>>"If we consdier the business model for a repository site like this (and BTs own), you have to look where the revenue is coming from. If copyright infringement is so widespread and common on these sites, then it stands to reason a large part of your revenue is coming from people infringing copyright. Therefore, if your site is in anyway successful, you are in the same position. Is BTs site successful? Probably (take your own view here), in which case there revenue must largely be coming from copyright infringement. The owners may take removing the content more or less seriously, but the argument is always that these site survive on copyright infringement, so you must either close them all or none."
You're starting off from a premise that megaupload and BT are basically the same, and then trying to argue from that to prove they're equivalently legit.
That's logically fallacious reasoning.
Few people, if any are saying that *every* site on the internet that stores data is making money largely from promoting or knowing tolerating copyright infringement.
In this case, some people are saying specifically that this particular site is doping that, and giving explanations of why they think that..
As I said, read the bloody indictment and *then* come back and tell us that BT and megaupload are 'effectively the same,' and explain why all the apparent differences are actually trivial from a legal standpoint.
>>"Either way, the American 'justice' organisations are fighting battle on behalf of a small subset of society "
In this case, they're seemingly also fighting it /against/ a very small subset of society.
A subset who most people probably won't be weeping much for if they do get banged up.
In any case, whether 'right' (like defending a company against unfair competition from some subsidised competitor or would-be monopolist), 'wrong' (like naked protectionism) or something more debatable, surely *any* government action on behalf of one or other commercial interest is 'fighting a battle on behalf of a small subset of society'?
Just because it's related to the specific interests of a small group doesn't automatically make it 'wrong' or 'unfair'.
>>"Find a copyright infringing upload, take the IP address, find connection, use existing law."
Which would then inevitably get any number of responses about how unfair it was that poor little teenage Johnny was being done while the site actually making the money wasn't.