Originally Posted by gideongallery

first of all the arguement is a circular proof

fair use is an affirmative defence, you need to accused of something to be able to argue your actions are not an infringement because of fair use

using wolverine (work print) as proof of no fair use presuposes that the fair use right of access shifting would not be recognized (Which most certainly would have covered an unreleased work print).

But the fair use of access shifting could not be argued wolverine work print was not part of the trial.

Which leads back to the presuposition that it would not be recognized.

And starts the loop all over again.

Fair use was irrelevant the judge allowed the procecution to state that linking to a torrent file which contains no copyright material in it, has the same legal liablity as a bbs linking directly to the copyright material
in the closing arguements
outside the possiblity of rebuttal or cross examination.
That is the entire bases of the case, the only way the could have got the conviction they got, because as i have said over and over again
the police didn't even prove that the pirate bay trackers were involved in the transaction at all(DHT was enabled, no screen shots of the tracker page).