Kickass Torrents' KAT.ph Domain Seized By Philippine Authorities

hypnosec writes "Kickass Torrents hasn't been accessible since sometime yesterday, and now it has been confirmed that the domain name of the torrent website has been seized by Philippine authorities. Local record labels and the Philippine Association of the Recording Industry said that the torrent site was doing 'irreparable damages' to the music industry and following a formal complaint the authorities resorted to seizure of the main domain name. The site hasn't given up, and is operating as usual under a new domain name. The government of the Philippines has confirmed that the domain name has been seized based on formal complaints and copyright grounds."

Comments

You know

[ArchieBunker]

You "editors" could spend all of two minutes to link to the new domain. Or is that too much to ask?

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, since you couldn't be bothered to do it either.

http://kickass.to

Re:You know

[Sean]

Thank you for posting. Any site that has a link taken away from it by any authority should be linked to by everyone in retaliation for the censorship.

The editors should have linked to it in the summary. They should fix the oversight and link to it now.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

> Any site that has a link taken away from it by any authority should be linked to by everyone in retaliation for the censorship. Do you equal taking down a site that is an obvious ali baba cave of illegal material with censorship? Please don't give me the excuse that, if you look long and hard enough you may find a handful of legal torrents on the site.

Re:You know

[girlintraining]

The editors should have linked to it in the summary. They should fix the oversight and link to it now.

The editors are now owned an operated by a corporation. As a corporation they can be sued. As they can be sued, they aren't going to partake of legal action that might jeopardize their profits. This isn't like Digg or a dozen other sites that, upon hearing from their users they had caved to political pressure mounted a massive PR campaign.

The slashdot of years past no longer exists. It won't take the chance anymore. In other news, what I really want to know is why torrent sites aren't going to .onion domains ... which can't be taken down by any government order. As a 'hidden service', they're just a new tor circuit connection away from restarting... no DNS, no jurisdictional issues... not much chance of finding out even where they really are. And the .torrent files and magnet links don't take up much bandwidth, unlike the P2P transfers, which don't involve the site anyway...

I really don't get why they're sticking with blockable technologies... maybe they're just stubborn or trying to prove a point.

Re:You know

[Jonah Hex]

... they weren't seized, at least not according to the blog post 15+ hours before this story appeared on /.

Moving to Kickass.To posted 14 Jun 2013, 14:42 by KickassTorrents

We had to drop Kat.ph as a part of our global maintenance and move to Kickass.to. This was a hard decision, but it was necessary for the further development of KickassTorrents. Stay tuned for more news.

Either way, hasn't screwed with their service, still working great. SickBeard Torrent version might need an update, maybe Couchpotato too. - HEX

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't they using .onion domain websites/urls?

Because they don't work with 99.999% of web browsers installed today.

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

You wont be able to find any illegal content hosted by the site no matter how long and hard you look, what you will find however are .torrent files and magnet links. Big difference but not one I'd expect you to be willing to accept.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Links are not illegal, regardless of whether they are hyperlinks, torrents or magnet links.

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

I should perhaps added that legality is a matter of jurisdiction "in the 2004 case of BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, court decided that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_file_sharing#Canada

Re:You know

[SuricouRaven]

Accessibility. There are some people who pirate for a hobby, who would love any excuse to go cloak-and-dagger. There are also many, many more casual pirates who are just thrifty or lazy. If accessing a torrent site requires spending an hour researching and configuring new technology, they'll just find a different site - or go buy what they want legitimately.

Re:You know

[advocate_one]

already blocked in the UK

Sorry, the web page you have requested is not available through Virgin Media.

Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement.

Re:You know

[Cenan]

Right, and there is no way users would download and install a client in order to continue to pirate stuff? Technologies like torrents, DC++, IRC, ez-news etc. will utterly fail for that one reason.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

If there's no censorship, then there's no such thing as 'illegal material' in regards to information.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Yeah right, it is soo typical if this entitlement generation to find excuses like that. If you accept that the material itself can be illegally acquired by simply clicking the links, what is the issue with taking the site down?

