My guess would be that like most personal injury lawyers they are working for free in hopes of getting a cut of any eventual winnings. It's usually a third so the law firm would get $333 million, quite a nice payday.
Hard to say for certain but the verbiage, "...DEFINING A "CLASS A" MULTIPLE DWELLING AS A MULTIPLE DWELLING THAT IS OCCUPIED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE PURPOSES..." would suggest that houses would be excluded and this would only apply to apartment buildings. People who live in a house would still be free to rent it out. Not that it makes it a whole lot better but best to be accurate if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
Assuming that by "here" you mean the United States, libraries already routinely lend e-books out. They're time limited so that they stop working after a couple of weeks but you can check them out an additional time, just like a dead tree version.
The irrevocable license has equivalent results. The user was the owner of the copyright at the time he posted it. He provided the site with an irrevocable license in good faith. When you buy an asset (like copyright or a company or whatever), you are still bound by any contracts relating to it.
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.