If it doesn't contain offensive language or artwork, it's nothing different from posters features bible verses or political slogans, and those are most certainly protected as free speech.
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig --
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine if you have one, its fine if you're proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and wave it around, and please don't try to shove it down children's throats."
-- Lee --
So they want to sue DISH Networks because their Auto Hopper changes the broadcast as delivered by the TV networks because they hold a defacto copyright on that, and the new technology violates it, but they have no qualms chopping the tv-shows up into little pieces (even worse when it comes to movies), overlaying the image with huge animated and highly disturbing ads for other shows, speaking over theme songs and so on?
They have no problems shredding others copyrights to pieces and yet they want everybody else to respect theirs?
There a simple reason why a cyberlocker wouldn't take down the referenced file following a complaint but only the reference. One users use may be infringing while another might not.
Here an example: In a number of countries it is perfectly legal to make personal copies of music CDs. User A makes a copy of a CD and stores it at the cyberlocker. Then along comes pirate B and uploads the very same CD. The cyberlocker de-duplicates and there will now be two references to the same data. Then along comes RIAA and files a complaint against pirate B's upload and the cyberlocker takes down pirate B's link, rendering the reference on pirate boards useless. Everybody's happy. But if the cyberlocker removed the data as well, user A would have lost his perfectly legal backup for no reason, which would be a breach of contract, among other things.
...not to mention that illegal file sharing is copyright infringement, not theft. No matter how many times they repeat it, it won't become true.
But maybe if we repeat it often enough, they'll get it?
One more time: Theft involves an unauthorized transfer of goods while illegal file sharing involves unauthorized duplication of goods. It is fundamentally two completely different things with only the word "unauthorized" in common.
Long live defaults... All date gathering systems I've ever written has a default that isn't accepted as a date, i.e. the text "- Select month -" or similar, as opposed to an actual month name, "January" for instance. It's more helpful and will force the user to pick a date at random or even provide the one asked for.
One thing is to extend copyright on works still under copyright, another thing entirely is to take works already progressed into public domain and return them to a copyrighted state. The first is semantics, the second completely unacceptable.
I for one have almost completely stopped paying for music (own 5000+ CDs) and video (own 2500+ DVDs and Blu-rays) and turned to illegal downloads. Yes, I used to be a happy customer but this obscene quest by the copyright holders to squeeze more money out of their 'property' and to control distribution against all logic and common sense has made me say stop. They've moved beyond fairness and reasonable and into the domain of pure greed and megalomania.