There certainly isn't anything 'creative', though copyright seems to have multiple standards today. Either way, legitimate or not, Microsoft used the quickest and easiest tool they had to take down the product keys.
They could have simply invalidated those keys, though I think they may have already been registered by a legitimate user. Simply disabling them in that case could actually land them in hot water. In some places, such as Europe, it is illegal to disable a product that someone has already paid for.
Actually, what I had heard was radically different. I had spoken to a former Microsoft employee who I know, and he stated that what Microsoft had actually made the copyright claims against were the individual comments, and that google/youtube had screwed up by taking down the videos instead.
You know, I think I realized where the support for secondary liability comes from. It comes from the general belief that when you're in charge of something, you are responsible for the actions of your subordinates.
Except, that doesn't really apply in these situations because the users are NOT subordinates. They are entirely outside of the organization, and therefor the people in charge aren't responsible for their actions.
I recall a few years ago that a case similar to this appeared on Judge Judy, involving either a PS3 or an XBox 360. Judge Judy has a low tolerance for nonsense, and she did not have any patience for the scammer, who was adamant that she had done nothing wrong.
I am completely against such a thing. In fact, a law allowing DDoS as a form of protest may actually violate the first amendment because just as a DDoS can be used to exercise your first amendment rights, it can also be used to silence the free speech of others, and in effect the law would provide a new way for people to censor speech they disagree with.
Corporations and businesses with low ethical standards would greatly appreciate such a law, as it would legally allow them to silence critics and shut down bad reviews.
"If I could have legitimately sued every time a technology -- especially a backup storage system -- failed without being repairable, I'd have a hell of a lot more money."
I know how that feels. I've had five SATA devices fail over the years: four hard drives and one DVD burner. The DVD burner bricked in unison with a hard drive. I'm placing the blame on the PSU in my computer, which failed after three years of usage (almost to the day I first turned on the computer).
You see a similar thing with tooth brushes. For years I've been using those electric tooth brushes which marketers love to claim are more effective at cleaning between teeth than the outdated manual toothbrushes.
I've since started using a manual toothbrush again, and I've found that it is what is more effective, while the electric toothbrush has the inferior effectiveness.
This all spawns from the fallacy that technology keeps getting better and that newer automatically means better, when in fact it quite often gets worse. And sometimes, it gets both better and worse (thanks to things like planned obsolescence or just poor quality in general).
How many of you have upgraded an OS or application for its much-touted newer features, but found yourself downgrading to the previous version because it worked better?
Sadly, in spite of this a lot of people continue to believe that newer is always better, and marketers love to take advantage of such beliefs.
You think that's bad? There's about a hundred other people in the northern half of my home state alone that share my name. There's at least one other person with my name in my hometown as well, and the college I was attending mixed up his account with mine.