In don't think the nuance here is about underdogs. Most file sharing is not for profit. Most file sharing is some kid who couldn't have possibly bought everyth

In don't think the nuance here is about underdogs. Most file sharing is not for profit. Most file sharing is some kid who couldn't have possibly bought everything downloaded because it would have cost more than his families entire salary. Does that make it right? No. But it's more like street graffiti or petty theft from a convenience store. The judicial system unfairly favors the big content companies in these situations and people face several hundred thousand dollar penalties. The spirit of these laws was to target people selling bootleg copies of DVDs on the street, not the people who bought those DVDs. Megavideo should be facing these types of penalties, not moms. Megavideo was profiting from piracy so they are more culpable, but the preemptive actions taken were also inappropriate given the crime. Despite it being mostly used for piracy, people did have legitimate files on it and their access was unexpectly lost due to the improper actions. Besides the collateral damage, even guilty people should have a day in court before any punishment occurs, I don't care what the crime is or how obvious some non-judge individual thinks it is. This case is someone profiting from unauthorized distribution. This is a case where the unjust law is unlikely to be relevant; if the government preemptively raided canonical I think you can safely assume there would be a shit storm of support on canonical's side. People don't simply react to the original crimes, they are reacting to all of the other moves that happen after the crime comes to light. In this case there is no draconian antipiracy in effect, no individuals committing petty crime so they can watch HBO, instead there is the most visible open source software violating intellectual property law in a way that is unlikely to have any negative effect on the company besides one day of mildly bad PR.