[IMG]http://www7.pcmag.com/media/images/508237-most-pirated.jpg?thumb=y&width=740&height=426[/IMG]
[QUOTE]US authorities have arrested the alleged owner of KickassTorrents, a top file-sharing website.
Artem Vaulin of KickassTorrents (KAT) was detained Wednesday in Poland and charged with criminal copyright infringement. He is "responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials," Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said in a statement.
The 30-year-old Ukraine native reportedly relied on servers in various countries (including the US), and moved his numerous domains due to repeated seizures and civil lawsuits in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, and the UK.
"His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice," Caldwell said.
A federal court in Chicago ordered the confiscation of one bank account and seven domain names associated with KAT; the United States has requested Vaulin's extradition.
As TorrentFreak notes, a criminal complaint filed in US District Court in Chicago details the website owner's crimes, and reveals that Apple assisted in the case. Cupertino provided Vaulin's personal details after an IP address used for an iTunes transaction was linked with one used to log into KAT's Facebook account.
According to Engadget, "agents were able to obtain records from Facebook that showed the "official.KAT.fanclub." page was almost certainly associated with KAT."
For eight years, KAT has allowed users to reproduce and distribute hundreds of millions of copyrighted movies, video games, TV shows, music recordings, and other electronic media—collectively valued at more than $1 billion. The 69th most frequented website on the Internet, KAT even beat The Pirate Bay.
"Copyright infringement exacts a large toll, a very human one, on the artists and businesses whose livelihood hinges on their creative inventions. Vaulin allegedly used the Internet to cause enormous harm to those artists," US Attorney Zachary Fardon said.
Source:[url]http://www.pcmag.com/news/346305/apple-helps-feds-bust-kickasstorrents[/url] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]He is "responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials."[/QUOTE]
Directly translates to "We don't know how the fuck this torrenting shit works, but we're pissed."
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50749607]Directly translates to "We don't know how the fuck this torrenting shit works, but we're pissed."[/QUOTE]
Why are they even claiming he is distrubuting? His website allows anyone to file share so why does he have to take the penalty? The uploader should imo.
[QUOTE]
As TorrentFreak notes, a criminal complaint filed in US District Court in Chicago details the website owner's crimes, and reveals that Apple assisted in the case. Cupertino provided Vaulin's personal details after an IP address used for an iTunes transaction was linked with one used to log into KAT's Facebook account.
According to Engadget, "agents were able to obtain records from Facebook that showed the "official.KAT.fanclub." page was almost certainly associated with KAT."[/QUOTE]
Not exactly the brightest individual...
Not masking your internet traffic [B]AND [/B]basically broadcasting what you're doing on social media is asking for trouble if there's just the slightest amount of dirt on you, because then it's just a matter of connecting the dots.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;50749620]Copyright math. Gets a bit silly at times.[/QUOTE]
Well the thing is he wasn't actually distributing much of anything, torrenting is all peer to peer. Magnet links and .torrent files just get you connected to your peers. They aren't inherently illegal.
[QUOTE]
For eight years, KAT has allowed users to reproduce and distribute hundreds of millions of copyrighted movies, video games, TV shows, music recordings, and other electronic media—collectively valued at more than $1 billion.
[/QUOTE]
And without KAT having existed, people would have stopped pirating altogether and started paying for overpriced, shit movies? Or paying $100/m+ to watch TV shows through 10 minutes of ads placed conveniently to interrupt the best parts.
[QUOTE=Van-man;50749629]Not exactly the brightest individual...
Not masking your internet traffic [B]AND [/B]basically broadcasting what you're doing on social media is asking for trouble if there's just the slightest amount of dirt on you, because then it's just a matter of connecting the dots.[/QUOTE]
As dread pirate roberts pretty much showed, unless you are essentially perfect with your online presence, they will do that somehow.
[QUOTE=Vizip;50749621]Why are they even claiming he is distrubuting? His website allows anyone to file share so why does he have to take the penalty? The uploader should imo.[/QUOTE]
They can't get to the uploaders as easily so they're scapegoating.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50749689]They can't get to the uploaders as easily so they're scapegoating.[/QUOTE]
"fuck effort" as per usual, and yet they complain about pirates being lazy and thieving scum...
