kat.cr Seized... Sites owner arrested.

[LeMarchand]

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?)

 

The US is likely to have the most strict copyright periods, so the disclaimer is just boiler plate in the unlikely case of some rinky dink country having longer terms of copyright.

 

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

 

If you took a few paperclips home, you'd be surprised if your boss did more than tell you off. If you took a few computers home...

 

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?

 

Star Trek Beyond search on Google: Let me google that for you

 

Is there any way to get that sort of result on kat.cr?

[Steve21]

The US is likely to have the most strict copyright periods, so the disclaimer is just boiler plate in the unlikely case of some rinky dink country having longer terms of copyright.

 

If you took a few paperclips home, you'd be surprised if your boss did more than tell you off. If you took a few computers home...

 

Yes I get what you're saying, and again in real-life what actually happens, but legally both are illegal whether it's a 1p item or a £1m item. Just as the same principle would be as to if you're hosting stuff which is illegal in 1 country or 100.

 

That's what I'm saying, it's not really down to why one site is right or wrong, but the scale at which it's doing it that's being determined if they're taken down by the Gov etc

 

Star Trek Beyond search on Google: Let me google that for you

 

Is there any way to get that sort of result on kat.cr?

 

Think you misunderstood my point on this one. It's not what Google can do that kat can't, my point was both are torrent search engines basically You can find torrents via it, whether directly or indirectly.

 

Try "Star Trek Beyond torrent download" and have a look, or if you want a direct link "Star Trek filetype:torrent" again just as an example. If all Torrents (or majority) are being deemed as illegal content why do the search engines show them?

 

Steve

[pcstru]

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

Sure. They are just profiting from people who illegally share content they have no rights to. So presumably you don't block these sites or torrents in your school?

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

By doing so they acknowledge that the links that form the majority of the content that they serve, are links to illegal content.

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.

I think you might have a case if it was 1% of the content was 'illegal' rather than 99% but while these sites are 99% links to illegally shared content, it is obvious that these people are simply out to make money by facilitating illegal acts. It is much the same as someone taking a commission for introducing a thief to a fence. It is also not simply a moral issue - it is very much a legal one. Courts do not issue arrest warrants for moral issues.

[Steve21]

Sure. They are just profiting from people who illegally share content they have no rights to. So presumably you don't block these sites or torrents in your school?

 

That's no different to how any other sites work? Google Ads on torrent searches within Google? etc. Again not saying it's right on either, but you can't say one site does it and others don't? A search engine (whether KAT/Google/etc) is generally always powered by Ads).

 

And we block them, but not sure how that links to anything here? No-one should be using torrents internally whether for legal or illegal stuff as it's impacting bandwidth etc. Same as exe's/mp3s etc

 

Do you block Google searches for filetype:torrent or mp3 or whatnot if not, any reason as that's no different to going onto a "torrent site" as such.

 

 

By doing so they acknowledge that the links that form the majority of the content that they serve, are links to illegal content.

 

Just like any search engine etc does? It reads it and links it, if someone requests it removed they do? Google/Bing etc does the exact same, as do hundreds of other sites that host stuff. Whether pictures, music etc. You need to remember it's not the owners who do the uploading etc to these sites, it's either bots that trawl or user uploads, so it's all looked at retrospectively. Again lets say I post a copyrighted video to Facebook, it'll take someone to report it until it's looked at and removed.

 

Again not trying to say either is right or wrong, but a lot of the arguements that people are using as "bad torrent sites" etc are fine when it's anyone but "bad torrent sites" uses it.

 

Ads to make money from searches that aren't legal. Google/Bing/Torrents.

Removes illegal content when requested by companies. Google/Bing/Torrents.

Links to illegal content without hosting it. Google/Bing/Torrents.

 

Compared to something like putlocker that directly copies and hosts and makes money from illegal content. There's a big difference in my opinion. (But it is just my opinion so moo )

 

Steve

[LeMarchand]

Yes I get what you're saying, and again in real-life what actually happens, but legally both are illegal whether it's a 1p item or a £1m item. Just as the same principle would be as to if you're hosting stuff which is illegal in 1 country or 100.

 

That's what I'm saying, it's not really down to why one site is right or wrong, but the scale at which it's doing it that's being determined if they're taken down by the Gov etc

 

Isn't this the way of the world? The police seem to turn a blind eye to dodgy Dan who sells the odd bit of puff to his mates, but arrest Mr Big who's knocking out kilos of the stuff. It's all down to cost. Far more effective to take out the big boys.

