> I'll restate the principle of good usage to bad usage ratio, telephone providers are a well established service with millions of legitimate users and uses
Ditto trackers.
Have a look at the graphs here: https://opentrackr.org/
Over 10 million torrents tracked daily, on the order of 300 thousand connections per second, handshaking between some 200 million peers per week.
That's material from the Internet Archive, software releases, pooled filesharing, legitimate content sharing via embedded clients that use torrents to share load, and a lot of TV and movies that have variable copyright status
( One of the largest TV|Movie sharing sites for decades recent closed down after the sole operator stopped bearing the cost and didn't want to take on dubious revenue sources; that was housed in a country that had no copyright agreements with the US or UK and was entirely legal on its home soil.
Another "club" MVGroup only rip documentaries that are "free to air" in the US, the UK, Japan, Australia, etc. and in 20 years of publicaly sharing publicaly funded content haven't had any real issues )
> the ISP, which according to my theory has some liability as well.
The world's a big place.
The US MPA (Motion Picture Association - the big five) backed an Australian mini-me group AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) to establish ISP liability in a G20 country as a beach head bit of legislation.
That did not go well: Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd decided in the High Court of Australia (2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet...
The alliance of 34 companies unsuccessfully claimed that iiNet authorised primary copyright infringement by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent its customers from downloading and sharing infringing copies of films and television programs using BitTorrent.
That was a three strikes total face plant:
The trial court delivered judgment on 4 February 2010, dismissing the application and awarding costs to iiNet.
An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed.
A subsequent appeal to the High Court was unanimously dismissed on 20 April 2012.
It set a legal precedent:
This case is important in copyright law of Australia because it tests copyright law changes required in the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement, and set a precedent for future law suits about the responsibility of Australian Internet service providers with regards to copyright infringement via their services.
It's also now part of
Crown Law .. ie. not directly part of the core British Law body, but a recognised bit of Commonwealth High Court Law that can be referenced for consideration in the UK, Canada, etc.
> but it is semantically associated with other protocols which have 'noxious' features described above AND are semantically associates with illegal material.
Gosh, semantics hey. Some people feel in their waters that this is a protocol used by criminals and must therefore by banned or policed into non existance?
Is that a legal argument?