If the difference between a legitimate VPN provider and a criminal one is simply whether they publicise the fact that copyright infringement is possible on their service, then it seems that the law is no longer targeting copyright infringement, or even services which enable others to infringe copyright, but rather the act of telling people the truth about the possibilities of committing crimes.
To my non-expert mind, this begins to stray into First Amendment territory. What if someone were to write a fictional book in which a character used a "no logs" VPN to infringe copyright, and the narrative explained in detail the steps that the character took, and how unlikely they were to ever be caught? I can't imagine such a book being banned, or someone being arrested for writing it, even if they also happened to own the very company whose service is described in the book.
Perhaps there is some relevant case law around conspiracy charges that I am missing, though.
Looks like a nailed on win for the film studios. The company will go bust and no money will change hands, but will be interesting to see if it sets a precedent.
To my non-expert mind, this begins to stray into First Amendment territory. What if someone were to write a fictional book in which a character used a "no logs" VPN to infringe copyright, and the narrative explained in detail the steps that the character took, and how unlikely they were to ever be caught? I can't imagine such a book being banned, or someone being arrested for writing it, even if they also happened to own the very company whose service is described in the book.
Perhaps there is some relevant case law around conspiracy charges that I am missing, though.