Originally Posted by Quentin

.... which takes us back to whether the court will accept a construction as legally valid that defines a passive third-party with no constructive knowledge of the intended use of the IP in question to be a "content supplier," and/or believes for one instant that is what RK actually intended the passage in their T&C to mean.

I just think the court would be hostile to such a construction/interpretation; that's the crux of our disagreement here, methinks.

I'll run this question by a some of the attorneys I speak to regularly (heh... probably not to include Larry, all things considered) and see what they have to say. I probably won't be able to get any of them to go on the record with me about this, but I'll give it a shot.