I don't really see a problem with what they are asking. They want to be paid either in ad links or in subscription fees. The user of the service who wrote the a

I don't really see a problem with what they are asking. They want to be paid either in ad links or in subscription fees. The user of the service who wrote the article doesn't wish to do either. He also (in their view) ignored their previous email about it, so the second email is slightly less polite about it and brings up the possibility of legal action. I see how it came to this: he says he didn't notice the previous email. Given that perhaps he should have more sympathy for their position believing their request has gone ignored. I do agree that legal action claims are premature. It's also not very clear if they could prevail in a theft of services case against someone using their service after being asked not to (obviously consent to use the free version has been withdrawn). Clearly it would be a lot simpler to shut down the former client's access than it would be to drive something through the legal system. It could be argued that without properly notifying customers a service is about to be shut down, the customer might have cause to bring legal action against the company, this may be why they are doing notifications and requests rather than just unexpectedly disconnecting. Either party taking legal action at all in such a case is probably a foolish move. Not because it's a reaction to "not monetizing", but because it is unlikely there would be a positive outcome for any of the parties in such an action. Blogging one's (I think) unjustified rage seems as premature as the legal threats. Now looking at another angle. I don't think ad links are worth $6000, but the company says they would be happy with that. It sounds like the $6000 figure might actually be a fake number that they believe will motivate users to choose ad links instead, which is the real goal. The way they have approached this goal is poor. In this case, the user obviously doesn't want to use an ad link. Perhaps he would be willing to pay $100 a month instead of $500? We'll never know because of the way it was handled. Both sides should have given the other side more of a benefit of the doubt until determining the real intentions of the other party. edit: this being vigorously downvoted is pretty amusing.