"That depends completely on the wording of any consent/settlement agreement or on the wording of the lawsuit. Putting up an obviously ineffective technological solution does not absolve a party from vicarious or contributory infringement liability. Furthermore, intent is not required to prove infringement, especially not vicarious or contributory infringement. For direct copyright infringement a plaintiff needs to establish and prove; (1) ownership of a valid copyright; (2) actual copying of the work by the defendant; and (3) improper appropriation of the work by the defendant. Here, unless Mininova actually copied the work themselves, a claim of direct infringement would not survive any well written motion to dismiss. The three elements for contributory infringement are: (1) direct infringement by a primary infringer; (2) defendant's knowledge of the direct infringement; and (3) defendant's material contribution to the infringement. While the first two elements are likely easy to..." - Alexis Mueller