 

Think you misunderstood my point on this one. It's not what Google can do that kat can't, my point was both are torrent search engines basically You can find torrents via it, whether directly or indirectly.

 

Try "Star Trek Beyond torrent download" and have a look, or if you want a direct link "Star Trek filetype:torrent" again just as an example. If all Torrents (or majority) are being deemed as illegal content why do the search engines show them?

 

Steve

 

No. Google is a search engine, kat, TPB et al are torrent search engines. Two very different things. If Google were to remove all search results containing "filetype: torrent", wouldn't that effect all those legit ones too? If they removed results just containing the word, it would have to be a very sophisticated algorithm in order to differentiate between "The Legend of Tarzan has received a torrent of online abuse from knee jerk reactionaries" and "The Legend of Tarzan torrent". Presumably they can't be forced to stop indexing whole sites because of that one Linux distro indexed there.

[pcstru]

And we block them, but not sure how that links to anything here? No-one should be using torrents internally whether for legal or illegal stuff as it's impacting bandwidth etc. Same as exe's/mp3s etc

 

Do you block Google searches for filetype:torrent or mp3 or whatnot if not, any reason as that's no different to going onto a "torrent site" as such.

We block torrent sharing sites wholesale, we block google searches for torrents.

Just like any search engine etc does? It reads it and links it, if someone requests it removed they do? Google/Bing etc does the exact same, as do hundreds of other sites that host stuff. Whether pictures, music etc. You need to remember it's not the owners who do the uploading etc to these sites, it's either bots that trawl or user uploads, so it's all looked at retrospectively. Again lets say I post a copyrighted video to Facebook, it'll take someone to report it until it's looked at and removed.

If you search on Google for "Star Trek Beyond" you will get the movie site, IMDB, reviews etc etc etc. You will not get a torrent at least in the first few pages of results. If do the same search on KAT, you will get ONLY links to illegally obtained content. There is a major difference right there.

[Lonix]

We block torrent sharing sites wholesale, we block google searches for torrents.

 

If you search on Google for "Star Trek Beyond" you will get the movie site, IMDB, reviews etc etc etc. You will not get a torrent at least in the first few pages of results. If do the same search on KAT, you will get ONLY links to illegally obtained content. There is a major difference right there.

 

Exactly. It's just using "technicalities" to pretty much defend some one who was apart of the bigger illegal picture. At the end it's all illegal downloading and that's what 99% of torrents are used for. Regardless what technicalities you want to use or terminologies. Google it self is a search engine, they can only do so much "filtering" from their end on content deemed to be extremely sick/unsafe/illegal.

 

Can't tell me 99% of Google searches is for illegal content. In fact these days it seems Google is used more for quick answers.

 

Sorry no sympathy for the guy being arrested or torrent sites being shutdown left right and centre. Maybe that's why everyone doesn't want their internet history recorded?

[Garacesh]

It's certainly important to keep in mind that torrents in of themselves are not intrinsically illegal or immoral. Torrent and its successor, Magnet, are simply a method of distributing downloads to increase speed and reduce bandwidth pressure on a single host. However, like any technology, it can be used for nefarious ends. Yes, providing links to torrent files is, in essence, doing the same thing Google does, but the subject matter is crucial here.

 

Let's use an analogy.. A knife can either be a legitimate tool (linux distros) or an illegal weapon (Big Hero 6.Torrent.HD1080p.Ripped-By-SomeGuy). You can purchase knives from most supermarkets. Google is this supermarket. You can find tools with both legal and illegal uses there, alongside a wider variety of other unrelated stuff.

Then there are designated knife shops. This tends to happen less on the internet, and centre more around a subject matter, e.g. SuperAwesomeLinuxDistros.com. My knife shop may sell knives aimed mostly at chefs, that is okay.

But then down the back alley there's GetYourStabOn.com, a knife shop/website that sells knives with the sole intention of them being used as weapons. Yes there are still legitimate reasons to purchase a knife, but this shop is focused primarily on the illegitimate reasons. This is KickAssTorrents, PirateBay, and every other site like them. Yes, they are technically doing nothing wrong as they aren't stabbing anyone (and in the case of KAT they're not even hosting the trackers anymore, thanks to magnet) but they are still aiding in the trade of illegal goods. They are doing this knowingly and wilfully.

