Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

Supreme court decides not to hear Madster's case

13 January 2004 13:19 by Petteri "dRD" Pyyny | 6 comments

U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday without explanation that it wont take the Madster's case to its reconsideration. This decision closes the first P2P case that had reached the gates of U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit by RIAA against Aimster, that later changed its name, was brought against the P2P service in May, 2001 claiming that the company intentionally violated RIAA's members' copyrights by allowing its users to share illegal music via its network. Later on, in separate lawsuit, AOL sued the company over trademark violations that eventually forced Aimster to change its name in January, 2002.

Eventually, in September, 2002, lower court decided to grant an injunction against Madster, pretty much closing the company with that decision. Madster's owner, Johnny Deep, appealed the case and in July, 2003, appeals court decided to keep the federal court's decision as it is -- Madster had to kept closed. Mr. Deep appealed the case to Supreme Court and now Supreme Court has made its decision. One of the P2P pioneers has vanished.

More information:

News.com
U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)

Permalink to this article

Madster case headed to Supreme Court (9 November 2003)

Court decided to keep Madster shut (1 July 2003)

Judge issues a temporary restraining order to Madster (4 December 2002)

Recording industry wins an injunction against Madster (4 September 2002)

Aimster changes name (25 January 2002)

Aimster in big trouble (4 July 2001)

Judge denied to dismiss Aimster's charges against music industry (26 June 2001)

AOL sued Aimster over trademark (22 June 2001)

RIAA sued Aimster (29 May 2001)

« Previous news article
LAME MP3 encoder 3.95.1 "stable"

Next news article »
MP3.com music archive goes private

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
Rodgers (Inactive) 14 January 2004 4:43
Sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to get off their asses and make a decision. This action of ignoring the lower court's ruling does not solve anything other than the Madster case. Pioneers will still come from different directions with different issues that sooner or later will have to be specifically defined with a Supreme Court finding. Best to all! Rodgers [ + quote]
Toiletman (Senior Member) 14 January 2004 12:47
You know what, I think the Supreme Court are getting tired of P2P cases, and aren't really treating them properly. I mean what's more important? A kid with acne downloading pr0n and music or some crazy murderer..... [ + quote]
dRD (I hate titles) 15 January 2004 3:04
Tired or not, but actually the fact is that Supreme Court hasn't taken even a single P2P case to its consideration yet, is bit wrong as its decision might shape the future of DMCA law (after all, in States, the Supreme Court decisions shape the legislation probably more than written legislation alone -- prime example being the abortion decision in 1970's). Note: First one to start politics about abortion based on this post, will get banned. Petteri Pyyny Webmaster http://AfterDawn.com/ Please read our guides before posting questions! Guides are available here: http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/ [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15 January 2004 3:05
Litnrod (Inactive) 19 January 2004 2:22
You are correct drD .. whether they like it or not they are going to have to start realizing that this is not going to go away, unfortunately more of the public needs to get involved and stand up and say "Hey we're not takin this brush off crap no more" ,until then, I'm afraid the Supreme Court will continue it's current trend [ + quote]
rae2 (Newbie) 6 February 2004 12:18
Start thinking outside the box. One of the nice things about this planet is that the USA DOESN'T control all of it yet. If I wanted to run Madster or any other website and the uptight, anal retentive, authoritative hypocrits in the USA butted it, I WOULD MOVE TO SOME PLACE THAT DIDN'T HAVE "CONTROL FREAK" AS IT'S MIDDLE NAME and run my site from there. Better hurry though. I'm sure that within a decade the USA will find a way to censor/control ALL MEDIA and ALL COMMUNICATIONS by its citizens, and THEN DO SO. Ain't the LAND OF THE FREE just so much fun? [ + quote]
Rodgers (Inactive) 6 February 2004 12:53
As suspected the High Court turns it's head aside on an important issue to resolve and lets everything stay in limbo. It is time these "lifetime" judges make some decisions based on the merits of the Constitution. Our Privacy is being invaded and that requires the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Their neglect of duty leaves us to look with disdain on their inaction. Best to All! Rodgers [ + quote]