Recording Industry Association of America

US Representative Martha Roby and Miranda Lambert, who was the RIAA's 2019 Artist of the Year, at an RIAA event in Washington, DC in 2019.

In 2004, the RIAA added a branch of certification for what it calls "digital" recordings, meaning roughly "recordings transferred to the recipient over a network" (such as those sold via the iTunes Store), and excluding other obviously digital media such as those on CD, DAT, or MiniDisc. In 2006, "digital ringtones" were added to this branch of certification. Starting in 2013, streaming from audio and video streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube also began to be counted towards the certification using the formula of 100 streams being the equivalent of one download, RIAA certification for singles therefore no longer represents true sales.[18][19] In the same year, the RIAA introduced the Latin Digital Award for digital recordings in Spanish.[17] As of 2016, the certification criteria for these recordings are as follows:[20]

Digital awards:

• Gold: 500,000 units
• Platinum: 1,000,000 units
• Multi-Platinum: 2,000,000 units (increments of 1,000,000 thereafter)
• Diamond: 10,000,000 units

The units are defined as follows:

1. A permanent digital download counts as 1 Unit
2. 150 on-demand audio and/or video streams count as 1 Unit

Latin digital awards:

• Disco de Oro (Gold): 30,000 copies
• Disco de Platino (Platinum): 60,000 copies
• Disco de Multi-Platino (Multi-Platinum): 120,000 copies

In February 2016, RIAA updated its certification criteria for album to include streaming and track sales using the formula for album-equivalent unit.[21]

• Gold: 500,000 units
• Platinum: 1,000,000 units
• Multi-Platinum: 2,000,000 units (increments of 1,000,000 thereafter)
• Diamond: 10,000,000 units

For certification purposes, each unit may be one the following:[22]

1. sale of a digital album or physical album
2. 10 track downloads from the album
3. 1,500 on-demand audio and/or video streams from the album

Along with albums, digital albums, and singles there is another classification of music release called "Video Longform". This release format includes DVD and VHS releases, and certain live albums and compilation albums. The certification criteria is slightly different from other styles.[23]

• Gold: 50,000 copies
• Platinum: 100,000 copies
• Multi-Platinum: 200,000 copies

The RIAA opposes unauthorized sharing of its music. Studies conducted since the association began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible[24][25] to moderate.[26]

The association has commenced high-profile lawsuits against file sharing service providers. It has also commenced a series of lawsuits against individuals suspected of file sharing, notably college students and parents of file sharing children. It is accused of employing techniques such as peer-to-peer "decoying" and "spoofing" to combat file sharing.[27][28]

In late 2008 they announced they would stop their lawsuits,[29] and instead attempt to work with ISPs to persuade them to use a three-strike system for file sharing involving issuing two warnings and then cutting off Internet service after the third strike.[30]

The RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the subscriber associated with an IP address,[31] and as such do not know any additional information about a person before they sue. After an Internet subscriber's identity is discovered, but before an individual lawsuit is filed, the subscriber is typically offered an opportunity to settle. The standard settlement is a payment to the RIAA and an agreement not to engage in file-sharing of music and is usually on par with statutory damages of $750 per work, with the RIAA choosing the number of works it deems "reasonable". For cases that do not settle at this amount, the RIAA has gone to trial, seeking statutory damages from the jury, written into The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 as between $750 and $30,000 per work or $750 and $150,000 per work if "willful".

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen oppose the ability of the RIAA and other companies to "strip Internet users of anonymity without allowing them to challenge the order in court".[32][33]

The RIAA's methods of identifying individual users had, in some rare cases, led to the issuing of subpoena to a recently deceased 83-year-old woman,[34] an elderly computer novice,[35] and a family reportedly without any computer at all.[36]

In February 2007, the RIAA began sending letters accusing Internet users of sharing files and directing them to web site P2PLAWSUITS.COM, where they can make "discount" settlements payable by credit card.[37] The letters go on to say that anyone not settling will have lawsuits brought against them. Typical settlements are between $3,000 and $12,000. This new strategy was formed because the RIAA's legal fees were cutting into the income from settlements.[38] In 2008, RIAA sued 19-year-old Ciara Sauro for allegedly sharing ten songs online.[39]

