If you want to avoid copyright notices, then you need to do it for the payload too.

That's because a copyright holder could easily host a copy of some pirate film on your new network, and then just see the destination of the data packets.

Wait, but if the copyright holder is sending the actual payload to you as a client, couldn't you make the argument that they implicitly authorized you to have it?

AFAIK, cops can't deal you actual drugs and then arrest you for it.

What you're describing is entrapment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Sometimes its legal, depends where you are and how it was done.

The copyright holders are not agents of the state, this is not entrapment.

If that was a concern, they could always cut off the connection right before sending the data packet.

This is absolutely true in many states in America. Not sure why you received any down votes.

The key there is the attempt. As South Park so memorably pointed out, they don't actually go through with it before arresting you.

It's something Prenda Law got up to and is among the things that did them in.

> An expert witness affidavit stated that IP addresses linked to Prenda's Minnesota and Florida offices and John Steele, had themselves been identified in 2013 as the initial "seeders" (sharers) of some pornographic media, tagged for "fast" sharing on file-sharing networks, which would be followed up by threat of legal action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

> AFAIK, cops can't deal you actual drugs and then arrest you for it.

Why not? This sounds like a misunderstanding of entrapment

Cops can totally do that.

"Entrapment" is actually quite narrow. IANAL, but my understanding is it requires showing that you wouldn't have done the illegal activity without the involvement of the police.

Harassing a person for months to buy weed qualifies; posing as a drug dealer and offering drugs to the people who pass by you, does not.