Again, in a perfect world you are 100% correct and in most cases that would be exactly the situation, but when it comes to pirate sites they tend to hide in the details and semantics of the laws so there is always a chance that they could some how pull off some kind of a fair use defense that worked. If it were an individual that you were suing for downloading your stuff there is always the chance that they could convince the court they were not guilty due to other circumstances like an unsecured network etc.

These scenarios are unlikely I would just hate to see a company sue a site/person for pirating their stuff, then lose on some kind of technicality and end up losing all of their copyrights because of it.

see this is the problem

your ignoring the fact that if the fair use was real (the "pirate" was right)

then all the people who paid you millions for your copyright actually had the right to get it for free.

Forget the fact that the thousands of copyrighted content that should have also been free.

The total damage to everyone involved exceeds what your copyright is worth by a 100 fold at least.

using the access shifting example we keep arguing about, the $3 per ticket (of every single movie ever played ) was the damage done, by ever movie distributor who fought against the fair use (assuming your i lose situtation).

The damage to the general public (fair use is for them) far exceeds the chump change the "pirate" makes. Their not protected by a monopoly power.

plans, I already have papers in on a new house. and am researching for opening a photography studio, with rooms also made for video.