The RIAA also launched an "early settlement program" directed to ISPs and to colleges and universities, urging them to pass along letters to subscribers and students offering early settlements, prior to the disclosure of their identities. The settlement letters urged ISPs to preserve evidence for the benefit of the RIAA and invited the students and subscribers to visit an RIAA website for the purpose of entering into a "discount settlement" payable by credit card.[40] By March 2007, the focus had shifted from ISPs to colleges and universities.[38][41][42]

In October 1998, the Recording Industry Association of America filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco claiming the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP300 player violated the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. The Rio PMP300 was significant because it was the second portable consumer MP3 digital audio player released on the market. The three judge panel ruled in favor of Diamond, paving the way for the development of the portable digital player market.[43]

In 2003, the RIAA sued college student developers of LAN search engines Phynd and Flatlan, describing them as "a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery".[44][45][46]

In September 2003, the RIAA filed suit in civil court against several private individuals who had shared large numbers of files with Kazaa. Most of these suits were settled with monetary payments averaging $3,000. Kazaa publisher Sharman Networks responded with a lawsuit against the RIAA, alleging that the terms of use of the network were violated and that unauthorized client software was used in the investigation to track down the individual file sharers (such as Kazaa Lite). An effort to throw out this suit was denied in January 2004, however, that suit was settled in 2006. Sharman Networks agreed to a global settlement of litigation brought against it by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), and the RIAA. The creators of the popular Kazaa file-sharing network will pay $115 million to the RIAA, unspecified future amounts to the MPAA and the software industry, and install filters on its networks to prevent users from sharing copyrighted works on its network.[47]

RIAA has also filed suit in 2006 to enjoin digital XM Satellite Radio from enabling its subscribers from playing songs it has recorded from its satellite broadcasts.[48] It is also suing several Internet radio stations.[49]

On October 12, 2007, the RIAA sued Usenet.com seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the company from "aiding, encouraging, enabling, inducing, causing, materially contributing to, or otherwise facilitating" copyright infringement. This suit, the first that the RIAA has filed against a Usenet provider, has added another branch to the RIAA's rapidly expanding fight to curb the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials. Unlike many of the RIAA's previous lawsuits, this suit is filed against the provider of a service who has no direct means of removing infringing content. The RIAA's argument relies heavily on the fact the Usenet.com, the only defendant that has been named currently, promoted their service with slogans and phrases that strongly suggested that the service could be used to obtain free music.

On April 28, 2008, RIAA member labels sued Project Playlist, a web music search site, claiming that the majority of the sound recordings in the site's index of links are infringing. Project Playlist's website denies that any of the music is hosted on Project Playlist's own servers.[50]

On June 30, 2009, The Recording Industry Association of America prevailed in its fight against Usenet.com, in a decision, that the U.S. District Judge Harold Baer of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the music industry on all its main arguments: that Usenet.com is guilty of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement. In addition, and perhaps most importantly for future cases, Baer said that Usenet.com can't claim protection under the Sony Betamax decision. That ruling states that companies can't be held liable for contributory infringement if the device they create is "capable of significant non-infringing uses".[51] Furthermore, the parties are now headed to federal court for damage assessments and awards, which could amount to several millions of dollars for the music industry.[52]

On October 26, 2010, RIAA members won a case against LimeWire, a P2P file sharing network, for illegal distribution of copyrighted works.[53] On October 29, in retaliation, riaa.org was taken offline via denial-of-service attacks executed by members of Operation Payback and Anonymous.[54]

In 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Allen v. Cooper, raising the question of whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by states.[55][56][57][58] Thirteen amici including; the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Copyright Alliance, the Software and Information Industry Association and the National Press Photographers Association, filed briefs in support of Allen.[59][60][61] Those briefs proposed various doctrines under which the CRCA could validly abrogate sovereign immunity and variously re-asserted and supported the reasons why Congress examined and enacted CRCA, claiming that Congress was fair in finding that states had abused immunity and that an alternative remedy was needed.[62] On November 5, 2019 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allen v. Cooper. A decision in the case is expected in the late spring of 2020.[63]

In 1999, Mitch Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire", thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels.[64][65] Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light.[66] The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change.[67][68]