systems from the Internet. Earlier on in September, the court stated that Aimster had knowledge of copyright infringements, including a Web-based "Aimster Guardian" tutorial that showed copyrighted materials and the tracking of popular songs on the service via "Club Aimster"; the latter also indicated contribution to infringing activity and the monthly fees for the service indicated a financial interest for the Aimster operators in conjunction with infringing usage. The requirement for users to sign up and log in to use the service meant that Aimster was in a position to control the activities of its users. 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 lost the case in 2008. References External links A 'blog' ostensibly written by Madeline Deep File sharing software Windows file sharing software Discontinued software Internet services shut down by a legal challenge