Said no-one in the entire world except a hand-full of Hollywood studio owners.
That bot shouldn't have existed in the first place, but I know that that falls under "just world fallacy" and is a naive thought.
Put another way: being unable keep a little bot running, one that keeps an entire industry happy, doesn't bode well for other components of the service.
It seems self-evident that the bot was considered low priority, since it isn’t working anymore. But nobody is disputing that: they’re saying that the fact that it is low priority does not bode well.
If it was a prerequisite to land $100M ARR from all the media properties’ marketing budgets to advertise the multi-billion dollar pipelines of the movie and entertainment industry, that lil’ bot was the gate to $11,415 per hour of revenue at risk if its uptime failed to sufficiently please the attorneys and auditors from those customers.
You may not like it, but having a bot do that probably saves a lot of legal hassle.
> (2) No effect on intellectual property law
> Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
If section 230 from the CDA of 1996 provided immunity from copyright claims, there would be no reason to include procedural requirements for processing claims in the DMCA of 1998.
Many jurisdictions take an even harsher line when it comes to being complicit in intellectual property abuse. We saw this famously with The Pirate Bay, Napster etc.
