Aimster Debate

Recently, the idea of ​​sharing media files over the Internet is a controversial topic. File sharing applications like Napster are currently criticized by the US government and music labels, but I do not think anyone would try to imitate Napster's technology. Johnny Deep, a computer consultant at Troy, New York, is known as the founder of 'Next Napster'. The idea behind "Aimster" was named after his daughter Aimee. Aimster is backed by popular and highly popular instant messaging services such as AOL Instant Messenger, AOL, MSN Messaging Service.

In these industries, Napster, Aimster, KaZaA, Morpheus, and other file sharing technologies were extremely difficult due to numerous illegal copying problems in the domestic market. Over the past few years these industries have filed a number of lawsuits around the world against individuals illegally distributing copyrighted works via peer-to-peer networks. The courts of developed countries including Australia, Canada and the United States are also full of incidents dealing with secondary copyright liability.

As can be seen from the discussion of these incidents, applications in the interrelationship of secondary liability theories yielded conflicting results. On the one hand, while Napster and Aimster's services are responsible for the 9th Circuit Court and the 7th Circuit Court, Grokster and Streamcast were not responsible for the Central District of California. Each lawsuit contains different interpretations of the decision by Supreme Court against Sony and its impact on the principle of secondary responsibility.

In contrast to the decision of Napster and Aimster, in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. Grokster, the Central District Court of California, the peer-to-peer Morpheus (administered by Streamcast) court, between these new services and Napster We decided to focus on the core technical differences of. Centralized index of distributed files on the server, and Grokster is not responsible for that user's copyright infringement. Do not create a temporary index called a super node on the user's computer on the network or do not use a centralized index. In short, the court acknowledged the defendant 's character, they only did sell part of the software to the user, there was no further interaction like Sony just sold the VCR to consumers.