I suspect most content publishers would go to the source. If there are people who are already willing to pay for subscriptions and ignore the terms of those subscriptions, it's not much of a stretch that they'll ignore the fact that they got their subscription cancelled once (or twice, or however many times). The publisher would more likely see results taking legal action against the archivist.
It didn't stop the RIAA from suing loads of people over downloading mp3s in the past 2 decades, claiming damages of thousands of dollars per song the individual downloaded.
in this case (archive.is) they have stronger case, since many people who potentially could buy subscription read it on archive.is because extension user violated terms of subscription.
Also, extension likely has also terms of usage prohibiting uploading copyrighted content shifting liability on users.
Comments
I suspect most content publishers would go to the source. If there are people who are already willing to pay for subscriptions and ignore the terms of those subscriptions, it's not much of a stretch that they'll ignore the fact that they got their subscription cancelled once (or twice, or however many times). The publisher would more likely see results taking legal action against the archivist.
It didn't stop the RIAA from suing loads of people over downloading mp3s in the past 2 decades, claiming damages of thousands of dollars per song the individual downloaded.
in this case (archive.is) they have stronger case, since many people who potentially could buy subscription read it on archive.is because extension user violated terms of subscription.
Also, extension likely has also terms of usage prohibiting uploading copyrighted content shifting liability on users.
*uploaded
They went after seeders
downloaders also received legal letters.