The article touches on this: > Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website. All the evidence availa

The article touches on this: > Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website. All the evidence available on the Internet (as of 17:00 US/Eastern on Friday 2021-10-22) indicates that the site was simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration (such as pre-reserving some account names). Once discovered, people merely used the site legitimately to register accounts and use its features. I don't think the idea of a "launch" is present in either the license or copyright law; making the service available for use (which they did, inadvertently, it seems) seems to trigger the requirement.