Correct: I purposely did not delve into any specifics, because I was simply trying to demonstrate that "I did not host the file or do the actual infringement" is really not a sufficiently complex argument to actually mean that you are not liable, and even if it means you are not liable under current law, I do not feel it is at all clear that in some larger ethical sense you shouldn't be liable, and I can sympathize with people who have campaigned to add such liability. And certainly, I did not attempt to argue "moral equivalence" between "murder" and "copyright infringement" (and feel that anyone who thinks I did, such as the guy who decided to hide behind the name "howcan", is just being argumentative: it serves no purpose in pushing forward a discussion and just drags down the conversation; you always need to draw parallels: that's how language works).

However, your statement "that's not a thing" is not entirely accurate: the DMCA's anti-tampering clause actually feels quite a bit like a law in the style of "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement". Specifically, it holds people who distribute tools that bypass protection mechanisms culpable, even if the primary use of that tool is not for copyright infringement (not so for the Pirate Bay), even if any and all marketing is for that positive use (not true for torrents: it is a rare torrent client that isn't marketing in a way that makes it clear "you could use this to infringe; in fact, here's a screenshot of another user doing so"), and even if there is a clear moderation effort and stance against piracy (again: certainly not the case with the Pirate Bay).

Of course, neither the Pirate Bay nor torrent clients are protection mechanisms, so AFAIK these laws would not and could not be used, and the DMCA is a US-specific law and these people aren't operating here, so I'm not trying to say they are already breaking this law (another reason to not go into specifics: they really aren't directly relevant, and it then requires this massive hedge to make certain people don't start arguing some nitpick of an example off into the weeds); however, it is a clear example of "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" as a real law that has been used with real consequences in the real world in situations where people have committed not a single act of piracy.

Note: the closest I have ever gotten to being a lawyer was a role as the off-stage voice of the judge in a college performance of 12 Angry Men; what I know about this subject comes from running Cydia, the alternative to the App Store dealing in everything other than an App for jailbroken iPhones, which has had me deeply involved in the hearings to get DMCA exemptions. I thereby also watched with much interest the results of Sony's lawsuit against GeoHot, who happened to also have been the first person to unlock the iPhone and an instrumental player in various jailbreaks that were released, and his related-but-separate DMCA exemption that is currently going through hearings.

What that does mean, however, is that I'm on the other side of this: so if anyone (like "howcan") wants to make an argument that I'm somehow making some moral stance that contributing, even accidentally, to copyright infringement of others is as problematic as murder, I should really only have to go "seriously? you're argument is that I shouldn't call myself a murderer?". It also means, and I say this quite sadly, that I have a front-row seat to the effects of these laws: if you want to claim that these laws do not have any teeth, or do not take the overall stance that "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" is a relevant idea, I thereby feel I need to ask how much experience you have in these matters.