So, if something is nor producing money is not worth to try, even when we all know the long therm benefits for the planet and for ourselves.
We uncultured swines, don't deserve the planet we live in.
Yeah!. Since the average user totally understands the situation, that "vague warnings of a potential threat" will, obviously, solve the problem. Pure genius.
Come on. Don't be naive. Of course they know what they service might and will be used for, and somehow they are encouraging it by making a harder-to-track and safe file-sharing service (yes, I know, per se, is not a file-sharing service), also they covering their backs in the process.
In that line of easy analogies: If you sell radioactive materials to terrorists, and they use it to build a bomb an blow an entire building and kill a lot of people. Would you say you shouldn't share any part of the guilt?. You sold a material that could be used for good or bad. Even though you knew they were prone to "bad behavior".
"Legal Piracy: Take advantage of legal system loopholes!" seems to be the marketing strategy.
Well... I love it!
Open access is the fair deal for mathematicians. I mean, why should I give away my work, and then have to pay a stratospheric amount of money to share it? Why my work has to be worth reading only if I give it away to one of this peer-review thefts?. Why keep this model of publishing that every scientist hates but no-one had, before this, the courage neither the will to do something about it?.
I'm not sure if this attempt will be successful, but definitely is worth trying.
Truth is free, but information costs.