Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

The court also rejected a challenge to the injunction’s breadth. The preliminaryinjunction, which was very broad in sweep, required Aimster to “immediately disable andprevent any and all access” to the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on or through any web site,server, or system owned or controlled by Aimster, “including, if necessary, preventing any andall access to the Aimster System and Service in its entirety, until such time that Aimsterimplements measures that prevent” unauthorized copying and downloading of the plaintiffs’copyrighted works. 1374 After implementing “measures to ensure that the Aimster System andService prevents any and all copying, downloading, distributing, uploading, linking to, ortransmitting” of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, Aimster was permitted to provide publicaccess to its system, except that it continued to be enjoined from copying, downloading ordistributing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works or facilitating the same. 1375Aimster was also required to “affirmatively monitor and patrol for, and preclude accessto” the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works “by employing such technological tools and measures thatare reasonably available to carry out such obligations” without specifying what those might be orwhat technical effectiveness criteria they would have to satisfy. 1376 Finally, in one of the mostonerous parts of the order, Aimster was required to “maintain a complete list of any and allsound recordings and musical compositions made available on, over, through, or via its system,and upon five (5) business days’ notice [to] make such lists available to Plaintiffs for inspectionand copying. Such lists shall include, without limitation, computer, website, and computerserver logs delineating User search requests, download requests and upload attempts for any andall sound records and musical compositions.” 1377 The Seventh Circuit rejected Aimster’schallenge to the breadth of the injunction on the ground that Aimster had failed to suggestalternative language either to the district court or to the Seventh Circuit, and had thereforewaived the objection. 1378(4) The StreamCast/Kazaa/Grokster LawsuitsOne of the most significant peer-to-peer lawsuits to be filed after the Napster caseinvolved the file sharing services originally known as Music City (later renamed to StreamCast),Kazaa, and Grokster. On Oct. 2, 2001, various recording companies and movie studios sued theoperators of these services for copyright infringement in the Central District of California.Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 19, 2001, Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller filed a class action forcopyright infringement on behalf of themselves and all music publishers represented by TheHarry Fox Agency against the same defendants, again in the Central District of California. Thetwo lawsuits were eventually consolidated.any of the rationale or holdings of the Aimster cases were called into question by the Supreme Court’s Groksterdecision.1374 Preliminary Injunction Order, In re Aimster <strong>Copyright</strong> Litigation, No. 01 c 8933 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2002) at 2.1375 Id. 3.1376 Id. 4.1377 Id. 6.1378 In re Aimster <strong>Copyright</strong> Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 656 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1069 (2004).- 307 -