For you 1st point: because in most jurisdiction CP is absolutely forbidden and typically you are not protected if you don't proactively act to eradicate CP on your service with reasonable dilligence, whereas an upload of a film might or might not be problematic, given that it can be for private use or public distribution.
For the third point who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic. In the real world even representatives and people in grand jury exchange ripped films, most probably most judges do it too. So this is both technically a reason but an highly hypocritical one.
> For you 1st point: because in most jurisdiction CP is absolutely forbidden and typically you are not protected if you don't proactively act to eradicate CP on your service with reasonable dilligence, whereas an upload of a film might or might not be problematic, given that it can be for private use or public distribution.
That's not at all the point though. It would be one thing if MegaConspiracy had a policy to only "full ban" videos that were targets of DMCA-complaints if it was clear to them that the content was actually infringing. Then they'd have a plethora of excuses (e.g. no time to sort through all the DMCA requests, "investigations" revealed it was unclear material was infringing, etc.)
Instead what the judge and jury will see is that MegaConspiracy had a "permaban video" tool which they didn't even attempt to use.
> For the third point [MegaConspiracy distributing infringing material internally] who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic.
Well, this is the best kind of "technically", given that it's exactly what they're being accused of! If the grand jury was as sympathetic to that as you think then why did they hand down the indictment?
Either way it's not very hypocritical given that some naïve users might be able to claim ignorance of the progeny of videos from the Internet, but MegaConspiracy went out of their way to establish DMCA protocol so they have no excuse for ignorance of the "safe harbor" provisions at all.
For the third point who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic. In the real world even representatives and people in grand jury exchange ripped films, most probably most judges do it too. So this is both technically a reason but an highly hypocritical one.