kat.cr Seized... Sites owner arrested.

[abillybob]

U.S. seizes domains of KickassTorrents, site's owner arrested | PCWorld

 

Hmmm Interesting. Comments?

[X-13]

.torrent files and magnet links aren't illegal.

 

US has no legal grounds to do this. Also .cr domain name means they have no jurisdiction either. (IANAL)

 

America isn't the world police, it's about time people told them where to go.

[LeMarchand]

Assuming they've got the right person, he knew the risks and took them anyway.

[LeMarchand]

.torrent files and magnet links aren't illegal.

 

US has no legal grounds to do this. Also .cr domain name means they have no jurisdiction either. (IANAL)

 

America isn't the world police, it's about time people told them where to go.

 

I think you're wrong on that last point (NSFW!):

 

[LeightonJames]

So another site that provides only an index is closed down. No content is hosted on the servers. No files are distributed from the servers.

 

The understanding is that they have him on Money Laundering charges due to an assumed profit of $22.3m through advertisements.

 

Let's look at it this way:

 

Google is a Multi Million\Billion dollar company that specialises in INDEXING of websites AND provides advertising space to companies. Google links to copyrighted material if you search for it yet no one bats an eyelid!!

 

The comparison is stretched but it is basically the same principle.

[abillybob]

It is rather frustrating and useless IMO - I suppose the way they will argue it is that the birth of more torrenting sites will be limited due to people thinking it's not worth it after making an example of some owners.

 

Every time they take down a torrent site with such a huge following it gets bought backup within the matter of days under another domain. A whole torrent site is normally just MB's in size!

[BassTech]

What 'Murica doesn't understand is that they will never stop piracy. No amount of money or celebrity protesting will work, all they're going to do is provoke people. The issue I have is that there is no service available to me where I can pay money and get access to a decent amount of content all in one place. I'd have to sign up to multiple subscription-based services and they wouldn't even offer close to what I can get online for free. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV etc is mostly filler and old content.

 

For a lot of people there is no viable alternative to piracy. Instead of punishing those who pirate they should be working together to offer a good streaming service that has all movies, TV shows etc on there no matter what country you're in or what studio owns the rights. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon and so people will continue to pirate.

 

Oh and for the record, I am not condoning piracy, this is just the reality of the situation.

 

America has no right to shut down sites like this, but who's going to stop them?

[LeMarchand]

Google can be (and mainly is) used for finding links to things other than copyright-dodging material.

 

Because their "right" to free stuffs is threatened, people get upset. What if the site held "only links" to sites that offered card details for sale, or CP? Would it still be Ok as it only hosted links?

[abillybob]

What if the site held "only links" to sites that offered card details for sale, or CP? Would it still be Ok as it only hosted links?

 

I think people would argue that a website with mass links to other places allowing you to get Credit Card details from people is a bit different, this is identity fraud and can cause an individual person a lot of heartache and problems in their life. You can't compare the two. One is taking media from an already overly Rich Hollywood which also make their money through merchandise, theme parks and other various things. The other what you are saying is taking actual cash from an individuals bank and pretending you are actually that person.

 

I understand where you're coming from and the point you're trying to make but I wouldn't say the two are the same.

 

My take on it is even if you where to pirate as an example the film "Frozen" from Disney, yes the movie is free but all the merchandise your kids will want buying for them after they've watched the movie kind of makes up for that fact.

[3s-gtech]

America has no right to shut down sites like this, but who's going to stop them?

 

Herein lies the problem. They have no right to do that, but people have no right to share and access content they haven't paid for. Both will carry on, and any cross-criticism is hypocritical. We seem to have an attitude in the West that we have the right to a good many things that in fact are privileges, and therefore they stop being appreciated/paid for.

 

I thought a lot of file sharing was dying out due to streaming taking over, people wanting easy mobile device access and many devices having limited storage. Perhaps not yet.

[LeMarchand]

It is rather frustrating and useless IMO - I suppose the way they will argue it is that the birth of more torrenting sites will be limited due to people thinking it's not worth it after making an example of some owners.

 

Every time they take down a torrent site with such a huge following it gets bought backup within the matter of days under another domain. A whole torrent site is normally just MB's in size!

 

Exactly! So why cry over one going down?