Re:You know

[jersey_emt]

Long and hard. Hah.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

The same could be said of Google. I'm sure Google links to far more objectionable things, and does so more directly. Also, shut the everloving fuck up about 'entitlement.' Asshats like you don't understand that copyright is an exception to the norm of free flow information, It is justified only to the extent that the public benefits, and beyond that, it is an embarrassment to society, as Thomas Jefferson would put it. The current system clearly does not provide a net public benefit, so there is no reason to respect those laws.

Re:You know

[tlambert]

Yeah right, it is soo typical if this entitlement generation to find excuses like that.
If you accept that the material itself can be illegally acquired by simply clicking the links, what is the issue with taking the site down?

If you accept that the drugs can be illegally acquired simply by approaching the undercover cop and offering them money, what is the issue with the sting operation being disbanded?

NB: In case you were wondering, me linking or not linking does not make my site illegal; you clicking or not clicking in a jurisdiction where you clicking would be illegal is an illegal act by YOU, not an illegal act by me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

Yeah right, it is soo typical of this entitlement generation to find excuses like that.

I won't waste time and effort arguing my points with you, not due to my inability to do so nor due to lack of car analogies or all the studies that would blow holes the size of the media industry lies into your arguments, it is all out there for you to find on your own accord. What I will do however, is thank you for kindly lumping me into a generation that is decades younger than I am. What was it that fooled you? It can't be my stunning youthful looks, or... *double checks webcam*

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Oh I ve seen plenty of car analogies, studies etc. My point is, if you don't want to pay for something, then don't just grab it because you can.I think that is unethical. Pecknold has a point. There are however plenty of artists who do not freeload the work of others, I know a few myself, they don't see it as a problem to pay for it when they like it, and none of them are amused if their music is being freeloaded. I don't see an issue with blocking sites or at least pages with those links.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

> The current system clearly does not provide a net public benefit, so there is no reason to respect those laws Well, "dura lex set lex" - should you ever be so unlucky to be fined for downloading say the new Iron Man movie, then I suggest that you find a stronger legal defense than that. There is something to be said for your statement "the current system clearly does not provide a net public benefit", but simply freeloading the result of someone's hard work because you can, is not the answer either. I find it unethical. I don't find it wrong to pay a reasonable price for music, movies or books that interest me. And for those that I don't want to pay the price for, well then I don't download them.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Actually, while of course contrary to the opinion of many slashdotters, this was not meant as flame bait. On a general news site this would not have been modded as such.

Re:You know

[jones_supa]

You wont be able to find any illegal content hosted by the site no matter how long and hard you look, what you will find however are .torrent files and magnet links. Big difference but not one I'd expect you to be willing to accept.

There's no practical difference. You clicky the linky at KickAssTorrents website, warez flows to your computer. My point being, the torrent files and magnet links are the only way to access the illegal content behind them after all. They are essentially a complete description, a virtualization of the files. It's silly to say that a torrent site "does not host the files" because they still make the sharing possible in first place.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

already blocked in the UK

Sorry, the web page you have requested is not available through Virgin Media.

Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement.

Then try one of it's many proxies!

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

Well, "dura lex set lex" - should you ever be so unlucky to be fined for downloading say the new Iron Man movie, then I suggest that you find a stronger legal defense than that.

I'm not making a legal defense. I'm saying that the law itself is bad, and strictly speaking, it doesn't pass a strict Constitutional muster. The law as it stands is clearly following a different philosophy than the only justified one (public benefit), so it should not be respected, and if anything, should be actively defied. Believe it or not, the law can be wrong, and often is. Also, your broken latin phrase doesn't apply, since the law is not harsh, but injust. It is often grossly disproportionate to the extent that there have been Constitutional challenges to statutory damages, and the harshness of the law is a major concern, but the bigger flaw is that it's based in medieval economics, and has no place in the modern world. The relevant terms are themselves quite telling. 'Copyright' originated from the right to copy, back when it conveyed a positive right to make copies, because it was part of a censorship regime in which proliferation of unsanctioned knowledge was forbidden. If you are ignorant on the matter, look up the Stationer's Company. 'Royalties' are another big hint that the system is antiquated, although a number of prominent organizations calling themselves 'guilds' doesn't help the matter much.

simply freeloading the result of someone's hard work because you can, is not the answer either. I find it unethical. I don't find it wrong to pay a reasonable price for music, movies or books that interest me. And for those that I don't want to pay the price for, well then I don't download them.

