When last we heard from the CEO of online file-sharing outfit Aimster, Johnny Deep and his colleagues were fending off legal challenges from record and media companies suing them over copyright infringement.

With the Aimster site gaining in popularity (up to 6 million users)while its slightly different file-swapping cousin Napster complies with a court-ordered removal of copyrighted musical works from its database, the legal challenges against Aimster are piling up as well.

In addition to the pending lawsuits against it by the Recording Industry Association of America, as well as close to 30 major record labels, the National Music Publishers' Association, Inc., has filed a similar complaint against Aimster as has the motion picture industry.

The RIAA's suit is asking for an injunction against Aimster as well as damages "as a result of copyright infringement and unfair competition."

And that's not even counting the cybersquatting suit that AOL Time Warner has filed in Virginia over Aimster's domain name. Aimster's service is interoperable with AOL's Instant Messenger platform, another issue that has the Cohoes-based service defending itself from media giants.

But back to the recording industry. The RIAA, which lost an earlier motion to have the case shifted from Albany (the county in which Aimster is located), to Manhattan (where the association is based), is trying again.

Having been enjoined by the Albany federal court from proceeding in any other forum over the copyright issue, the RIAA has filed an appeal to the second circuit asking for a venue opinion.

Meanwhile, Aimster is also fending off another copyright infringement lawsuit by the National Music Publishers Association (that features complaints by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, songwriters famous for "Hound Dog" and other early rock classics) which was filed in -- you guess it -- Manhattan's southern district federal court.

Aimster's response: Collusion! Just more piling on and delaying tactics by an army of lawyers while the music and motion picture industries figure out how to shut the site down.

And that's the problem. Because Aimster essentially acts as a postal service in wrapping the online files and doesn't "see" what's getting swapped between users, this case is a little more tricky for the music industry compared to its success in muzzling Napster.

In between his company's legal responses seeking discovery for evidence of collusion on the part of the recording industry, Deep chatted with atNewYork about the legal issues at stake and his views about copyright.

Q: Why collusion? Can you summarize some of your defense?

We're claiming that the (music labels and the RIAA) are in collusion by the different venues they seek.

They're going to spare no expense, knowing that each time we respond we have to spend money. They've asked the courts in the southern district not to transfer to the northern district court. And they've asked that the cases be transferred to a multi-district panel in Washington (as if this were some kind of tobacco litigation).

If (these latest recording industry suits and motions) are found to be collusion, then they would be in contempt of a northern district order, which barred the RIAA from bringing its complaint in any other forum (as well as those acting in concert).

We've asked the (northern district) judge for a contempt order and permission to go ahead with discovery to find evidence of collusion.

I would think all these tactics the record industry and motion picture industry are undertaking to stall and delay are designed to make this as expensive as possible for us because they have a better chance of putting us out of business then they do on winning the case on the merits.

Q: And the copyright issue?

We had sued the recording industry association (as a way of asking the industry): 'if you think we're infringing copyright, or if there is something you think we should not be doing, tell us what that is.'

When somebody is at (a) computer and wants to send a message, we put it in an envelope when they hit the send button. Technically, it's called an encryption wrapper, but it's an envelope. And we don't take it out of that envelope until it gets to the destination. And it's just the way the mail has already worked ever, ever since fascist regimes were defeated.

Q: Why wouldn't the music associations want to partner with you like Bertelsmann did with Napster? Or would at least try to strike a deal?

I think music is a very small part of the Internet. It's an important part but a small part. I'm confident the uses of Aimster are far broader than music.

Q: What a comment on the potential of Instant Messaging platforms...

I think that instant messaging is the next wave of the Internet. It's a very broad platform and AOL's attempts to monopolize it are wrong-headed. They're trying to use the trademark of AIM to crush ours (which works with AOL's platform). But I don't think instant messaging is going to be owned by AOL or Microsoft, although they want to.

We have an IM capability that (AOL) can't block or interrupt. It's been proven that they can't block or temporarily interrupt us in the way that we interoperate with them. So I would think that both of those things are pretty threatening to them.

Q: What do you think of Gnutella?

My fears about Gnutella are that it opens its users up to spy databases. I can guarantee users of Gnutella that their IP addresses are being stored in a spy database along with all the files that they share.

They think that they're hiding behind Gnutella's decentralized architecture but they're not. They're just throwing open the doors and saying to police, 'come on in and look at everything that's on my hard drive.' It would be very easy for the media cartel to go after and prosecute anyone who uses Gnutella or other variations (bearshare, kazaa), especially the more prolific users.

Q: But don't you find that people can wink at copyright law with your service?

Our view is that we don't have a right or a responsibility to control what our users do, as much as we advocate for copyright. No one's advocating that anyone break the law. I've made a living on copyright my whole life. This is about rights to privacy and free speech.