Madster appeared in Napster's wake in August 2000 and was intended to be a P2P file sharing service. It was shut down in December 2002 as a result of a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
According to John Deep, a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the Madster software was originally inspired by his daughter's use of instant messaging software. His idea was to combine instant messaging with file sharing. John Deep's daughter Aimee had an interest in providing privacy to her online friends; instant messaging was lacking when it came to privacy protection.
The Madster service was initially called Aimster, but it was later renamed to Madster due to concerns that the Aimster name infringed AOL's AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) trademark. The Madster software allowed users to share files via instant messaging services. Around March 2001, support for encrypted network communications was included in a new release of the Madster software (at the time, the Aimster name was still in use.) Among other things, the Madster service hoped that the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act would have the effect of prohibiting others from monitoring the encrypted Madster network communications. In addition, the Madster operators argued that the encryption meant that they could not be aware of any copyright infringement that took place. At one point, the company announced a premium service that was available for US$4.95 per month.
Recording industry collaboration
In 2000, for a short time, Capitol Records authorized Madster (which was called Aimster at the time) to provide some Radiohead video files on the service's Web site and to release a skin for the Madster software that had a Radiohead theme. This collaboration was done for the purpose of promoting a new Radiohead album.
Legal difficulties and shutdown
In December 2002, the company was ordered by a federal judge to disconnect its computer systems from the Internet. The injunction to disconnect was upheld in June 2003 by the decision in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In particular, it was found that Madster's support of encrypted file sharing was "willful blindness" and was not a valid defense with regard to copyright infringement. At the same time, a company could avoid copyright liability if it was "highly burdensome" for the company to detect and prevent copyright infringement. In January 2004, the US Supreme Court refused without explanation to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling.
Madster was represented in court by Boies, Schiller & Flexner, the same law firm which defended Napster. In 2005, Deep sued Boies for malpractice and misappropriation, but ultimately lost the case in 2008.
- McGeorge Law Review 35. McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific (retrieved via Google Books). 2004. p. 188. Retrieved 2013-12-31.
- Klein, Alec (2001-02-25), Going Napster One Better, The Washington Post, p. A01, retrieved 2010-11-17
- Borland, John (2001-05-23). "Last of the free song traders". CNET News. Retrieved 2010-11-17.
- D'Errico, Richard A. (2002-01-25). "Aimster changes name to resolve AOL suit". The Business Review. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
- "Aimster fights record industry with its own fuel - CNET News". CNET News. 2001-03-02. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
- Festa, Paul (2003-06-30). "Court: Anonymous P2P no defense - CNET News". CNET News. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
- Borland, John (2000-09-26). "Major label breaks file-trading boycott - CNET News". CNET News. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
- McCullagh, Declan (2004-01-13). "High court turns deaf ear to Aimster - CNET News". CNET News. Retrieved 2010-11-17.
- Aimster Sues the Record Industry - March 3, 2001 MP3 Newswire article
- "AN AIMSTER MISSES". NY Real Estate Law Blog. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2013-12-10.