RawAlex

Wrong. See this is where you make a very major mistake. You don't buy the rights to the shows. You buy the right to legally view the shows if and when they are presented, and to record (on DVR or VCR) one channel at a time and perhaps the right to watch another one while it is recording.

You don't have the rights to the shows. You cannot redistribute them. You cannot republish them. You cannot resell them. You cannot make copies of them beyond what I mentioned above.

When you go to a movie theater and pay to watch a movie, it is the same thing. You have RESTRICTED RIGHTS based on what you are paying for. In a movie, you have the right to a single seat, single viewing. You cannot invite your friend in for free, you cannot run a camcorder to record the movie, and having bought a ticket to the movie in theater doesn't mean you can go to your local bestbuy and take a copy for free when it comes out.

Restricted rights. You pay a certain amount to have certain rights.

Going after the seeders are good. It doesn't matter if she had the rights or not (doesn't matter if she downloaded the songs or copied them from her own CD, that isn't the issue at hand). Going after the seeders is particularly useful in two ways, first the obvious deterrent factor to the general public, who may realize that their internet usage isn't exactly anonymous like they think, and also that with a number of these cases showing that the P2P network is an integral part of and a required part of the violation, that those types of sites can be more actively pursued in a legal sense.

I would thnk that there is potential here to show that foreign bases P2Ps would be breaking US law in the US, and as such, be liable.

This court decision is the tip of a very large iceberg indeed, and it must have you and your torrent buddies shitting your collective pants thinking of the implications.