 

What 'Murica doesn't understand is that they will never stop piracy. No amount of money or celebrity protesting will work, all they're going to do is provoke people. The issue I have is that there is no service available to me where I can pay money and get access to a decent amount of content all in one place. I'd have to sign up to multiple subscription-based services and they wouldn't even offer close to what I can get online for free. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV etc is mostly filler and old content.

 

For a lot of people there is no viable alternative to piracy. Instead of punishing those who pirate they should be working together to offer a good streaming service that has all movies, TV shows etc on there no matter what country you're in or what studio owns the rights. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon and so people will continue to pirate.

 

Unfortunately, that will never happen in a capitalist economy. Each company will want to be top dog. Vote for comrade Corbyn if you want to see that change . Also, what about theatrical films? People will happily pirate those rather than wait for an official "home" release. One (currently banned) member on here often bragged about watching "on Kodi".

 

I think people would argue that a website with mass links to other places allowing you to get Credit Card details from people is a bit different, this is identity fraud and can cause an individual person a lot of heartache and problems in their life. You can't compare the two. One is taking media from an already overly Rich Hollywood which also make their money through merchandise, theme parks and other various things. The other what you are saying is taking actual cash from an individuals bank and pretending you are actually that person.

 

I understand where you're coming from and the point you're trying to make but I wouldn't say the two are the same.

 

My take on it is even if you where to pirate as an example the film "Frozen" from Disney, yes the movie is free but all the merchandise your kids will want buying for them after they've watched the movie kind of makes up for that fact.

 

I saw "Frozen" at the cinema and didn't buy any merchandise. I can see the point you're making, but it only holds water for certain films (and in the case of "Frozen" I'm betting that there's a high amount of unlicensed merch out there) as many don't have merchandise beyond (possibly) a book, the soundtrack and home release. As much as I'd love a "Hotel Rwanda" collectable machete .

 

Herein lies the problem. They have no right to do that, but people have no right to share and access content they haven't paid for. Both will carry on, and any cross-criticism is hypocritical. We seem to have an attitude in the West that we have the right to a good many things that in fact are privileges, and therefore they stop being appreciated/paid for.

 

I thought a lot of file sharing was dying out due to streaming taking over, people wanting easy mobile device access and many devices having limited storage. Perhaps not yet.

 

I must admit, I don't know why people use torrents any more. If you want to avoid paying, there are methods that don't involve you uploading at the same time (which is what gets you into trouble). Plus I suspect a far bigger problem (for the studios) is streaming sites. I know lots of people who use them and don't even stop to think that it's not kosher.

[abillybob]

Exactly! So why cry over one going down?

 

Quote where I cried

 

I saw "Frozen" at the cinema and didn't buy any merchandise. I can see the point you're making, but it only holds water for certain films (and in the case of "Frozen" I'm betting that there's a high amount of unlicensed merch out there) as many don't have merchandise beyond (possibly) a book, the soundtrack and home release. As much as I'd love a "Hotel Rwanda" collectable machete .

 

I was under the impression anything sold with Frozen's characters or anything relating to the film had to be licensed by law?

 

I must admit, I don't know why people use torrents any more. If you want to avoid paying, there are methods that don't involve you uploading at the same time (which is what gets you into trouble). Plus I suspect a far bigger problem (for the studios) is streaming sites. I know lots of people who use them and don't even stop to think that it's not kosher.

 

You can stop them uploading at the same time of downloading, also remember not all torrents are illegal so people will still use torrents in some cases legally thus you won't ever defeat the format. Yes I agree the more common used method id normally streaming sites especially since they're now available to the masses through things like android boxes.

[LeMarchand]

I was under the impression anything sold with Frozen's characters or anything relating to the film had to be licensed by law?

 

It should be licensed, just as people generally should pay for their media if that's what the copyright holder wants. I doubt that all the tack with Frozen characters is actually licensed, especially stuff like phone cases from China and their ilk.

 

You can stop them uploading at the same time of downloading, also remember not all torrents are illegal so people will still use torrents in some cases legally thus you won't ever defeat the format.

 

Yes, and if everyone did that the system wouldn't work. Besides which (IIRC) the default is to upload and most people don't change the defaults in anything!

 

Totally agree that there are legit, non-infringing torrents. I'm betting that the vast majority of torrent traffic isn't those torrents, though.

