"Everyone's" first perspective is not what should matter to you if you're evaluating legal risk; which is the context of the advise being offered here. When a civil suit is brought against, you, the standards of proof are entirely different than criminal, and these standards are ignored to the author's peril when constructing a message like the one linked here.
To get specific, when someone brings a civil suit against you, the first bar they must pass is relatively low. Once they have passed this bar, they can wrap you up in a very expensive lawsuit for a very long time. I know because I've been in this circumstance for the last four years. Before an actual trial, you get the opportunity to challenge the suit in a variety of ways. A judge gets to decide whether the plaintiff's complaint passes the tests for your challenge. If they do, the trial proceeds, and ultimately you end up in front of a jury.
This is the part where you're gambling -- with huge sums of money at stake -- when it comes to copyright. It doesn't matter if "everyone" decides to read between the lines; it only matters if the selected jury does. That is a gamble of epic proportions. Both lawyers are jockying to select a jury that they feel will fall on their side of the case, but keep in mind that the standard of proof in civil trials is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".
And that seems to be the unfortunate truth. Something that has no direct intent can be positioned such that it's creators or users end up in a legal quandary. I don't see how that can move forward in a positive manner - the question is what is questioned next?
It seems as though only actors which are threatened by true privacy have a position, and that position includes significant wealth, political power and greed. Those actors set a precedent based on already won battles which don't seem to revolve around facts but, again, money and power. Everyone else is then left to spend "huge sums of money" to defend a position that was never unconstitutional in the first place.
"Everyone's" first perspective is not what should matter to you if you're evaluating legal risk; which is the context of the advise being offered here. When a civil suit is brought against, you, the standards of proof are entirely different than criminal, and these standards are ignored to the author's peril when constructing a message like the one linked here.
To get specific, when someone brings a civil suit against you, the first bar they must pass is relatively low. Once they have passed this bar, they can wrap you up in a very expensive lawsuit for a very long time. I know because I've been in this circumstance for the last four years. Before an actual trial, you get the opportunity to challenge the suit in a variety of ways. A judge gets to decide whether the plaintiff's complaint passes the tests for your challenge. If they do, the trial proceeds, and ultimately you end up in front of a jury.
This is the part where you're gambling -- with huge sums of money at stake -- when it comes to copyright. It doesn't matter if "everyone" decides to read between the lines; it only matters if the selected jury does. That is a gamble of epic proportions. Both lawyers are jockying to select a jury that they feel will fall on their side of the case, but keep in mind that the standard of proof in civil trials is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".