How do you exonerate the guy who has one of his users complain that a pirated Dexter video has poor quality and then complains to his team about the low quality of the pirated Dexter videos on his site? He's been caught red handed.
The only argument I've ever heard that could exculpate Schmitz is that "perhaps the video uploads could have been authorized." But that beggars belief. No reasonable person on a jury would buy that Schmitz seriously entertained the idea that those videos were authorized uploads.
Well I've set the bar low to mean exonerate the guy to the extent that he's only as bad as the youtube crowd:
"On September 23,2005, YouTube co-founder
Chad Hurley emailed YouTube co-founders
Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, stating: "can we
remove the flagging link for 'copyrighted'
today? we are starting to see complaints for
this and basically if we don't remove them we
could be held lìable for being served a notice.
it's actually better if we don't have the lìnk
there at all because then the copyright holder
is responsible for serving us notice of the
material and not the users. anyways, it would
be good if we could remove this asap."
Their only mitigating behaviour is the moral dilemma they exhibit, I'm sure something similar could be pulled from Mega's email archives - again my point being the FBI/DOJ are better at making a case than Viacom.
The only argument I've ever heard that could exculpate Schmitz is that "perhaps the video uploads could have been authorized." But that beggars belief. No reasonable person on a jury would buy that Schmitz seriously entertained the idea that those videos were authorized uploads.