files displayed by the search.^1840 Hence the index of files available at any point in time were
distributed throughout various SuperNode computers maintained by the users of the network, not
Kazaa BV.
Any Kazaa service user could become a SuperNode by choosing that option in the
FastTrack software, and users were encouraged to do so. Kazaa BV’s central servers maintained
communications with all SuperNodes and assisted in administering the Kazaa service.^1841 The
role of Kazaa BV’s central servers in the operation of the service was a key basis upon which the
plaintiffs asserted contributory and vicarious copyright liability. The Kazaa service continuously
monitored its thousands of users to keep track of when they logged on and off. As soon as a user
logged on, that user’s music files were inventoried and added to the distributed database, and
when the user logged off, that user’s files were eliminated from the database.^1842
Communications on the service between its users’ computers and its central servers, between the
user and a SuperNode, between SuperNodes and the central servers, and between and among
SuperNodes were all encrypted using a scheme controlled by Kazaa BV.^1843 According to the
complaint, Kazaa BV created the connection between the user who had selected a music file for
copying and the user who was offering the selected file. “Thus, all users need to do is select the
file they want and it automatically downloads – i.e., copies and saves – to their individual
computer hard drive. [Kazaa BV] makes the entire transaction possible.”^1844
The StreamCast and Grokster services operated in a very similar fashion. Initially, both
StreamCast and Grokster used the FastTrack software. After the lawsuits were filed, StreamCast
switched to use of the open standard Gnutella technology and developed its own software known
as “Morpheus” based on that technology. Also after initiation of the lawsuits, the operation of
the Kazaa system passed from Kazaa BV to Sharman Networks.^1845 A news article reported on
May 23, 2002 that Kazaa BV was no longer able to afford defending the lawsuit and that it
would accept a default judgment, and that the attorney for StreamCast Networks was
withdrawing from the case because StreamCast also could not afford the cost of the litigation.^1846
In July of 2002, the federal district court ruled that the plaintiffs could expand their U.S.
lawsuit to include Sharman Networks, which had assumed distribution of the Kazaa file-
(^1840) Id. ¶ 32.
(^1841) Id. ¶ 33.
(^1842) Id. ¶ 34.
(^1843) Id. ¶ 38.
(^1844) Id. ¶ 37. An internal RIAA memorandum, which both outlines the RIAA’s legal theories against the Kazaa
service and gives further technical detail on how it functions, may be found at
http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=39 (available as of Jan. 6, 2002).
(^1845) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 & n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
(^1846) John Borland, “Kazaa, Morpheus Legal Case Collapsing” (May 22, 2002), available as of May 23, 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-920557.html. The article further reported that “squabbling between
Streamcast and Kazaa BV has badly weakened the defendants’ case.”