The pirate bay founders made the argument that process was necessary and lost fairly big. They argued that the process dictated that the prosecutor had to first prove that a copy had been made, and prosecute that, before they could argue that the pirate bay somehow helped with that crime.
The court did not agree. They looked instead towards an anti-biker gang law that illustrated that a biker bar can be found guilty of assisting with gang crime, even if no specific crime can be directly associated with the bar.
The defense team argument - that prosecutors need to prove that a crime had occurred - failed. The courts only require that the opposite is not believable, which given all the facts around the case was deemed sufficient. In that question the process doesn't matter. If the court do not think it believable that copying has not occurred, any argument about "machines xeroxing their inputs and humans engaging in creative work" will be ignored.
The court did not agree. They looked instead towards an anti-biker gang law that illustrated that a biker bar can be found guilty of assisting with gang crime, even if no specific crime can be directly associated with the bar.
The defense team argument - that prosecutors need to prove that a crime had occurred - failed. The courts only require that the opposite is not believable, which given all the facts around the case was deemed sufficient. In that question the process doesn't matter. If the court do not think it believable that copying has not occurred, any argument about "machines xeroxing their inputs and humans engaging in creative work" will be ignored.