Something like that would typically get thrown out of any court or would be the object of a HUGE objection by opposing counsel. It would appear to me that, if any court were to allow this portion of the brief, that it would be legal proof that the US Goverment was taking 'the side' of a privatized business, and would provide enough speculation for a scandal..."Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence."
What else is new? The RIAA has never believed in fair use, and abolishing it is the only legislative act they have not yet been able to buy (they'll eventually succeed though, once they've bumped their offer high enough).
The fact is, most of these copyright laws are illegitimate anyway...
Copyright was only meant to last for fourteen years with a chance for a fourteen year renewal, period (and even that term is a bit excessive - five years seems like a reasonable window for me to reap most profits). It was created not to reward the copyright holder for ingenuity but to promote the advancement of the arts and sciences (and only for that reason). The end goal was the advancement of the arts and sciences, and the profits the copyright holders got from temporary exclusivity were merely the means to that end. Indefinite copyrights are actually harmful to this goal, because they wrongfully prevent society from benefiting from derivative works. In addition, all works (music, literature, film, etc.) contribute to the betterment of the arts and sciences, and as such, they ultimately belong to humanity as a whole, not just the original author (or copyright holder); temporary exclusivity of copyright was merely meant to be the "incentive-machine" to keep this progress going. While this example may be blurring some lines between copyright and trademark, Mickey Mouse is still owned by Disney, yet he has taken up a place in the hearts of people all over the world for generations. By all rights, he should belong to the world as a whole now. Walt Disney is long dead and the Disney corporation has made its money time and time again, so why is Mickey Mouse still owned by a single entity to the detriment of every other person on the planet?
Anyway, copyright was originally meant to be for fourteen years. Fast forward a couple hundred years...once again, we the people have absolutely no representation. Some of us may think we have representation simply because we've been socialized to think along party lines, but the major parties truly only represent or listen to the corporations and lobbyists paying them. As such, our laws have become increasingly twisted and biased towards special interests. The sole reason copyright lasts for longer than fourteen years is because of bribery and corruption...hence, in my opinion, all of these recent copyright laws are completely illegitimate. I don't find it unreasonable to call disobeying them an act of civil disobedience, which is especially justified when you have no political representation.