Stupid, I agree. I wonder, though, whether or not the Napster decision might end up being applied here. There, because the info was flowing through a central server that Napster controlled, the judge ruled that Napster was in a position to remove/limit availability of copyrighted works. To not do so would be contributory infringement. Same sort of situation here, right? What saved Grokster (?) et al, is that they didn't have that centralized server, so there's no way they could enforce any such control.