> can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) Isamu Kaneko, the creator of Winny, was cleared of all

> can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) Isamu Kaneko, the creator of Winny, was cleared of all charges. > and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. That the liability fell specifically on the users sharing copyrighted material is what the article argues in favor of and implies is approximately the status quo. (While not relevant for Winny, the author does also make a distinction for narrowly trained model whose only purpose is malfeasance.) > when in the examples given it’s been proved that There will definitely be exceptions, but all the examples so far have aligned with the article's argument.