Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."
We could not get file sharers drawn and quartered, so we are going to spin the decision that we fought kicking and screaming to our advantage and make us look better than we really are.
How about to make their fucking customers happy. I pay Verizon (because my only other choice is Comcast, and I hate them more). I request a service, I expect my provider to give me access to this service. Netflix pays L3, L3 is their service provider. Service providers peer, that is the way the internet has always worked.
I have FIOS... Yes my Netflix performance is piss poor, but so are the connections to other services that just happen to use the same transit providers as Netflix.
Particularly the VPS providers that I was using (I just switched due to the latency). I have 2 VPS providers, 1 in Reston, 1 in the UK. The one in Reston is just down the street from Verizons datacenter (used to be UUNET), but the provider to the VPS company I use was Cogent, heavy latency right at the peering point.
Of course, Verizon likes to blame Netflix for picking crappy transit providers, but had it been Company XYZ instead of L3 and Cogent, Verizon would have done the exact same thing to XYZ and let the peers saturate.
I did manage to switch to a different VPS that does not use Cogent or L3, and I have consistent low transit times, which I use as a VPN endpoint. Seems to do the trick (I have been doing this long before any people started publicizing using VPN's to get around Verizon and Comcasts shenanigans, mostly to keep Verizons prying eyes from monetizing my internet behavior, not to keep gov spying eyes out. If VZ wants to pay me [no, not give me a discount on already overpriced service, but give me cold hard cash] for my browsing and internet habits, then I will more than be happy to let them snoop)
They could have handled it better. Yes they have to protect their brand. No they do not have to use C&D and lawsuits to do it. The link you even posted specifies that legal action is not required.
There are many ways to protect a brand. Ikea could have easily approached the site to add disclaimers, or offer to sponsor the site in exchange for removing advertising, or ask them to at least change the colors and fonts to be less Ikea like.
Not saying they (Ikea) were wrong, even the sites operator realized that, what we are saying, is don't be an asshole about it, especially since there are some projects on teh site that resulted in sales. At least for me, there are some products I would never have even considered (the Lack for example as I mentioned earlier) had it not been for hacks and alternative use options.
Now, I will not be shopping at Ikea if I can avoid it (I have a wife, avoidance might be an issue)