so the only way you can dispute my arguement is to misrepresent it.
all your bullshit examples have one thing in common (which my timeshifting example does not) and that is that the people you are distributing to have NOT paid for the content also.
The person making the torrent file is not making money off the distribution period
just like the person recording the tv show with a vcr was not making money off the distribution. Sony made 1k from selling the devices (just like the torrent sites) but their actions were not a contributory infringement because of the fair use of time shifting.
It established quite clearly i don't need the fucking permission of the copyright holder because fair use falls outside the scope of the copyright holders' conditional monopoly.
you mean like
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
where the appeals court recognized that you could timeshift using a cloud
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242
or the ruling against one download = 1 lost sale.
i hate to tell you this (well actually i don't) but the courts are not your friends in arguement.
The politicians being bought and paid for by the RIAA is your only hope, and unfortunately for you
1. 2.2 trillion dollars of business is dependent on fair use right staying where they are
2. people are starting to realize that all the belly aching by the RIAA is an attempt to turn a conditional monopoly (as it was intended) into sherman anti-trust violating true monopoly.
which of course puts the entire arguement back into the courts hands (which are not your friends on this issue).