[Dylan16807]

From what I understand they didn't limit DMCA compliance, which would be an obvious violation. They limited the use of a custom takedown tool.

> People know what his sites were used for.

Yeah, but how do you decide responsibility? Outside of a minority of incidents he's only providing infrastructure. Trying to enforce legality there is a can of worms. How many steps away do you go? What about his ISP? Surely they noticed the huge amount of traffic, and have some idea what the site is for. What about the people that sold him servers? They're contributing even more than the ISP to the ability of the site to run.

>His action was to use unfairness in the law to exploit it for his own financial gain. What the big companies did was use their unfair advantage with politics to pull some strings and do things that are arguably legal or illegal?

In my mind, unaccountable political manipulation is worse than exploiting a loophole in a law. It's much easier to fix a law.