 

You're damn right it should have been shut down.

 

That being said. The allegations of "money laundering" are ridiculously bogus. He has not laundered money. He has earned money through advertising. As long as he declared it, paid tax on it, etc, then it's all above board. Even if he didn't declare it, that's just tax avoidance, not money laundering. I'd be interested to see what evidence they have.

[DJ-1701]

[scenario playing in my head]'Torrent'? I thought it said 'To rent'...

[Garacesh]

In the eyes of the law there is nothing illegal in downloading "StarTrek_Beyond.torrent" or hosting "StarTrek_Beyond.torrent".

Yes there is? Both of those things are considered copyright infringement, as you are breaching the copyright license you have agreed to by sharing or obtaining it unlawfully. Perhaps, (and this is a big perhaps), the downloader is not committing an offence, as they haven't entered into a contract with $FilmPublisher. But the person who (presumably bought and) ripped the DVD is definitely breaching copyright.

 

The offense is created when you share the copyrighted film and download the copyrighted film, depending on the laws of the country you are in.

This might seam like *fuzz* but this is how laws are defined and enforced and there are lots of lawyers who specialise in this kind of *fuzz*.

Okay, fine. "StarTrek_Beyond.torrent" might actually contain a 5GB .txt file full of 1's and 0's that when fed through the right software produces an off-key MIDI of Rick Astley's 'Never Gonna Give You Up' - in which case, you're right, not illegal - but for the purposes of this discussion, we're going to assume filenames are accurate portrayals of their contents, in which case, yes it is illegal, based upon copyright law (in the UK at least. I suspect copyright law is reasonably unified)

 

Further *fuzz* is created if you actually own the film, and in the law of that land you reside allow you to have a backup or format shifted version of the file and yet you are unable to do so because of restrictions*.

Not always. It's illegal in the UK, for example. I can't speak for any other countries. Not that it matters. Even if a countries copyright law allows format shifting, I very much doubt it allows you to distribute your copy, which is what file-sharing classifies as.

 

I think its interesting, and noone is discussing, that this man was detained in Poland after being charged with a four-count U.S. criminal indictment.

The arrest will have been made with compliance to local and state police. It's not like they just waltz in and nab you. That comes under 'kidnapping', and is suitably illegal.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Garacesh

[Garacesh]

The torrent contains a 'hive' of nodes that link to the file. At no point is any copyright material contained within the torrent.

 

As above, the torrent contains no copyright information. Its similar to being arrested for possession of a text file named "StarTrek_Beyond.txt". Torrents are very small, like 30kb small, there is no copyright material contained within them. Torrents are 'lists' of torrent hives that are complete or parts of the files/folders/packages/media you seek. Afaik no-one has ever been prosecuted for possession of a torrent as there is no law that makes this an offence in the UK.

Quite right. But there is only one use for torrent files - and that's to obtain the files within the hive. No, the torrent file itself isn't illegal, but the files being shared with it are. If lots of bank robbers used getaway cars purchased from the same salesman, you'd expect his car lot to be investigated, no? It can be just as useful to shut down the method of which people obtain the files. It's a reasonable move.

 

 

I agree. But if your law says you are allowed to have a backup and then deny you the ability to do so this creates a certain amount of 'wriggle room', especially when you consider such things as 'fair use'. In the UK we had laws that allowed some of these and then they were removed which gives ample room in court to cast doubt in what is/was legal and so there is room for lawyers to test in court. You could argue that you downloaded the file to have a backup and was only 'sharing' until this completed. In court facts rule. If they cannot 'prove' anyone took data from you then this is just an unproven assumption.

It is already well-established in law that this does not count as a backup. A backup must be created from your own personal media. Take video game emulation for example. It's a heavily contested topic because it's usually done illegally, but if you own the game and the console you can legally rip the BIOS of the console and make a ROM of the game. However. You can not download and use somebody else's BIOS/ROM. It is illegal. That does not constitute a backup.

 

How they 'prove' you have shared a file on bittorrent is interesting. They download the torrent and become part of the 'hive'. They then log all IP's in that hive that sends/receives segments to their client and build a database of users based on IP's and client idents. They then request personal details of these account holders from their ISP and ... you can guess the rest.

