file sharers

Vonnie Bassett of Redwood City has never downloaded a song from the Internet and she's never burned a music CD.

But she has a 17-year-old son. And like most other kids his age, he has downloaded hundreds of songs from the Kazaa peer-to-peer network. Even worse, he stored those songs in a folder on his computer that other Kazaa users could access.

That makes Vonnie Bassett, whose name is on the family's Internet service account, an illegal distributor of copyrighted music, at least in the eyes of the Recording Industry Association of America.

Monday, the recording industry trade group slapped the Bassetts and 260 others across the country with lawsuits that could make them liable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in fines in violation of federal copyright laws. Twenty cases were filed in the Bay Area.

``I can't believe this,'' Vonnie Bassett said Monday. ``To think I might actually have to pay money to these people. I think it's the stupidest thing that the recording industry would do this.''

No specific damages

The suits, filed in federal courts, follow months of warnings and threats that legal action could be the only way to curb online sharing of copyrighted music. The suits do not ask for specific financial damages. According to the RIAA, fines range from $750 to $150,000 per song, but RIAA President Cary Sherman said the industry was not asking for specific damages and would let the courts impose fines.

``No one likes to play the heavy,'' Sherman told reporters Monday. ``But there comes a time when you have to stand up and take appropriate action.''

The RIAA, which represents the five largest recording labels, said it doesn't want to be ``vindictive or punitive'' but that it was running out of ways to curb downloading.

The association also announced an amnesty plan that gives Internet music swappers the opportunity to avoid a lawsuit. Users who agree to sign a notarized pledge to destroy all illegally obtained music files and never again share copyrighted music can sleep easy knowing that they won't be sued.

But the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco advocacy group, warned consumers about a potential backlash.

``Volunteering to step forward and sign what is essentially a confession of guilt doesn't make you less vulnerable,'' said EFF senior attorney Fred von Lohmann.

``They can pledge all they like but once they get subpoenaed to produce it, they're going to have to produce it,'' von Lohmann said. The music industry successfully subpoenaed Internet service providers to turn over names of suspected downloaders.

The music industry decided to go after individual users after a judge ruled in April that the operators of peer-to-peer networks such as Kazaa, Grokster and Morpheus cannot be held responsible for what users do on the Internet.

The industry successfully sued and shut down Napster, the now-infamous file-sharing service that introduced the concept of swapping music over the Internet.

Vonnie Bassett said she knew that Napster had been shut down for allowing illegal activity but thought her son's use of Kazaa was legal because it was allowed to keep operating.

``They get to stay in business and I get sued. It just doesn't make sense to me,'' she said. ``It should be banned. If it's all about pirating, they should take it off the Internet. This is not about us. This is about money. They haven't made enough and they want to make up for it so they get to sue me.''

`Suing your customers'

Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual-property attorney at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich in East Palo Alto, said a defense of not knowing that file sharing was illegal may generate some sympathy from a judge or a jury.

``But who's going to spend the tens of thousands of dollars on a defense?'' Radcliffe said. ``They're going after people who are going to cave.''

Radcliff said he understands that the recording industry wants to protect its assets but ``from a business point of view, you generally don't sue your customers. That's a bad thing.''

In April, the recording industry organization sued four college students for allegedly operating mini-Napster servers on campus. The students settled the cases in May for amounts ranging from $12,000 to $17,500.

Organization officials said Monday that they are open to discussing settlements.

Grokster president Wayne Rosso compared Monday's actions -- especially the amnesty program -- to McCarthyism, the 1950s campaign to root out communists in the United States.

`Revolt time'

``I think it's revolt time,'' said Rosso, who said that Congress will eventually have to intervene. ``Politics will have to come into play. There is no amount of lobbying money that will keep Americans from getting'' angry.

A San Francisco man among those sued Monday said he downloads only a few songs per week and that he was shocked to learn that he was a target.

``It's not fair, it's just not right,'' said Marvin Hooker. ``They are calling me a music distributor, like I'm someone selling cocaine on the streets. I'm a fan, they should be happy that I like their music and I'm sharing it. Instead, they are losing a little bit of money and they are going after me.''

The suit alleges that Hooker shared more than 1,800 songs, including Bruce Springsteen's ``Dancing in the Dark'' and Michelle Branch's ``All You Wanted.''

Now that he must defend himself in court, Hooker said he is no longer such a fan of music.

``Am I upset? If you ask me will I buy anymore CDs from these people, I will not,'' he said. ``I won't even go to a concert now.''