Sweat of the brow arguments are legally invalid in regards to copyright law, per Feist v. Rural. And ethically, sharing information is generally a good thing, with only a few exceptions. I do no oppose supporting the arts, and I likely have done more towards that end than you have.

You've also thrown out the term 'freeloading,' yet another sign of an incompetent copyright proponent. Are you TRYING to fill up your bingo card on that? I would direct you to read Mark Lemly's paper on the subject.

Re:You know

[jones_supa]

True, and that's why services like Steam make profit so well: they are just convenient enough compared to the piracy route.

Re:You know

[flayzernax]

Define hard work. Define ownership. IP law does neither. It defines means for which corporations can abuse either case. It has been proven time and again in history and argued for and against. The experiment has run. And what we currently have now is what is causing the "hobbyist abuses".

We, upstanding, law abiding, participating citizens of whatever countries you live in are not responsible for the current state of affairs in regards to this issue.

We did not create the utter lack of respect for human creativity and dignity. For commerce and free trade. For sharing distribution networks. No we monetized it. Created slavery. And pyramid schemes.

For that we will all pay. And it is our DUTY to voice our opinion. It is best to do it by pointing out the problems and disobeying authority until we change the status quo. Were long past ignoring it and trying to hope some politician will voice our will.

The end result will still allow people to earn money for creative work. But it will not be in the hands of the few. It will end up in the hands of the many. This is not your choice to inflict on all of humanity. We do not agree to your terms of service.

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:D9CEF4512E84CA5F2D824CBA0318363F92071DD2&dn=the+pirate+bay+away+from+keyboard+2013+720p+brrip+x264+yify&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publichd.eu%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337

See what I did there?

Re:You know

[nospam007]

Camembert (2891457)
'Yeah right, it is soo typical of this entitlement generation to find excuses like that. '

Please cease and desist from using the Camembert name.
Camembert was granted a protected designation of origin in 1992 after the original AOC in 1983.
If you're not in Normandy, France and a Cheese, you are not entitled to that name even if you're old enough to be a bit runny. It's a copyright violation.

Re:You know

[mwvdlee]

1560 hits to, presumably, mostly illegal torrent files, as found by Google and directly linked to the .torrent file:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=rick%20astley%20filetype%3Atorrent

Big nasty illegal downloading site: 61 hits, presumably a small subset of what Google finds.
http://kickass.to/usearch/rick%20astley/

Neither site hosts the actual .torrent files.

Please explain why one should be considered illegal and the other not?

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Touché. But my feet smell like the cheese.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Yes, I agree that sharing information is generally a good thing. However it is not like most books or music or movies are not available or priced out of range. I have no problem with paying a reasonable sum for my entertainment, rewarding the creators. Re: freeloading... it is just a word, you get my gist.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

All artists 'freeload', as do all people. The only way you would know someone who doesn't freeload would be if they are someone who was raised by wolves and continues to live in such a state. The good news is that there's nothing wrong with freeloading on information, as it is inexhaustible. That's very important, because freeloading off of the last few millennia of accomplishments of humanity is vital to human success. If you think freeloading is immoral, live alone in the woods without any technology, don't use language, medicine, or knowledge that you didn't gain from firsthand experience. Or just pull your head out of your ass, since you didn't even come up with your idiotic notion of morality yourself.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

You can pay a reasonable sum to authors without copyright. In fact, absent copyright, authors generally got considerably more reasonably sums. Perhaps the top authors wouldn't get as handsome a return, but they would still get enough to make it worth their while in virtually all cases. The benefit of the copyright system is mostly for publishers, to the detriment of the public and often, authors.

However, even if this wasn't the case, the only thing that matters in copyright policy is the benefits the public gets out of it. They waive their freedom to copy, share and use works for a short while in order to have more works to copy, share and use. Balancing these two public interests is the only legitimate consideration in copyright policy. The only reason to be concerned for the welfare of authors is in regards to their output. Copyright is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. People who lose sight of this are dangerous and destructive forces against human progress.

Re: freeloading... it is just a word, you get my gist.

