No you're not. Scienter would apply.

Sure, but it would still create a legal mess and/or a large headache.

No it wouldn't cause anything at all. Nobody sane would sue for that because they might as well be taking a pile of money and setting it on fire.

>Nobody sane would sue for that because they might as well be taking a pile of money and setting it on fire.

In other words, basically what major copyright holders do every time they file lawsuits against P2P users en masse. Seems to me they're already adept at setting large piles of money on fire.

They only file those suits to get addresses, and use them to send out letters asking for cash not to sue. They usually don't sue anyone, and make a fortune.

>They usually don't sue anyone, and make a fortune.

Such practices do not appear profitable.[0]

Perhaps that's because the article is dated, but mass P2P lawsuits being unprofitable is congruent with their decline in recent years.

[0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/10/music-industry-ex...

Sorry, but what connection is there between the P2P lawsuits and suing someone from shooting porn in an apartment that just happens to have a barely readable QR code on the wall put there by someone else?

You were suggesting major content holders are rational in regards to litigation. P2P lawsuits serve as a counterexample to that.

Familiarize yourself with the bulk P2P lawsuits, they're doing everything in their power to cut costs.

I'll get right on that, but first I have to bury this dead horse here.