[pcstru]

Let's look at it this way:

 

Google is a Multi Million\Billion dollar company that specialises in INDEXING of websites AND provides advertising space to companies. Google links to copyrighted material if you search for it yet no one bats an eyelid!!

 

The comparison is stretched but it is basically the same principle.

 

I agree. You can also add that Microsoft supply a program for copying stuff, and that copying stuff might be illegal.

 

What that misses is intent and incitement. Mostly KAT, piratebay etc deliver links to content which has been acquired illegally (is a breach of the licence that was supplied with the original). I'd assume the site owners know this, if not because 'common sense' then because copyright holders will have requested them to cease and desist (probably in large numbers). So I think there is a very good basis to establish that there is intent to facilitate and publicise illegal acts. Then there is the fact that the links themselves facilitate another 'illegal act' - the further copying of protected works. They are to some extent inciting these acts. Does it start to look a bit different to Google now?

[pcstru]

The issue I have is that there is no service available to me where I can pay money and get access to a decent amount of content all in one place. I'd have to sign up to multiple subscription-based services and they wouldn't even offer close to what I can get online for free. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV etc is mostly filler and old content.

 

For a lot of people there is no viable alternative to piracy.

Errr.... not doing it would seem to be perfectly viable. I mean, there are actual choices to be made.

 

I'd agree that licensing is complicated and is running behind technology and the way people want to consume content, but fundamentally the issue comes down to the right for creators to have control over how they licence their property. If you agree that you as a creator should have those rights, then on what basis can you say that other people have no alternative than to violate those rights?

 

America has no right to shut down sites like this, but who's going to stop them?

These things don't happen in a legal vacuum. If seizures and arrests have been made, you would think that they comply with local law. To me it seems perfectly sensible that IP rights might be reciprocally agreed between civilised states. Where those agreements are in place, rights holders should be able to act on them. Are IP rights exclusively an American thing?

[LeMarchand]

Our freedom is to share the human right which Artem Vaulin has been providing to millions of users from all over the world. By arresting him our rights are violated.

 

*Imagines an Oxfam style appeal*

 

This is Fred.

 

Fred wants to watch films and play games without paying for them, but his favourite torrent site has been closed down.

 

Fred isn't clever enough to use an alternative site or method to support his freeloading, and now has to make do with the media already in his collection. If he does not get more media soon, he might have to rewatch or replay some of his media. If this does not help, he may be forced to sell himself just to keep up to date with the latest films and games or, worse still, visit a library and read a book.

 

Every pound you give to kat.cr will help us maintain a searchable database of pirated media so that people like Fred do not have to suffer.

 

Please give generously.

[difinity]

Fred would like to add that as format shifting is again illegal in the UK that he is not streaming ripped media from his Plex server but he loads all his discs in a player.

[Lonix]

Interesting comments I see and this will probably cause a storm but basically you are all defending illegal downloading and copyrighting.

 

It may be just an "index" but it is a site purposely built to share illegal content nothing more and certainly nothing less. As for "civil rights or human rights (insert what ever term you want)".... sigh.. that term gets over abused on ridiculous illegal things but completely missed when it's "needed".

 

Basically you are saying if you choose to do illegal things.. you should regardless.

[Steve21]

Interesting comments I see and this will probably cause a storm but basically you are all defending illegal downloading and copyrighting.

 

It may be just an "index" but it is a site purposely built to share illegal content nothing more and certainly nothing less.

 

But look at the flip side of that. Why is it purposely built for sharing illegal content? Just because that's the most common thing on it doesn't mean it's not usable for legal stuff on Torrents too. (Look at the number of companies with games/software that use torrent now to provide downloads. Linux etc etc)

 

It's no different to a site that hosts models for 3D printers. If someone uploads a link to a copyrighted item to it you can't then blame all the sites for that.

 

If that makse sense?

 

Steve

[pcstru]

But look at the flip side of that. Why is it purposely built for sharing illegal content?

Because that is the thing that has raked in tens of millions in advertising revenue for the owners of these sites.

Just because that's the most common thing on it doesn't mean it's not usable for legal stuff on Torrents too. (Look at the number of companies with games/software that use torrent now to provide downloads. Linux etc etc)

Do the sites respond to take down requests from content owners? If not, what does it matter that 0.01% of the content is legal to distribute that way? If you walked past a pawnbrokers shop in the high street and stuff that had been stolen from you was in the window, would you say they were offering a legitimate service because a small fraction of their stuff was legally acquired?