The particular word doesn't matter. You'd be only slightly less of an idiot if you were complaining about free riders. The problem is that your underlying economic argument is deeply flawed and throughly debunked.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

OK, I didn't use the proper word, apologies. And, I do agree with everything that you state (except the "ass" part, I prefer to stay out of insult mode). However, I also think that it is correct to reward creators for their works, instead of just grabbing it because you can. Do you really think that this is an idiotic notion? Would you be happy, in the name of free access to information, if your own salary would be halved because some people would simply grab the fruit of your work (assuming that you didn't GPL it etc)? I personally know a music producer who had an average income by local standards. With the rise in filesharing his income is in essence halved, and he also experiences much smaller budgets (meaning time mainly) to work on a recording to get it just right. Is this fair in the name of information access? I suspect that he doesn't think so.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

not to nit pick, but there is NO difference between the site being privately own, and having some corporate douches that own a site. if you notice the BIG MEDIA monopolies go after any and everyone regardless of who runs, and controls, what, unless of course they own the site themselves in which case they would take it down or prevent any SOPA, and the like news, and news over patent and copyright trolls.

It is fail to see your point in trying to stand up for lazy editing, event tho a lot of the stories are contributed from users, it is there job to check the story and find links. Yes others could do it using Gaagle, or Ding, but with them kissing BIG MEDIAS ass it may not show up.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

The heart of the problem is that you are trying to make money from the 'fruit' of the labor instead of the labor itself. The fruit is intangible, and as I've said before, is not a valid legal theory in regards to copyright. If you bring up the fruit of your labor or the sweat of the brow, you are using invalid arguments. As for the music producer, I'd say that a far bigger factor in his income would be the lowering of the barrier to entry. Home recordings are much more viable these days, so there are more people competing in the same territory . Furthermore, he's competing on more of a global scale, so while, if he plays his cards right, he can reach much wider audiences, he also faces far greater competition.

Would you be happy, in the name of free access to information, if your own salary would be halved because some people would simply grab the fruit of your work (assuming that you didn't GPL it etc)?

I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with it. It's also bad taste to try and make the argument a personal one. Many industries have suffered far worse things due to progress, but those that stand in the way of that progress are Luddites. You've talked about entitlements, but it is people like you that think that someone is entitled to make a living in a particular field. That's not true. You can be the greatest buggy whip maker in the world, but that doesn't mean the world owes you a salary. If the niche you fill disappears. you adapt or you die.

Re:You know

[Rockoon]

Please explain why one should be considered illegal and the other not?

He wont because he doesnt understand the technology. He doesnt understand that a torrent file is about 12KB in size and contains absolutely nothing even remotely illegal.

Re:You know

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What? Someone linked to the site directly above. /. staff do have the ability to remove posts and as such are every bit as liable for links in the comments as for links in the summary.

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

And I have friends who make a living as touring musicians earning there livelihood on the sales of the tickets plus CD's, t-shirts etc sold at the venue. Do they get upset if someone download their music? No. I know that they don't. They value the promotional value of every new listener as being someone that one day might come and listen to their live performances and pay for the privilege to do so. You know that obscure way which used to be the primary source of income for musicians since the beginning of time. Regarding sales of CD's at the venue, Einstürzende Neubaten have a very clever approach to it. At the end of each performance you can buy a DRM free USB with the concert you just listened to on it, if I recall correctly I paid 25€ for mine a couple of years ago.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

I know that some musicians don't mind, and some do mind. I also think that when you create something, it is your right to ask money for it or not.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it your freeloaders that halved his income, or the fact that he is one in an internet-full of people willing to make music at the same level that he is capable.

The internet has both increased the ease of copying; and massively increased the capability for people to release their works for a fair price. Unfortunately; I believe we have hit a point where so many people are willing to work; the "going rate" has effectively become zero. Because there are so many people creating; that no one is worth anything.

We have an oversupply of artists. And thus; those artists that aren't godlike (or don't get godlike advertising budgets) get paid fuck all.

Thank god there isn't an oversupply of people doing my job. And thank god the fruits of my labor can't be taken for free, because I make unique things. People can steal my website for a company that sells Wingdings with the label "WINGDINGS-R-US" as many times as they want; but unless they are trying to start a company called: "WINGDINGS-R-US" they still have to get me (or someone like me) to change it to suit their needs.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

So you admit to infringement in both name and olfactory domains?

