You know, I think I realized where the support for secondary liability comes from. It comes from the general belief that when you're in charge of something, you are responsible for the actions of your subordinates.
Except, that doesn't really apply in these situations because the users are NOT subordinates. They are entirely outside of the organization, and therefor the people in charge aren't responsible for their actions.
I recall a few years ago that a case similar to this appeared on Judge Judy, involving either a PS3 or an XBox 360. Judge Judy has a low tolerance for nonsense, and she did not have any patience for the scammer, who was adamant that she had done nothing wrong.
I am completely against such a thing. In fact, a law allowing DDoS as a form of protest may actually violate the first amendment because just as a DDoS can be used to exercise your first amendment rights, it can also be used to silence the free speech of others, and in effect the law would provide a new way for people to censor speech they disagree with.
Corporations and businesses with low ethical standards would greatly appreciate such a law, as it would legally allow them to silence critics and shut down bad reviews.
"If I could have legitimately sued every time a technology -- especially a backup storage system -- failed without being repairable, I'd have a hell of a lot more money."
I know how that feels. I've had five SATA devices fail over the years: four hard drives and one DVD burner. The DVD burner bricked in unison with a hard drive. I'm placing the blame on the PSU in my computer, which failed after three years of usage (almost to the day I first turned on the computer).
You see a similar thing with tooth brushes. For years I've been using those electric tooth brushes which marketers love to claim are more effective at cleaning between teeth than the outdated manual toothbrushes.
I've since started using a manual toothbrush again, and I've found that it is what is more effective, while the electric toothbrush has the inferior effectiveness.
This all spawns from the fallacy that technology keeps getting better and that newer automatically means better, when in fact it quite often gets worse. And sometimes, it gets both better and worse (thanks to things like planned obsolescence or just poor quality in general).
How many of you have upgraded an OS or application for its much-touted newer features, but found yourself downgrading to the previous version because it worked better?
Sadly, in spite of this a lot of people continue to believe that newer is always better, and marketers love to take advantage of such beliefs.
You think that's bad? There's about a hundred other people in the northern half of my home state alone that share my name. There's at least one other person with my name in my hometown as well, and the college I was attending mixed up his account with mine.
Oh, the "entitlement to free" thing is real, but not in every case as this person appears to be suggesting. In Second Life, I've seen people react with rage if a business does not put out a few free items, almost like they believe that there is some kind of strict moral obligation to do so.
Though, now that I think about it, they tend to be people with psychological problems, where they go into a rage if they don't get their way or if you don't bend over backwards to kiss their ass. In Second Life, we call such people "Drama Queens".
What if the actual situation is not that the NY Times management wants a paywall... but that their shareholders are demanding a paywall because they're desperate for returns on what is no longer a good investment.