> That's different from if you had a service called, say, pirate-share with a search function that has options like "artist" and "director". These difference matter.

Perversely, though.

Grokster and BitTorrent are largely used for the same things and they both have infringing and non-infringing uses. Grokster lost because they promoted the infringing uses. But why do we actually care about this?

It's not as if copyright infringement never existed before Grokster and nobody has been able to figure out how to use BitTorrent for it because Bram Cohen never mentioned it.

So all the rule does is impose censorship. Because otherwise the creators of these technologies would be outspoken proponents of copyright reform. But then their lawyers tell them to STFU, because if they say that existing copyright terms are morally unjustifiable and the RIAA is a pack of vultures who deserve to go bankrupt and things to that effect, plaintiffs will argue that they're promoting infringement and sue them for their political opinions. Especially if they fail to be perfectly articulate and precise while expressing that sentiment.

Is it not a de facto prohibition on developers and businesses expressing public support for the Pirate Party?