Re:You know

[Camembert]

I accept the difference between the fruit and the labor itself. I also think that it is ok for a creator to ask money for his fruit or not; or not to mind spreading it without compensation or not wanting that to happen without income. I think that where can can both agree is that a more balanced copyright system would be welcome, but in my opinion that is not the same as "everything that is technically possible, is allowed". Regarding my producer friend, I can assure you that it is not the home recordings or the global scale that halved his income. I will not make the foolish music label argument that every free download is a lost sale, but definitely some of them are. The personal argument was meant as an illustration, my producer friend's example is more telling. One more example is another friend, a midlist author of YA novels. She makes some money with her books, being translated in a number of languages, it is not enough for her household but essential. She doesn't like the idea of people distributing her work on the internet without her getting compensation. Some writers are happy to be read at all and that is fine by me, I also think that it is her right to expect income if people read her books. I don't think that your buggy whip maker/niche argument applies here. Because you wouldn't want them even if free. Literature, film and music are not obsolete niche crafts. It's only that technology makes the spreading of it easier.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

(sorry first replied in the wrong place) I know that some musicians don't mind, and some do mind. I also think that when you create something, it is your right to ask money for it or not.

Re:You know

[TheP4st]

I also think that when you create something, it is your right to ask money for it or not.

I think you would have a hard time to find anyone here that dispute that, but creating something does not make you entitled to dictate what people do with it after they have paid for it.

On a side note, I think that I should be entitled to a refund on the 23.60€ (+30€ for drinks and snacks) I paid for myself and my wife to watch Star Trek last night as it utterly failed to deliver the experience I expect from Star Trek. /toungue in cheek

Re:You know

[jones_supa]

Someone still has to index the magnet links. There wouldn't be nearly as much piracy torrent traffic (and thus seeders) if we just threw around random magnet links on forums.

Re:You know

[jafiwam]

You wont be able to find any illegal content hosted by the site no matter how long and hard you look, what you will find however are .torrent files and magnet links. Big difference but not one I'd expect you to be willing to accept.

While technically true. KAT.ph has served up malicious malware-infecting ads and solicitations for what are obviously scams for a long time. It's not like they are saints.

That said it was a good site.... I am not going to bother with the "alternative" domains, those sites always go down shortly afterwards anyway.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

he didnt say so

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

I accept the difference between the fruit and the labor itself. I also think that it is ok for a creator to ask money for his fruit or not; or not to mind spreading it without compensation or not wanting that to happen without income.

And there's strike three. 'Compensation' is a term that doesn't make sense in this context. File sharers are sharing amongst themselves, so there is no new labor and no new product. There is nothing be compensated for because there is nothing lost with additional transactions. It has nothing to do with them, so why should they have a say in the matter? You are exposing yourself as someone who can just parrot a bunch of sound byte talking points. If you don't show signs of rational thought soon, I'm done wasting my time with you.

Regarding my producer friend, I can assure you that it is not the home recordings or the global scale that halved his income.

And I can assure you with equal validity that it was the result of the Reptilian Illuminati thwarting him because he is too close to exposing their web of lies. I can also assure you, again with the same validity of your statement, that it's the result of the Tohoku earthquake.

One more example is another friend, a midlist author of YA novels. She makes some money with her books, being translated in a number of languages, it is not enough for her household but essential. She doesn't like the idea of people distributing her work on the internet without her getting compensation.

She can not like it all that she wants, but that doesn't change anything. Realistically, your friend has a far greater enemy in obscurity than filesharing.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how it works. If he is a cheese, but not from Normandy, France, then he can't use the name "Camembert de Normandie". If he is not a cheese, his location doesn't matter, and the name Camembert alone isn't infringing either. (This is not legal advice, see a lawyer if you're into that sort of thing.)

Re:You know

[quenda]

Camembert was granted a protected designation of origin in 1992 after the original AOC in 1983. It's a copyright violation.