[QUOTE=Vizip;50749621]Why are they even claiming he is distrubuting? His website allows anyone to file share so why does he have to take the penalty? The uploader should imo.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50749631]Well the thing is he wasn't actually distributing much of anything, torrenting is all peer to peer. Magnet links and .torrent files just get you connected to your peers. They aren't inherently illegal.[/QUOTE]
'I wasn't the one committing the crime, I just facilitated it' has never been a valid defense whether it's applied to prostitution rings, gambling networks, drug markets, or piracy sites. Website owners are responsible for the content on their site, that's why the DMCA requires content aggregators to exercise proper diligence in reviewing copyright claims.
Running a website that aggregates illegal content has always been illegal, it's just usually much harder to go after the operator than the uploaders if the operator is in a country that lacks an extradition treaty.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50749796]'I wasn't the one committing the crime, I just facilitated it' has never been a valid defense whether it's applied to prostitution rings, gambling networks, drug markets, or piracy sites. Website owners are responsible for the content on their site, that's why the DMCA requires content aggregators to exercise proper diligence in reviewing copyright claims.
Running a website that aggregates illegal content has always been illegal, it's just usually much harder to go after the operator than the uploaders if the operator is in a country that lacks an extradition treaty.[/QUOTE]
There's absolutely no illegal content on the torrent sites, that's the thing. Sure I'll give it to you that he facilitated it but in no way is he actually legally responsible for a billion dollars in copyright damages.
This guy is going to go to prison for less than what Hillary got away with.
[QUOTE=Stolons;50750287]This guy is going to go to prison for less than what Hillary got away with.[/QUOTE]
I don't think HillaryTorrents exist, so no. Not at all.
Guy hosted a website where people shared torrents of copyrighted content and has to face the consequences for doing so.
It's not morally correct to host links to copyrighted content that content producers expect you to pay for to access.
Now don't get me wrong I think the calculations that these rights group use to show the losses are completely baffling and stupendous. But, he still did something that's pretty immorally correct.
Hillary just shared some documents with the world.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750364]I don't think HillaryTorrents exist, so no. Not at all.
Hillary just shared some documents with the world.[/QUOTE]
Ones piracy, and the other compromises the security of the United States.
Clearly Hollywood losing some money is the worse crime.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750364]I don't think HillaryTorrents exist, so no. Not at all.
Guy hosted a website where people shared torrents of copyrighted content and has to face the consequences for doing so.
It's not morally correct to host links to copyrighted content that content producers expect you to pay for to access.
Now don't get me wrong I think the calculations that these rights group use to show the losses are completely baffling and stupendous. But, he still did something that's pretty immorally correct.
Hillary just shared some documents with the world.[/QUOTE]
KAT didn't actually directly host any content.
All it did was share links. It even responded to DMCA requests.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750364]
Hillary just shared some documents with the world.
[QUOTE]just shared some documents[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]just some documents[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Oizen;50750383]Ones piracy, and the other compromises the security of the United States.
Clearly Hollywood losing some money is the worse crime.[/QUOTE]
In the eyes of those who've lost money because of KAT, yes. It's probably worse than the United States Secretary of State showing the entire world a few secret documents.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50750207]There's absolutely no illegal content on the torrent sites, that's the thing. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;50750384]KAT didn't actually directly host any content.
All it did was share links. It even responded to DMCA requests.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter that [i]technically[/i] the content they hosted wasn't copyrighted material, it's still illegal to host because it was directly facilitating piracy. The Silk Road got shut down for the same reason- it's not illegal to host plaintext ads and the website itself wasn't selling drugs, but it [i]is[/i] illegal to directly facilitate buying and selling drugs, which is what the website was designed to do and what the individual listings were doing.
'I didn't host copyrighted content, I just maintained a website of thousands of links to copyrighted content' is as good a defense as 'I didn't sell drugs, I just administrated a drug selling ring connecting thousands of buyers and sellers'. It won't exonerate you; at best it might put a 'conspiracy to commit' in front of the criminal charges and somewhat reduce their severity, and you'll still be held civilly liable. This isn't unique to the Internet by any means.
As for damages, sure, it's ridiculous to tie a dollar amount to every download and pretend that 1 download = 1 lost sale. Copyright charges tend to start with an extreme and get negotiated down to a fraction of that initial amount.
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;50750384]KAT didn't actually directly host any content.
All it did was share links. It even responded to DMCA requests.[/QUOTE]
Hosting links to copyrighted material is still illegal.
You sharing links with copyrighted content to someone else could land you in prison.
