Someone uses a gun and kills someone, where was the lawsuit from the government to hold them responsible?
Someone uses a car and kills someone, where was the lawsuit against the car maker?
Other than adding "on the internet" these cases aren't different.
MegaUpload was a tool. If the law was broken, it was done by the users not the tool. Despite not having to, MegaUpload followed US law and went way beyond any actual legal requirement to appease the cartels. Even given the access/control they demanded, it was seen as not enough by the cartels.
Just about anything can be used to violate a law, and we need to stop making exceptions for those willing to spend money to get the Government to do their bidding.
Tech - Prenda and its magical tracking software. Dirt - The fact they created the events to profit from. Copyright - abusing an outdated law to extort money. Anything else - The longest running comedy on the Judicial system where the staunch "defenders of copyright" are shown once again to be lying cheating idiots undone by a group of people online.
Or were you not keeping up with the story and just needed to flog your usual Mike bashing because it was time for you to feel special again?
Should they be on the hook for even more since it was willful? Where are the **AA's screaming for blood and deriding the lowered awards? This is a serious crime, and if the Government is above the law how can we force consumers to do what we want!?
They can still try to file an appeal, however in the big leagues where one governs oneself accordingly they file everything late. As with Judge Wright, they will appeal to the Judge (merely a required step) then file an appeal with the appeals court and should have to post a bond for the amount required. Then we sit and wait for the wheels of justice to lurch forward a bit more.
The only interesting portion is will they attempt to represent themselves, as was tried and failed in the 9th Circuit, or try to find someone to represent them. Given how it is public knowledge they shafted the team representing them before Judge Wright, I think it will be very hard for them to find anyone willing to work for free (like everyone attached to these cases has claimed).
It will be interesting to see what an empty shell has to offer to secure a bond.
All we need is the product to keep us safe from being sued by those few parents who will be up in arms. We can rely on/blame the vendor if it doesn't work perfectly.
The fastest way to get kids interested in a subject is to tell them no they can't see it. Are we so far removed from our own childhoods that we can't remember the thrill when we first saw a Playboy? It was forbidden.
We expect there to be a magic fix for everything. We say fix this, they do something and we never need to consider it again. If anyone questions anything, we call them out for trying to destroy our safe little bubble.
We want to keep children safe online. We setup a program to do it for us, and rely on a 3rd party to catalog the entire internet for us and file it as we would file it. It is far easier than expecting parents to teach their kids how to use the internet, explain that they might see bad things, and try to instill their values on their kids.
It really is time we stop trying to please everyone with a magic bullet solution that doesn't work.