I agree with you when you say that the copyright laws need fixing. There's one "aspect" that really bothers and maybe you'll be able to answer me and correct me.
What's bothering me is that I feel comparing to murder isn't really the right way. It's more like having knives to laying everywhere on you property and people are free to use it the way they want.
So I agree they're not doing "anything to prevent" murders on their territory. Now I'll get back with my analogy later.
The Pirate Bay ( as I understand ), was first found guilty because it's considered they facilitates copyright infringement. Now here's my main question. HOW? What do they consider helps facilitating copyright infringement?
1) Is it DISTRIBUTING usermade torrents? (let's forget about tracking for now)
*I chose the word distributing instead of hosting because hosting can only be illegal if the data itself is illegal (child pornography, video of murders, etc). Remember torrents are free data so hosting is not the issue, distributing is.*
This would mean that any free data that can be interpreted to ULTIMATELY lead to copyrighted data is illegal. By interpreted I mean software and/or human interpretations alike. In the case of the thepiratebay, we can arguably say that the torrent's software interpretation (free data) "leads directly" to copyrighted data (non-free data).
If any X free data is responsible for all n level of indirection it leads to, then basically everyone on the internet is assisting copyright infringement. Example on your website (X) you have a link (1) to google (2), google can link you to thepiratebay(3), thepiratebay(3) gives you a link to a torrent(4), which gives you access to a super cool copyrighted-active movie called "RIAA - from zero to hero" (5).
What data here is the culprit of assisting copyright infringement? If we say X, then the whole internet is illegal. Somehow I doubt that is the right answer.
If we say that the the n-1 data link (where n is the copyrighted data, which is 5 in our example) is illegal because it then links "directly" (A torrent's actually far from being direct link but for the sake of simplicity of the argument) but the torrent data is considered legal (except the "link" to the copyrighted data). If you decide to extend to a n-2 responsibility, it would be easily bypassed by adding another level of indirection ( like a torrent of a torrent ) and distributing torrents (from thepiratebay) becomes legal again. The users would be the one committing the infringement. The law changing further than n-1 is not really probable since it would expose WAY to many innocent people to lawsuits ( see the joy of software patents trolls :) ).
Quick note, I'm talking about distributing right now, NOT tracking torrents.
I hardly understand how distributing torrents can be seen as illegal.
2) Is it tracking usermade torrents the issue?
*Let me remind you, HOSTING torrents cannot be seen as illegal as it's free data. Distribution though could be seen as illegal (see my earlier section) but I personally doubt it. So if the free files are used without distribution (hence not assisting copyright infringement per se) there can be no issue.
The only thing a tracker does ( to put it simply again ) is connection together people with the same "interest". That means is doesn't have a CLUE of what the users transfer, and it even doesn't care. You can pretty much see a tracker as an ISP, connecting you to other peers on the net. Peers can be server or other users. If you wanna take the post card analogy good. It's not the tracker's job to ensure that the data transfered between two users is legal distributing data. It's the USER'S job.
If you don't agree with that ( which is possible ), it basically means you don't agree with the architecture of the whole INTERnet; to be more precise, you don't agree with the decentralized way it works. It's quite understandanble since our "society" works in a centralized way (The Government is a good example).
The issue is, if a tracker is the one considered responsible the ISP will quickly have the same level of responsability ( if you want me to explain why they are so related, ask me. I'll make another post later :P). That would basically mean to restructure the whole internet.
While it can be seen as a solution, I personally think it would be to only apply the patch to forget about the root issue. The business model of the RIAA, MPAA, CRIAA, IFPI and all associations. What they are offering should be considered a service not a product. That's another debate and I don't feel like entering into it. so forget the part about business models. What I ultimately mean is I consider it's not addressing the right issue by giving the legal responsability to trackers/ISP to work as the police and investigators. It's ultimately shifting the cost from a business to a tracker/ISP because of a not clear issue.
So finally what I'm asking is what am I seeing wrong, what is it that they're doing that is considered assisting copyright infringement? To retake my knife analogy, you would be responsible if someone stole your knife and killed someone with it. Yeah I agree the analogy sucks but tbh I feel like the one about murder is worse. :) I'm not trying to discredit the rest of your post though.