[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;50749635]And without KAT having existed, people would have stopped pirating altogether and started paying for overpriced, shit movies? Or paying $100/m+ to watch TV shows through 10 minutes of ads placed conveniently to interrupt the best parts.[/QUOTE]
One of the biggest "pirates" are Australians. There were several reports of Australians massively pirating popular TV shows simply because they were not being shown in their country. How is that a lost sale, if you aren't even selling/broadcasting your product there ? Piracy is a often caused by weird distribution restrictions.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50750459]It doesn't matter that [i]technically[/i] the content they hosted wasn't copyrighted material, it's still illegal to host because it was directly facilitating piracy. The Silk Road got shut down for the same reason- it's not illegal to host plaintext ads and the website itself wasn't selling drugs, but it [i]is[/i] illegal to directly facilitate buying and selling drugs, which is what the website was designed to do and what the individual listings were doing.
'I didn't host copyrighted content, I just maintained a website of thousands of links to copyrighted content' is as good a defense as 'I didn't sell drugs, I just administrated a drug selling ring connecting thousands of buyers and sellers'. It won't exonerate you; at best it might put a 'conspiracy to commit' in front of the criminal charges and somewhat reduce their severity, and you'll still be held civilly liable. This isn't unique to the Internet by any means.
As for damages, sure, it's ridiculous to tie a dollar amount to every download and pretend that 1 download = 1 lost sale. Copyright charges tend to start with an extreme and get negotiated down to a fraction of that initial amount.[/QUOTE]
With the caveat that torrenting is not pirating. Silk Road is a different story - any manner of file can be shared with a torrent, it just happened to be pirated content for KAT.
good luck ever catching someone like this again
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50750694]With the caveat that torrenting is not pirating. Silk Road is a different story - any manner of file can be shared with a torrent, it just happened to be pirated content for KAT.[/QUOTE]
It's like saying anything can be sold on a marketplace, it just so happens that on Silk it was drugs. KAT was designed and maintained with piracy in mind. The intent was to use torrent protocol to give easy access to copyrighted material, you can't deny that. The whole purpose of KAT has always been to do that, none of the innocent "but some torrents happen to contain copyrighted content".
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;50750730]good luck ever catching someone like this again[/QUOTE]
Most of them slip up sooner or later
[QUOTE=Van-man;50749629]Not exactly the brightest individual...
Not masking your internet traffic [B]AND [/B]basically broadcasting what you're doing on social media is asking for trouble if there's just the slightest amount of dirt on you, because then it's just a matter of connecting the dots.[/QUOTE]
I think it stems from the fact that he probably didn't ever expect to be fucking extradited! Poland doesn't have the same backwards laws about filesharing as the US that lets corporation get away with anything they like regarding their "intellectual" property.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;50749607]Directly translates to "We don't know how the fuck this torrenting shit works, but we're [B]greedy[/B]."[/QUOTE]
ftfy
[QUOTE=Vizip;50749621]Why are they even claiming he is distrubuting? His website allows anyone to file share so why does he have to take the penalty? The uploader should imo.[/QUOTE]
Because it's a lot harder to find and persecute the uploaders of torrent files. Especially when there are so damn many.
Plus which headline sounds better to you if you were in support of the "War on Pirating"?
"Feds take down creator of popular torrent website responsible for billions of dollars worth of distributed media"
or
"Feds arrest man responsible for sharing origin files worth several hundred thousand dollars of distributed media"
Cool, wonder when Apple will stop using tax havens. You know, something that actually harms society and affects people.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50749684]I guess they only value your privacy when you're a convicted terrorist.[/QUOTE]
Nah, decypher an iPhone and cave in to FBI for an unpleasant precendent, r give info about purchases made from this IP address by order.
I dounno, how this is comparable.
Also, Facebook is in it too, but everything with "Apple" in headline will generate views faster than new pewds video.
So now what, America is gonna drag this Ukrainian to America and put him in a cell there while taking all his money? What's the point?
[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;50751224]Nah, decypher an iPhone and cave in to FBI for an unpleasant precendent, r give info about purchases made from this IP address by order.
I dounno, how this is comparable.
Also, Facebook is in it too, but everything with "Apple" in headline will generate views faster than new pewds video.[/QUOTE]
It's a pretty stupid and clickbait-y title. Apple were served a court order in regards to one iTunes purchase and they had to comply. It's not some attack on privacy or "Apple would rather side with terrorists" like some uninformed people here are describing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
