With cases like this I am reminded by the pirate bay case in that there are two ways people can be found guilty of copyright infringement. One can prove that a

With cases like this I am reminded by the pirate bay case in that there are two ways people can be found guilty of copyright infringement. One can prove that a copy has been made, or one can convince a judge that the opposite story provided by the defendant is not believable. After that case there has been multiple theories on how to evade copyright law which all seem like they would equally fail at convincing a judge. One of my favorite is the method used by freenet, which takes a file and first encrypts it and then splits it into so small parts. Those parts are so small that multiple files will share identical parts with each other, so it is impossible to know for sure which file a person is downloading by just looking at the parts. In a different channel they also provide a recipe in how to reconstruct the file, and recipe by themselves are not enough as evidence to prove a download. Sounds perfect until one would have to try convince a judge that no copying has occurred.