The US and it's "occupied nations"? Last I checked the United States is not occupying any nations, although I think this was meant to be a political stab at the war in Iraq which makes it just a ridiculous claim. And in any case, please tell me when the US "occupied" England, Denmark, Switzerland, France, Spain, etc, etc. Why do I say that? Because all of those nations (77 in total) signed the Berne convention, which states that all signatories are bound to enforce the copyrights of all other nations. And note, the US is a member, therefore all those 77 nations must respect the US's copyright laws, or else they are in violation of international law as prescribed by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) a part of the UN. Additionally there is a treaty known as GATT (General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade) set up by the WTO (World Trade Organization) and has 117 signatories also all agreeing to respect copyright laws. There is also the NAFTA charter which says that the US, Canada, and Mexico will all respect eachother's copyright laws. The Rome Convention, The Paris Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty. In all, these treaties covery about 95% of the world's nations, including almost every nation that is a member of the UN. Therefore saying these laws only apply to the US and it's "occupied nations" is but false and ridiculous. Before you make such claims, do your homework.
In the USA, handguns are legalized. In Russia, they are not. Even if I think that an armed population is "not all right", I won't call you a criminal because you have different laws. I won't judge a man in the Netherlands for buying/selling drugs legally, for the same reason.
That is something so unrelated it isn't even funny. You are talking about owning a gun and buying drugs as being comparable to stealing. They aren't the same. Go before a judge and say "Well Your Honor, I may have robbed the guy, but in Russia, they can't have guns, yet they won't consider us criminals in the US for having guns. Just the same there are nations that allow robbery, so why should I be considered a criminal?" At which point, in the best circumstances, you'd get off by reason of insanity, in the worst case, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you are going to use an example, at least make it make sense.
Later, someone gives a remark that no "illegal" file trading has been mentioned, yet codemastr easily compares the original question with an invitation to rob a bank (???).
If you honestly think he was looking for videos of someone's wedding, then bluntly put, you are either trying to start an argument, or you are a fool. You know as well as we all do that he was intending to download illegal files. And if he wasn't, why doesn't he just come back and say "I want to download a friends videos, not illegal stuff, can you help me now?" But guess what? He never did that, and in my mind that means he realizes it is illegal and realizes we aren't going to help him with it. So stop playing Devil's Advocate, and just trying to prolong an argument where you have no basis, and admit he was trying to get illegal files.
