Herein lies the problem. While your vault example makes sense, you can also say that someone selling knives or guns can't be responsible for people using them t

Herein lies the problem. While your vault example makes sense, you can also say that someone selling knives or guns can't be responsible for people using them to murder someone else. Where do you draw the line? If you are merely providing something, where is the line where suddenly it's my fault instead of the fault of the user? I think the difference here is that information and objects have an intended purpose - a knife is usually for chopping food, a gun is usually for... erm - however a vault key clearly can't have a use outside of using it to get into the valut. Where to .torrents fall in this? It's not the vault key situation, because there are definite good uses for them (linux distros, I believe Blizzard uses bittorrent to distribute updates?). However, the majority of torrent usage is for piracy [citation needed]. So I guess what I'm saying is that all objects have a potential for negative usage and a potential for positive usage, and we're trying to draw the line somewhere in a rather undefined way. To me, it seems unfair and harsh to be imprisoned for something that by another interpretation seems okay. I have a reasonable expectation not to be imprisoned for creating a site where people can post content. If it's coopted by the community into a place where people post torrents, it seems that right now I could be sent to jail for that. The problem here isn't the intention of the owner of the site, just like it isn't about Kim Dotcom's intention. I don't disagree that they were completely aware that they were profiting from other people's desire to pirate. My problem is that all of these legal cases against these people seem to be brought in a way that doesn't feel 'just'.