Yeah? So? It's just the digital equivalent of an undercover officer. What's your point?

 

At no point does the torrent site hold any copyright information, but they are the easy target and the one they want to take down. Its no big loss,win since more will replace them and they are becoming more distributed with no central base and in counties that have liberal copyright laws.

Ah, well you see, there's this wonderful thing called "The spirit of [a] law", which judges can and sometimes do act with. You might be able to wiggle your little technicalities in, but it's still blatantly obvious that KickAssTorrents exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You can try and skirt your way around it all you like, but they know what they're doing, and we know what they're doing. Lots of laws were written during a period where the internet and file sharing weren't so ubiquitous and they haven't yet been ratified to compensate for this. As such, a judge may choose to apply the spirit of the law. That is perfectly justifiable.

[Garacesh]

Point1 - It all depends on which law they intend to prosecute you. Copyright infringement wont stick because they have not copied anything copyright or hosted anything copyright. Mentioning Tax evasion suggests they are already anticipating this simple fact.

KAT, TPB, etc aren't directly engaging in copyright infringement, they are just a wilful medium for others to do it, which is why they've been shut down. Technically a pawn shop isn't doing anything illegal by fencing stolen goods, since they can claim they didn't know it was stolen, but they still get shut down if the majority of their traffic is illegitimate. Same concept.

 

Point2 - For the end user, in this country that may be the case. But like most things accusing you and proving it are 2 very different things, that is why charges get dropped all the time.

Very true. I don't actually disagree with you on this, so I don't really have a retort.

 

Point3 - This was not in answer to anything you said, just some information to show how they sometimes prove someone guilt. You might be the owner and bill payer, but are you liable for all data coming in through that internet connection? If you speed in your wifes car who gets the speeding ticket ... Which one in your family just downloaded justin beibers latest album ?. Can you be really sure what others are doing on your connection? Its why we have the 3 strikes rule for many ISPs. And then there is malware ... those litle blighters get up to so much mischief ...

Indeed. I'm not sure I 100% agree with the "If you pay for the service, you should know everything it's used for, so you're the one that gets in trouble" concept, but I don't know how else I'd do it. ISP's have the three-strikes rule because of this, sure. But that's got nothing to do with what KAT were doing.

 

Point4 - We both know what they are doing but direct copyright infringement isnt one of them. They will probably do them for a tax scam or lesser more provable offence that will stick. Who knows what will happen, TPB ship is still sailing and no doubts will be like many of the other sites. Will the advent of bitcoin I can see add revenue being somewhat hard to trace in the future and will be entertaining to see how this rides out.

Well, yeah. They did the same thing for Al Capone. And there's not much wrong with doing so. They can't get them on copyright infringement (even if they are breaking the spirit of the law) but if they can get them on money laundering then they can put them away all the same. I've already said I'd be interested to see the evidence. It's entirely possible that the money laundering charge is bogus, just so they have an excuse to seize assets, of which they hope they'll find something criminally inditing on their servers.

 

There are countless times I have used torrent sites when im in a fix, downloading a copy of windows for a laptop with ME that that I dont have etc, they fill a void for many people. You will never stop it and there are always those who will try.

You'll never stop those who will try, no. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

[pcstru]

Point1 - It all depends on which law they intend to prosecute you. Copyright infringement wont stick because they have not copied anything copyright or hosted anything copyright.

They are facilitating and they are an accessory to large scale copyright infringement. They are obviously doing it for financial gain. In UK copyright law that should stick well enough. The fact that countries enter into reciprocal international protection agreements suggests US might well be similar.

Mentioning Tax evasion suggests they are already anticipating this simple fact.

Cite? I've only seen "money laundering", which may make sense from the POV of them being an accessory to large scale copyright infringement for financial gain. Tax evasion may well be possible to prosecute locally but that can't be part of the charges the US are presenting for extradition.

[pcstru]

Secondary liability is what you are describing. This is constantly being tested and may be rather dependent on how good your lawyers are and which court you try your luck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability

There are very close precedents. A&M vs Napster and particularly MGM vs Grockster. I'd bet on them being found liable if it came to trial in the USA but I'd think it even more likely they will cop a plea bargain rather than go to trial because if the lose on any of the three copyright charges which might get them 5 years, they will cop the money laundering which could get them 20.