"Imagine if there was a pharmacist or a doctor or just a friend who was telling people how to order drugs from overseas. That person would be aiding and abetting law breaking. Why is it any different if a server does it? Why isn't the programmer guilty of whatever instructions are given to the server?"
Lets take this a little further.
Why isn't the end users ISP guilty?
Why isn't the DNS guilty?
Why isn't the backbone guilty?
Why isn't the pharmacy guilty?
Why isn't the delivery service guilty?
Why isn't the ordering person guilty?
Why isn't the service that changed the US currency to Canadian guilty?
Re: Re: Re: Why focus on how "little" money he got?
"Infringement is selling the copyrighted works of others. That's alleged. All available info supports that, but of course we await trial. -- As for admissions, why did he take the (streams or) links down? ANY statement IS an admission (in a court case). Doesn't look good."
I did not know that he was SELLING the links to visitors. As for taking the links down as requested in a DMCA takedown notice it is required, so if it is an admission of guilt then it is a bit of a catch 22.
It was a Brazillian company in Brazil they can order them to shut down the service from Brazil. If they cannot provide the service from Brazil they will have to move or could face sanctions from the countries court system for ignoring a direct court order.
If they lose and avoid payment next time the same patent comes up try to have the discovery process go further back to the holders. Use the evidence that went against the patent previously to get the money due. An alternative if that is not allowed after the first non-payment when a second judgment against it ask for damages and have a court ordered lean placed against the patent or for the patent be transferred over to the winning party as the initial payment.