Volume I

Issue : 1: July 10, 2003

• The Dangers of Text Messaging
• Pop Up Purveyor Prevails in District Court
• Intel Loses Email Trespass Case on Appeal in California
• U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Aimster Decision
• U.S. Federal Court of Appeal Reverses "Must Carry" Java Order Against Microsoft
• New York Court of Appeals Releases Key Decision in Telecommuting Case
• Quebec Court Upholds Websites Terms of Use Based on Implied Consent
• Adware Company Wins U.S. Summary Judgment Against U-Haul
• Government of Canada Wins Back Dot-Ca Domain Names in CDRP Proceeding
• Industry Canada Releases Authentication Consultation Report
• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds CIPA in Software Filtering Case
• U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Two Key Cases
• Doctor Suspended Over Prescribing Medication For Customers of Online Pharmacies
• U.S. Court of Appeals Overturns Texas Online Wines Sales Law

Home > Volume I > Issue 1: July 10, 2003 > U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Aimster Decision

U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Aimster Decision

On June 30, 2003 , the U.S. Court of Appeals (7th Cir) upheld the grant of a preliminary injunction against Aimster, holding that the plaintiff would likely be successful at trial in demonstrating that Aimster was a contributory infringer. The service provided by Aimster facilitated the sharing of digital copies of copyrighted music over the Internet by users registered with Aimster, although Aimster did not itself make copies of the music being shared.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence establishing the existence of infringing uses of the Aimster service. On the other hand, the court found that the evidence did not establish that the Aimster service was used for non-infringing purposes, even though the potential for non-infringing uses existed. These findings, particularly the latter, distinguished Aimster from the case of Sony Corp of America, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , 464 U.S. 417 (1984). The U.S. Supreme Court in Sony held that Sony was not a contributory infringer because one potential and actual use of Sony's Betamax video recorder (namely recording television programs for private viewing at a later time) was commercially significant and non-infringing use, as it fell within the "fair use" exception to copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeals also considered that (i) Aimster could have limited the amount of infringement by eliminating the service's encryption feature and monitoring the use being made of the service; and (ii) the only example of file sharing given in the Aimster tutorial in respect of its services was the sharing of copyrighted music, which amounted to an invitation to infringement.

For a copy of the decision (Aimster), visit:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=02-4125.PDF