Yeah, I had neglected to research the civil illegality.

1. How can you suggest not to take the wording literally? I thought law language was carefully picked so as to avoid loopholes. The exact intent is expressed as unambiguously as possible through the language.

2. How do you know what the intent of the NET act is? Whatever its intent it defines criminal copyright infringement (aka, theft) as infringing more than $1,000 in 6 months or making a profit from the infringement. Thus anything less is legal.

3. This is of course the answer; however how can an ISP take action on a civil case?

Sorry that this came off argumentative, but for some reason, that's how I'm being most clear.