As I read through the article I kept wondering why the plaintiff would let the order expire. The real reason is buried about halfway down the article: > The me

As I read through the article I kept wondering why the plaintiff would let the order expire. The real reason is buried about halfway down the article: > The media companies provide no further details on the decision, but it’s possible that the costs of keeping the blocking order intact weigh stronger than the perceived benefit. Unlike in some other countries, the rightsholders must compensate ISPs for the costs incurred. Well that seems like a fair tradeoff - if you are going to have the privilege of impugning free speech you should at least have to pay handsomely for that privilege. Now incentives are aligned: plaintiffs must actually feel like there is demonstrable damage here in order to pay ISP’s to keep the content offline. If there is no actual demonstrable damage, then there’s no reason to be paying the ISP. And lo, when incentives are aligned we find that, in fact, the intangible damages being complained about tend to evaporate