Retaliating in that manner suggests to me that the whole exercise is not in any way a genuine engagement with the wider programming community - just another large corporate attempting to exploit "social media" and blindly punishing criticism instead of responding to it.
Of course it doesn't affect the strength of his substantive claim. Here, it's a pretty obvious and easy-to-follow rule. If the rule applies in the USA, it demonstrates even more ignorance on Carreon's part.
Inman has already chosen a good lawyer, and I hope that he was chosen on the basis of experience and skill rather than price.
"Simply put, these sweeping contempt and judgment enforcement efforts unquestionably subject Righthaven to the immediate threat of irreparable harm by seeking to appoint a receiver over its affairs, as well as to seize and liquidate its tangible and intangible assets, which include the company’s intellectual property rights in and to copyright protected content that is directly at issue in this case, as well as those at issue in several other appeals pending before this Court along with content at issue numerous cases pending in the District of Nevada and the District of Colorado."
If that is "simply put" I would like to know what "verbose and unnecessarily complicated" means.
Well with that analogy - bear in mind that it's the police who have the delegated responsibility of enforcing the legal use of roads. If the police see you acting illegally on the road, they stop you and you might get fined or jailed.
If it was a private road that I built on my own property and I saw you doing something illegal on it (maybe you start selling weed from a stall), I would probably stop you immediately. I certainly wouldn't object to a court order telling me to deny thoroughfare to people who come to buy weed from you.
But this all assumes actual knowledge of a specific infringement. I doubt the ISP in this case had that - it seems to suggest the ISP only had general knowledge that "lots of infringement happened via the site". Ideally it should be:
actual infringement, proven in court by a rightsholder -> that specific infringement being blocked by the ISP.
Here it seems to be
some infringement -> extensive and wider blocking than just the specific infringement
Absolutely correct - but here (although I haven't read the judgment) the Judge appears to be saying "knowledge" has been proven already. That means this question is moot, the ISP actually knew about what was going on. That's different from the situation where the ISP is just acting as a carrier.