I'm not even sure why I'm bothering any more. You seem determined not to hear what anyone else is saying, but instead just keep talking about how things should

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering any more. You seem determined not to hear what anyone else is saying, but instead just keep talking about how things should be, how they're supposed to be. Which might be an interesting discussion to have, if you were aware enough of how things actually worked to understand the difference between civil and criminal court proceedings. "Presumption of innocence" exists in criminal cases. The kinds of suits that copyright holders tend to engage in over things where the defense argues Fair Use are overwhelmingly civil. (Seriously, has there ever been a criminal copyright infringement prosecution where the defense argued fair use? If so, how did that work out for them?) Please stop spouting off about how shit should be based solely on an embarrassingly broken a priori idea of how the things you're railing against work, and try to understand how they really, actually work. I promise you that, if nothing else, doing so will better enable you to fight the fight you seem to believe so much in. Either way, I'm not going to argue any more with you, if you continue to insist on engaging from broken premises. Enjoy the rest of your day.