fair use grants me the right to redistribute to other people who have also licienced the content. If my brother loses his windows cd but record the licience number i can let him borrow my cd.
If a friend claims he has a valid licience key and asks to borrow my cd and he is using a crack software i am not guilty of 20k statutory infringement HE IS.
torrents are the same way, those that don't have a right are breaking the law and should be targeted those who have a legitimate fair use.
You have to remember that there are two sides to the arguement, because to gain the protection of the copyright act you HAVE to honor the fair use rights.
you can't TOS fair use rights away, if you do you are in the same boat as microsoft when they got sued.
just like you are not required to prove that the buyer of your porn content is over 18 before you sell to them, i am NOT required to PROVE that the leecher has a legal right. I only need to prove that the leecher CLAIMED he had a legal right. TPB does this thru there terms of service so does tvtorrents.com, my actions are legal because of this disclaimer even if a leecher has lied to gain access to my legitimate licienced copy of a tv show.
Using the arguement from the NY case, if i used an online back up services and someone guessed my password (becaue i used the password password )and download content i put up the law would not make that person guilty of copyright infringement. The courts in your country have ruled that they are the same way. Especially when you consider that according to the spec bit torrent is a session REQUEST protocol not a media announcement protocol.
My share is there if a legitimate user ASKS for the piece the transaction is legitimate. IF a peer fraudlently asks for a piece then it is a illegal use.
but in your example you were talking about if ABC infringed on NFL copyright, in that example TV guide and TPB are exactly the same. both would point to the location of infinging content. flipflop back to the normal non infringing situation does not make your arguement valid because the context is completely different.
again another apples to oranges comparision. it more like saying i am not the hooker i am only the newspaper that advertise escorts.
first of all they are obeying US laws because US laws says that the DMCA does not have jurisdiction. and in the example you are justifying (hacking their sites to take them down) you are breaking the law.
For you to obey US laws you would have to go to sweden setup an office and sue them under swedish law.
so because they will not violate their countries laws to help you out their guilty even though what they are complies with US laws (courts have ruled the laws don't have jurisdiction)
you have rights, got to sweden setup an office sue them there. Use other means to gain access to the information of US citizens who are downloading illegal copies and go after (seed spoofing-- though you will pay a 20k fine for invading the privacy of all the legitimate users who do have a right to the content)
yes i do under canadian fair use rights (see above example with my brother)
first of all torrent = VCR
torrent tracker = Walmart.
again i would be guilty of a crime if i lied on the TOS of the site if i was telling the truth i would not be.
IT is exactly the same as the little john example i gave you, you are the torrent tracker in that case.
So it comes down to the same question should you be sent to jail for 3 -5 years because little john steals his fathers credit card and you don't ABSOLUTELY verify he is actually of age.
but you are not arguing in favor of paying an attorney to sue TPB if you were i would not have a problem because the court systems would only rule in your favour if TPB was violating the laws.
you are advocating not ILLEGALLY hacking someone who as of right now is performing a legal business (until you prove that their actions are illegal thru the courts) INSTEAD of going after the people who are actually commiting the crime.