Yeah, with their ideology they can deem just about anything illegal. I believe the one thing worth taking note of was that they claimed he was responsible for all traffic that exited the network through him as an exit node. The thing is there are conflicting claims from the prosecutors unless i'm missing out of some important key facts. There is talk of the defendant being an exit node, and someone else was downloading copyrighted material that exited through him to the offender. Then somewhere else in the article it says the defendant downloaded directly form the copyright protection organization which makes more since. If someone claimed I was just an mediary or exit node then I would have taken it to court. All the traffic is encrypted with OpenSSL so i'm not sure how they could clearly identify the material in question unless it was downloaded directly from the copyright protection organization. I believe they better have all their ducks in a row to prosecute if he was only a mediary or exit node.