[Steve21]

Because that is the thing that has raked in tens of millions in advertising revenue for the owners of these sites.

 

It may make them money, but it's not them uploading the torrents etc.

 

Do the sites respond to take down requests from content owners?

 

You'll find KAT were one of the few that did follow them if they were submitted right, and a reason a lot of people moved to TPB

 

 

If you walked past a pawnbrokers shop in the high street and stuff that had been stolen from you was in the window, would you say they were offering a legitimate service because a small fraction of their stuff was legally acquired?

 

And my point being, while morally wrong and doubt anyone can argue that side, torrent sites aren't hosting/selling anything dodgy/illegal. It's a magnet/torrent link to "other people" hosting/sharing illegally.

 

Steve

[LeMarchand]

Why is it purposely built for sharing illegal content? Just because that's the most common thing on it doesn't mean it's not usable for legal stuff on Torrents too. (Look at the number of companies with games/software that use torrent now to provide downloads. Linux etc etc)

 

Because if its purpose was to index legal torrents they'd only host those. Which would be fairly pointless, as the people choosing to legitimately share their stuff via torrents provide the links.

 

It's no different to a site that hosts models for 3D printers. If someone uploads a link to a copyrighted item to it you can't then blame all the sites for that.

 

If that makse sense?

 

Steve

 

Not familiar with these sites, but if they respond to takedowns then fine. If they "major" in copyrighted models then I would say that they're no different.

 

A better comparison is Project Gutenberg who provide ebook downloads of out of copyright books. They appear to be fairly rigorous about what they provide and advise users to check local law as what applies in their country (PG is based in the US).

[Lonix]

 

If that makse sense?

 

Steve

 

Oh it does, FFXIV 1.0 was built on torrent technology if I remember rightly. BUT it still doesn't change the fact that torrent websites are 99.99% illegal content. Perhaps 98.9% but again let's face it.. it was used primarily for illegal downloads. The only people ever going to kick a fuss over a torrent website is some one that downloads illegally and perhaps far too often. I'm not saying I do or don't but I certainly will not be complaining at not being able to do something illegal or have to spend another hour trying to find an alternative torrent website.

 

It's just interesting to see some people quick to take moral high grounds on other subjects when it comes to what's right and wrong but go quiet on something like this.. which is still very illegal.

[3s-gtech]

Interesting comments I see and this will probably cause a storm but basically you are all defending illegal downloading and copyrighting.

 

Did you read the comments? Hardly anyone in this thread did so.

[Steve21]

Because if its purpose was to index legal torrents they'd only host those. Which would be fairly pointless, as the people choosing to legitimately share their stuff via torrents provide the links.

 

A better comparison is Project Gutenberg who provide ebook downloads of out of copyright books. They appear to be fairly rigorous about what they provide and advise users to check local law as what applies in their country (PG is based in the US).

 

Aye, but surely that's a prime example again against the takedown. That Project website is hosting illegal content to countries outside the US as it's breaking their copyright. Having a one-line disclaimer that it's down to people to check their own laws doesn't really reduce the fact it's hosting it illegally right? (In regards to outside US access, or shouldn't it be blocking access from outside the US etc etc?)

 

Again to clarify i'm not arguing that both should be fine or blocked or whatnot, just the principle of one vs the other is only changed because of the number of items and content on one site vs another

 

let's face it.. it was used primarily for illegal downloads. The only people ever going to kick a fuss over a torrent website is some one that downloads illegally and perhaps far too often. I'm not saying I do or don't but I certainly will not be complaining at not being able to do something illegal or have to spend another hour trying to find an alternative torrent website..

 

Yep, again I'm not arguing the fact it had mostly links to copyrighted stuff etc etc, don't think anyone could argue that the links go to that (Well no-one sane). But what does that website do that Google doesn't? (Random example), Both host links, Both host torrents, Both host magnet etc. How do most people find torrent sites? They search for them. If the principle of a links site is illegal/bad/wrong, then shouldn't they stop showing them in searches?

 

Literally last week the Paris courts ruled Google/MS etc don't need to block searches with torrent included within them as it's too generic a term etc

 

Steve