...the user has no way of knowing whether the content, the specific copy they are watching is legal or not.
For the kind of content you are talking about, you'd think the fact that they didn't pay for it, or that it wasn't being provided by someone they would have reasonable basis to believe was reputable might be a fairly good indicator, don'tcha think?
Your reasoning assumes that if the shroud were genuine, then the energy that was used to impress the image would have radiated in all directions from Christ's body, leaving behind an image that looks quite different from one that resembles a photograph taken from some distance.
However, there is no basis to assume that.... if the shroud were genuine and the image actually formed at the moment of Christ's resurrection, the energies released during the event, at least insomuch as we would be able to discern the manifestation of it, could easily have have been entirely unidirectional, thereby producing an image more consistent with that of a photo,. like what is on the shroud.
And of course, the image doesn't even correspond with what most contemporary images of Jesus were portrayed to look like at the time of the shroud's alleged mideval manufacture.... it was common at the time to portray Christ's wounds as being in the center of his palms, and not at end of the wrists, as the shroud depicts. If it really was done by a forger, it was done by someone who had somehow figured out how crucifixion with nails was actually practiced, and was even more interested in being attentive to those details and scientific accuracy than in even being widely believed, since most people at the time would not have identified with the wounds being in the location where they were depicted on the shroud.
Sure, it's still possible that it was created by a charlatan, but how, and why? Particularly since nobody would have believed him in his lifetime anyways because it didn't conform to the common perception of Jesus. Assuming, of course, they could even see the image at all (since the image is all but completely invisible to the unaided eye).
But I don't know if it is attributed as public domain, Creative Commons, or a copyright until I have it
You can keep telling yourself that... it doesn't make it true. Especially since by your own admission:
. If [the copyright notice] were in the beginning, I'd immediately delete it before watching
So yeah.... you know. It's unlikely you'd convince anyone else that you didn't, if the matter came up, and it's probably grounds for your ISP to terminate your service if they knew about it.
Knowingly receiving infringing content is also considered copyright infringement in many jurisdictions.
If you want to try and make a case for not knowing that the content you were torrenting was infringing, well.... good luck to you.
The point behind "unlimited" plans is that the extent of the subscriber's own usage, by themselves, will not impact either how much they need to pay for the service, or what levels of service they may have formerly used, but be restricted from utilizing in the future.
Simply put, whenever any metering of their usage which may occur is used strictly for reporting purposes, the adjective "unlimited" can reasonably be construed to apply. The fact that there may be physical limitations on their usage independent of that is irrelevant.
No.... you cannot treat a psychosomatic disorder by playing along with them. You need to be honest with the sufferer and tell them where the problem actually lies, but at the same time, you have to offer them some hope that with help and time, they can actually overcome the condition. Belief and recognition that the problem is basically being caused by misfiring signals from their brain, and not by any actual external phenomenon that is telling their body to react in ways it should not is the first and probably most crucial step to overcoming such problems. Patronizing the delusion that it is actually caused by something external to them would be likely to only make the condition worse, even if you tried to offer a "treatment".
What the person needs to do is learn how to discern when their brain is telling them these wrong things, and basically has to train themselves to ignore it. Much of this happens subconsciously, so it takes time, sometimes months or years, but psychosomatic disorders are definitely something that people can learn to overcome.
The blood analysis supports that the donor was male, and was apparently also the right race to have been from that region of the world. It is at least plausible that Jesus was the donor, but of course, only if there were any errors in the dating process.
One of the most interesting points I find about the image on the shroud, the wounds in the hands on the image were actually situated at the wrist or base of the palms, whereas practically all other contemporary depictions of Christ's crucifixion at the time often represented him as having nails through his palms. It was many hundreds of years later before this commonly held view was discovered to be an inaccurate perception of crucifixion by contemporary culture, and in fact, when nails were used in crucifixion (typically they were not, but in Jesus case, they apparently were), the nails driven into the very base of the palm, at a person's wrist. If the nail were actually driven into the palm, the flesh would simply tear free as the person hung there, possibly even falling off of the cross entirely. The fact that the shroud's image faithfully represents an image of somebody who was apparently crucified by such a torturous means consistent with how it would have actually been done, and contrary to what people would have expected at the time is no small consideration to lend credibility to the shroud's authenticity.
Consider also that the image itself is not even really visible to the naked eye, today requiring imaging technologies that were only invented in the past couple of hundred years to resolve any serious level of detail. if the shroud was a fake, "expert forger" is an understatement... he would have had to produce the image almost completely blind.
Coupled with the fact that today there is still no real consensus on how that image could have even been constructed gives at least some credibility to the notion that the shroud is genuine, and suggests that the interpretation of the dating analysis performed in '88 was incorrect. Hardly definitive, of course... but something to at least give a sketical person pause, as long as they genuinely want to keep an open mind.
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.