> but the idea that he actually didn't know what MU was being used for
Is that a reason to be held liable? Isn't the whole point of the DMCA that we realize that every open service that transfers bits will be used illegally by some, so as long as the service provider acts on takedown notices they cannot be held liable for the actions of their users?
> or that he cared about preventing it
They had a special tool for content creators which gave them direct delete access to everything on MU. This goes above and beyond the DMCA.
Except this "special tool" did no such thing. It invalidated URLs pointing at content. The same content was kept accesspible via other URLs, and uploaders knew how to exploit this. Furthermore, the number of URL invalidations was capped, and one of the seized emails reveals that this cap was determined by the amount of countent they could risk to lose without affecting their revenue.
Having general knowledge of illegal activity is not the same has having actual knowledge that specific instances of specific files infringe on copyright.
The entire point of the DMCA safe harbour provisions is that a provider should not need to act on the mere general knowledge that some people sometimes use their services for illegal purposes.
Is that a reason to be held liable? Isn't the whole point of the DMCA that we realize that every open service that transfers bits will be used illegally by some, so as long as the service provider acts on takedown notices they cannot be held liable for the actions of their users?
> or that he cared about preventing it
They had a special tool for content creators which gave them direct delete access to everything on MU. This goes above and beyond the DMCA.