wizdum:
I'm out, theres no point in arguing with someone that thinks saying "no" to my statement is proof of its falsehood. You are either ignoring the law on purpose to suit your argument, or you don't understand it.
One of us doesn't understand the law. Would you care to show where the law requires the use of expert system software? I certainly can't find such a mention. Any more than I could find any references to law enforcement 'working' for RIAA or MPAA...
Even the Viacom court case you mentioned was lost, not because they were unintentionally distributing copyprotected material, but rather the opposite. Internal YouTube emails were introduced as evidence that they were knowingly allowing their users to violate copyright.
As a side question, do you only object to the greed of the companys that produce and distribute the original material, since you do not seem to include the greed of the corporations that are facilitating theft from those copyright holders?