Mike, I tend to agree with your posts, and I'm all about Section 230, normally. But I'm not sure I agree with your assessment this time. It sounds to me that the gist of the state's argument is that the site solicits illegal content, and thus is not eligible for safe harbors when the hammer comes down. This kind of goes along with "clean hands". You can't look for help from the courts when you were performing illegal activity.
Now it may be another question whether or not "revenge porn" *should* be illegal, but in California, at least, it apparently is, and so in that light, I can see why the site would not qualify for safe harbors. Having said that, it would need to be extraordinarily obvious that the (or a) site was soliciting illegal material for this to be the case. In my mind, Megaupload would not fall under this, as there was no obvious solicitation of illegal content.
What is even worse in my mind is the mindset that "poor starving artists" somehow *deserve* to get rich for writing/singing a few popular songs. This is total bullshit and is contrary to all but the most recent handful of decades. In truth, musicians/singers (also called bards) sometimes did starve: they sang for their supper, and if they didn't sing well, or often enough, they didn't get pelted with money to afford their next meal. Painters/sculptists were usually not recognized until after death, and did not see any of the wealth that would later be amassed for their works. This every-stream-or-picture-or-whatever must be paid for mindset is quite new in the long scheme of things, and inevitably benefits the middlemen more than anybody, which is why they keep whining.
I paid for Metallica's Black album on cassette; I bought it again on CD; I'll be damned if I ever pay for it again.
Let's flip that around. What offense do you perceive being given to the family?
Yes, their family member was killed, and that is tragic. But the picture didn't kill him, nor did the article.
Yes, the article had a mistake (and a pretty bad one at that), but surely no one thinks that it was intentional? And if not intentional, then no offense could be intended.
So, unless you come up with another reason to be offended, all we have left is a money grubbing lawsuit that is not only not intended to "protect" the dead man's dignity, but instead essentially robs him of whatever dignity he may have had.
I don't know if it is patented (can't imagine it isn't though), but copiers already incorporate very similar sounding "technology". They are programmed to not copy money, at least U.S. money, don't know about other countries' currency.
But someone from a lobbying group for the legacy copyright players pulled out the "you're all so smart, nerd harder" card by saying that if Silicon Valley can build a self-driving car, surely it can build a technology that can determine what is and what is not fair use.
And on the day that they turned on the technology that can determine what is and is not fair use, it looked at humanity and despaired. And then blew it all up. The end.