Has anyone ever been sued for downloading music?

Is it just that people are either sloppy with language or don't understand the difference between downloading and sharing, or has someone actually been gone after for downloading? It's a misperception, but it's not sloppy. It's deliberately cultivated by the record companies in order to confuse people and scare scare them away from downloading

IAAL and I am currently defending a number of these people. The lawsuits claim that they are downloading *and* sharing them on p2p networks. The record industry finds these defendants on p2p networks, and I've not yet seen a case where someone was sued for downloading unless they were discovered sharing as well. The way the investigations currently work, it appears to me that there is no way to discover those merely downloading without sharing. I don't have time to go into a lot of detail here, but if you're interested in learning more please contact me directly.

People are sued for downloading -- only -- *all* the time. I work at a university, and I can name personally 5 students who have had to settle with the RIAA for downloading only. They weren't sued, but they were threatened with lawsuits. I'm sure you are mistaken.

To me it sounds like the real question is "If I only download music and do not make it available, what are my chances of getting sued?" The short and simple answer is: right now in the U.S. you are not 100% safe from legal action if you download copyrighted works without the copyright holder's consent. We could speculate all day long on law, risk and so on, bottom line is if 0.01% risk of dealing with RIAA lawyers is too much for you, then don't do it. I'm not asserting this based on any law or legal precedent, I'm saying that if an RIAA lawyer wants to go after you and drag you through the mud financially -- even if they are in the wrong -- they can and have done it. They are not above mindlessly shoveling money into furnace of their intellectual property protection machine. I do agree with others noting that downloading alone is not illegal, and the RIAA definitely wants everyone to believe that all media activity done digitally is illegal. Unless of course you are using a DRM'd to uselessness RIAA approved product for digital media use. Just keep in mind that if they want to pick a fight you will have to pay up or gamble that the outcome is ruled in your favor. (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/07/judge-awards-68000-in-attorneys-fees.html, http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/08/riaa-fails-to-pay-attorneys-fee-award.html http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/09/riaa-sends-check-in-capitol-v-foster.html http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/09/riaa-pays-only-part-of-interest-in.html http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/09/riaa-pays-additonal-interest-in-capitol.html.)

Sorry. That sentence should have read: Even if you are not seeding a new file for other users, you are still uploading.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-believes-m.html Despite recent claims to the contrary.

The court case is actually about him sharing, the CD question only comes up in passing. (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/recording-indus.html)

Just read http://instapundit.com/archives2/013506.php from Instapundit. The man is being sued by the RIAA for copying music from his own CD to his own computer. Not for sharing, not for downloading. Idiot luddite record execs will not stop until they have completely destroyed the industry (as they know it).

Here's an interesting interpretation of http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0018.html, especially when it comes to legal implications of digital media. The author's conclusion here is that digital phonorecords (mp3's etc) are not really covered under the Right of First Sale. Although if you are the legal owner of the media, I'm sue you can use the Fair Use defense for personal copies made.