[quote]"His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice," Caldwell said.[/quote]
This sounds so self righteous it makes me want to vomit.
[editline]22nd July 2016[/editline]
[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]
Just shared documents? You have got to be kidding me, the fact that you judged this guy for doing something "immorally correct" (pretty sure you meant incorrect there, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) and can't seem to distinguish the issue with what Hilary did seems pretty stupid tbh. Sure, Kickass may host a lot of illegal content, but at the same time there's still plenty of legal stuff there as well and the owner didn't necessarily upload this stuff himself to begin with. Hell, them removing one big site changes absolutely nothing when it comes to piracy because people will still do it regardless, it's not something that can be stopped when content is far easier to share nowadays than it used to be thanks to technology. Some companies have understood this and have even encouraged the people who pirated their products to buy it (<3 CDPR), and in some ways piracy actually helps sales in some regard.
There's definitely a transition period going on at the moment where companies are slowly starting to adapt to the changing market, and because of that, you can't compare the awful shit Hilary did to a guy that just happened to host a site that also happens to contain illegal material that he didn't upload himself. Sure, he knew of it, but like any file sharing site, it's always going to be a "problem", if you can even call it that. Because honestly what you define as "immorally correct" is probably the only way someone can even attain that material in some other country that has no access to the product at hand, which is why you can't just go around slapping that label on people's actions. You can't compare someone who hosts a site that supposedly fucks over big companies to someone who put entire lives at risk.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750364]Hillary just shared some documents with the world.[/QUOTE]
Are you even aware of what you just said? Hillary Clinton carelessly compromised the security of a nation. Sharing some porn and music on the internet is virtually nothing compared to what Hillary did.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750364]Hillary just shared some documents with the world.[/QUOTE]
So did everyone on KAT
[QUOTE=gk99;50752221]So did everyone on KAT[/QUOTE]
And nobody compromised national security
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;50752072]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.[/QUOTE]
Yet again using shit like "uninformed" "delusional" etc in place of a real argument
They were ordered to unlock that convicted terrorists phone too and they fought it for weeks
[editline]21st July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50750455]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]
lol yeah guys just a couple government secrets, what's the bfd?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50752428]Yet again using shit like "uninformed" "delusional" etc in place of a real argument
They were ordered to unlock that convicted terrorists phone too and they fought it for weeks[/QUOTE]
Why are you ignoring the actual argument part?
They were ordered to provide information for a purchase and they handed over what is basically [URL="https://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-kickasstorrents-domains-charge-owner-160720/"]"this account made this purchase on this date with this IP"[/URL]. It's standard practice that every company needs to comply to. The San Bernardino case was completely different in that instead of being ordered to provide information they already have through the standard process of warrants and subpoenas, the FBI [URL="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-all-writs-act-1789-has-do-iphone-180958188/?no-ist"]tried invoking a vague law from over 200 years ago[/URL] to force them to develop a backdoor to access a specific user's phone which could have had far-reaching and unprecedented consequences, potentially affecting the privacy of everyone else. These are not at all comparable cases.
They make it pretty clear how they respond to these things: [url]http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/[/url]
dmca has a provision that doesn't hold the owners liable to illegally uploaded content that is uploaded from users if you take it down upon request
which KAT did
he could probably get a decent amount of money countersuing for unlawful imprisonment if he got a good lawyer.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50753312]dmca has a provision that doesn't hold the owners liable to illegally uploaded content that is uploaded from users if you take it down upon request
which KAT did
he could probably get a decent amount of money countersuing for unlawful imprisonment if he got a good lawyer.[/QUOTE]
It's not 'take down upon request = totally innocent'. It's that taking infringing material down upon request demonstrates a good faith effort to avoid hosting illegal material, which under the DMCA constitutes a valid legal defense if a copyright holder takes you to court. It's essentially just a demonstration that you're not trying to host illegal content that the court will take into consideration.
But if you're hosting a website designed from the ground up to host torrents and overwhelmingly hosting illegal file-sharing, that's illegal under the DMCA. Removing content in response to DMCA notices, while other users then re-upload the same content, doesn't look like a good-faith effort to avoid copyright infringement. The whole point of complying with takedown notices is to demonstrate that you're not intentionally hosting illegal content. When a website is built on hosting illegal content and overwhelmingly hosts illegal content that justification seems pretty hollow.
