Basically, if the Duchouquettes win their motion (and they almost certainly will), they must be awarded court costs, legal fees AND additional damages such that justice is served. I suspect the bigger your pockets the more you're going to have to pay to make sure that it hurts. From the site above:
If you prevail, in whole or in part, in your motion to dismiss under the Citizens Participation Act, the court "shall" award you "court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and other expenses. . . as justice and equity may require." The court "shall" further award you damages from the plaintiff "sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions." In short, the court will tailor your total monetary award to suit both your costs and the specific attributes of the individual plaintiff.
It's in the link in the story but here you go. They're listed on the transparency report. On the page here, click on the request id to view the sites on each request. There's a down arrow on the far right side for all the ones that didn't get removed.
A couple of people have said this is (or may be) it:
Sod-dumb, cowardly and hesitant/ Is Erdogan the President/ His boner smells like Döner/ Even a pig's fart smells finer/ He's the man who punches girls/ while wearing a bloody rubber mask/ Things he loves the most/ is shagging goats/ and oppressing minorities This kind of criticism would be illegal! Kicking Kurds, beating up Christians/ while watching child porn/ And in the evening instead of a nap/ Fellatio with a hundred sheep/ Erdogan is all things considered/ a President with a tiny wang/ I repeat this is an example of what would be illegal!
I've never been a Charter customer personally, but my parents have them as have some friends. They all seem fairly happy. My dealings with their customer service and support people have all been fairly positive. Their internet connections seem to be a bit slower than Comcast for the most part but better customer service makes up for that imho.
While I'm not in disagreement with you, I'm all but certain that even if they got the information on the people in the US, any judgement against them would be completely unenforceable. Possibly they might want to avoid traveling to France but they should be pretty safe otherwise.
Second, it will harm customers of local, small providers when these customers are satisfied with their existing service.
So my little town only has one car dealership that only sells Ford. I'm pretty happy with Ford, it's what I've driven for years. Now a new dealership is opening up, this one sells Chevrolet. Ford is no longer the only option in town. I mean, I don't HAVE to buy Chevrolet. I know the dealership is there but I don't have to give them my money. I can keep driving Fords the rest of my life if I want. How is having the OPTION to buy a Chevy hurting me exactly?
Even if YouTube were found to be 1% liable (and they won't, the DMCA is pretty clear on this area), how could they be on the hook for the entire award vs they pay their 1% and the plaintiff has to fight to get the remaining 99% from the other defendant?
No, it wouldn't help. It's not an issue of Starz/Comcast blocking the connection. The connection is just fine. When you sign up for one of these partnered streaming services as a cable subscriber, you have to put in your login credentials for your cable provider account when you sign up. Starz (or whoever) then verifies the credentials with your cable provider when you log in. They see it's a legitimate account and you are a subscriber to their product and they give you access.
I could see this resulting in much more restrictive laws that basically say doing ANYTHING on your phone is illegal. Need GPS? Better pull over and park. Need to change the music cause the song on right now sucks? Tough. Suck it up or park. There is at least one state where I believe that using ANY mobile device (phone, ipod, portable GPS etc) that isn't attached to the car (e.g. in dash or whatever) is illegal and I believe that the window/dash mounts don't qualify.
I will just point out here that the government HAS offered reimbursement for the development costs. What they WON'T reimburse is the massive loss of goodwill and likely market share if it happens.
Also Apple didn't necessarily WANT the case under seal, they were just okay with fighting it under seal. It's the FBI that decided to make it public thinking the public would be like, "ooh, terrorism!"
Now if I were really conspiracy-minded, I would expect there to be ANOTHER terrorist attack soon, this one much worse, and the government really MUST get at that data because they were part of a group planning more.