In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.

It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/14/520123490...

The streaming stick in the article turns off its proxying feature while the user is actually streaming because the proxying feature consumes enough bandwidth to degrade streaming quality.

In other words, whenever the proxying feature is active every other device sharing the connection will suffer degraded performance.

Even if the user never notices, they're still worse off. They're still paying for bandwidth that someone else is using for profit. Money is flowing out of the user's pocket and into the pocket of the proxy operator. That makes the proxy operator a thief who is stealing from the user, and without even the Robin Hood-esque cover of defrauding ad networks.

> Harm to the user: none^

Well, they are losing some of their bandwidth. They might not notice, but something which is rightfully theirs is being taken without consent.

I did not expect this to be a real person. Is he with the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid party?

https://halupedia.com/shortest-hose-in-the-world [fail]

https://halupedia.com/new-england-rock-worm [fail]

https://halupedia.com/chronic-anaspepsis [fail]

https://halupedia.com/ancient-egyptian-algebra [OK]