More like: Apple leaks details of their customers.
Now my question is why didn't they help to unlock the iPhone when FBI asked them (a few months ago)?
This bust did little - the site is already back up.
[QUOTE=gk99;50752221]So did everyone on KAT[/QUOTE]
They're not copyrighted as most of the documents were already available through the Freedom of Information Act.
[editline]22nd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=TAU!;50752198]Are you even aware of what you just said? Hillary Clinton carelessly compromised the security of a nation. Sharing some porn and music on the internet is virtually nothing compared to what Hillary did.[/QUOTE]
Sharing copyrighted content is far worse than a government official leaking state secrets of their terrible home email server in the eyes of corporations.
Accessing dead terrorist phones responsible for fourteen innocent people killed? Refuses to budge for the feds, claiming they're doing it for ethical and righteous reasons
Taking down a torrent website who makes them lose revenue? Oh you better believe they're going to do whatever it takes.
Apple is so full of shit.
[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;50749635]And without KAT having existed, people would have stopped pirating altogether and started paying for [B]overpriced, shit movies? Or paying $100/m+ to watch TV[/B] shows through 10 minutes of ads placed conveniently to interrupt the best parts.[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=amute;50754725]Accessing dead terrorist phones responsible for fourteen innocent people killed? Refuses to budge for the feds, claiming they're doing it for ethical and righteous reasons
Taking down a torrent website who makes them lose revenue? Oh you better believe they're going to do whatever it takes.
Apple is so full of shit.[/QUOTE]
That's every company for you, most places are about profit margins. Apple is no exception, if people didn't realize this by now then I don't know if they ever will.
Look at their ecosystem for their systems, everything is proprietary. You cant fix things yourself, you can make minor upgrades yourself. Products are horribly overpriced when it comes to certain things.
I'm not saying they make bad stuff, I'm just saying look at their whole platform and how they sell stuff.
It's no surprise they would help take down a torrent site.
[QUOTE=Talvy;50755066]what[/QUOTE]
Cable is horribly priced even when bundled with other services. The price starts off lower, but every year or after the main promotion is up the prices hike way up. Some PPV is like 65+ dollars, etc. Cable sucks and gets more expensive, but yet it hasn't changed in the last 20 fucking years.
I love how what got him caught was actually paying for music or whatever.
[QUOTE=itsthejayden;50755097]I love how what got him caught was actually paying for music or whatever.[/QUOTE]
"Once a pirate, ALWAYS a pirate" I guess.
[QUOTE=amute;50754725]Accessing dead terrorist phones responsible for fourteen innocent people killed? Refuses to budge for the feds, claiming they're doing it for ethical and righteous reasons
Taking down a torrent website who makes them lose revenue? Oh you better believe they're going to do whatever it takes.
Apple is so full of shit.[/QUOTE]
But in this case it wasn't breaking through the encryption and passcode on the man's personal phone. It was simply just giving out the data on "x was purchased at x time from x ip" and that's it. It wasn't an invasion of privacy this time; it was just sale data that is logged for all purchases.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50754390]It's not 'take down upon request = totally innocent'. It's that taking infringing material down upon request demonstrates a good faith effort to avoid hosting illegal material, which under the DMCA constitutes a valid legal defense if a copyright holder takes you to court. It's essentially just a demonstration that you're not trying to host illegal content that the court will take into consideration.
But if you're hosting a website designed from the ground up to host torrents and overwhelmingly hosting illegal file-sharing, that's illegal under the DMCA. Removing content in response to DMCA notices, while other users then re-upload the same content, doesn't look like a good-faith effort to avoid copyright infringement. The whole point of complying with takedown notices is to demonstrate that you're not intentionally hosting illegal content. When a website is built on hosting illegal content and overwhelmingly hosts illegal content that justification seems pretty hollow.[/QUOTE]
a website designed to host torrents, implying torrents are illegal
as long as they were responding to takedown notices then.....?
especially since they're not actually hosting the illegal content, torrent/magnets are just maps
[QUOTE=Moby-;50754494]This bust did little - the site is already back up.[/QUOTE]
No. Fakes and partial mirrors.
[URL]https://torrentfreak.com/kickasstorrents-mirrors-and-imposters-spring-into-action-160722/[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