It's only a matter of time before the Germans catch on to this, and McDonalds are forced to sell "American beef-byproduct sandwiches" instead of hamburgers.
That is until the British lay claim trademark rights on that.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

Yes, I understand that, mathematically there is "nothing lost with additional transactions". But, I think that we both agree there are some sales lost, some people would have bought the work if they couldn't get their hands on them for free. Probably a minority of sharers, but still. By the way some of your arguments did sound parotted as well, but at least I didn't mind too much... I will go back to my 2 friends now. One cannot say that their work is priced out ridiculously high, a song on itunes etc costs peanuts, and her paperback or kindle books are well within reach of everyone. You cannot say that the way these works are priced is a bad service for the public or for general culture. We could have another discussion that such works are priced out of reach in poor countries (I fully agree), forming a barrier there. But that is not this discussion. The way I see it: my musician producer friend always has his finger on the pulse so to speak, and he makes a kind of commercial music that is popular amongst clubbing teenagers (and it gives me a headache). He is quite respected with doing work for in essence all the major labels. Yet, for no other reason than the sharing, his income is significantly lower these days. It is not as if he lost his touch or that the labels have dropped him. Regarding my writer friend, she is a practical woman, I expect she'll prefer bread on the table now rather than possible fame in the long run. She in fact will not go obscure soon, her books get consistently good reviews. I can well imagine that teenagers on their weekly allotment, will say: I just grab that music and that YA novel for free so I have more money for things of which I cannot get a copy of for free, like buying new fashion things. That is what happens. I don't think it is the right thing to do. Anyway, thanks for this interesting discussion even it seems to heighten your blood pressure in moments :-)

Re:You know

[ultranova]

Yeah right, it is soo typical of this entitlement generation to find excuses like that.

It's not a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of freedom. I am, by default, free to do anything I want - in this case look at what I want and tell other people about it. It's those who want to limit this default freedom in a particular case who need to come up with a reason. It is they who are claiming an entitlement for wielding power over me, not me.

If you accept that the material itself can be illegally acquired by simply clicking the links, what is the issue with taking the site down?

The issue is that exercising power over the site owners and users needs a better justification than helping media company profits.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

Yes, I understand that, mathematically there is "nothing lost with additional transactions". But, I think that we both agree there are some sales lost, some people would have bought the work if they couldn't get their hands on them for free. Probably a minority of sharers, but still.

That's not relevant. A hypothetical where they could have made more money doesn't mean that they've lost money. There is no product loss and no additional expenditure or time, therefore there is no loss to be compensated for. The same kinds of losses happen when another business is in the same market and has a product that is in some ways superior, but we call that competition, and generally regard it as a good thing.

One cannot say that their work is priced out ridiculously high, a song on itunes etc costs peanuts, and her paperback or kindle books are well within reach of everyone. You cannot say that the way these works are priced is a bad service for the public or for general culture.

Whether or not a price is good or not is relative to a number of factors too numerous to list. One of the simplest of which being that the price is disproportionate to the quality. It's not unlikely, given that Sturgeon's law pretty much applies to every medium and genre.

The way I see it: my musician producer friend always has his finger on the pulse so to speak, and he makes a kind of commercial music that is popular amongst clubbing teenagers (and it gives me a headache). He is quite respected with doing work for in essence all the major labels.

That might be a key right there. The changes in environment have been a major competitive disadvantage to major labels. They generally employ more or less brute force techniques, which are less effective in this environment. However, their loss has been largely a gain for independent labels and self produced musicians. Another factor might be that the model of selling CDs has gone out of fashion. Major label commercial music had one or two songs, maybe three per album that sold the 12 songs on the CD to 98% of the audience. With iTunes and the like, artists that don't produce an entire album's worth of worthwhile material are only making money off of the singles, so the income is something like a fifth of what it would be otherwise. Cutting the cruft means that there is less fat, and there is less fat on his plate.

Regarding my writer friend, she is a practical woman, I expect she'll prefer bread on the table now rather than possible fame in the long run. She in fact will not go obscure soon, her books get consistently good reviews.

Obscure is relative. Unless your friend's last name is Rowling or Meyer, then filesharing is not hurting her. Those are the people that there's some degree of evidence that she's affected by. For basically everyone else, being popular on filesharing translates to very few lost sales, and a large number of sales gained by greater notoriety.

I don't think it is the right thing to do.

Again, that's not relevant. You can think a number of things are right or wrong to do, but that doesn't matter. And again, you make it about the authors, which is a mistake. Copyright law cares fuck all about the authors. The reason to be concerned is if the creative output or quality falls, which we've seen no indication of.

Re:You know

[JRowe47]

That's because general news sites don't have slashdotters with brains modding your ridiculous assertions. I think /. does a good job sifting the rational from the kneejerk responses that you're displaying.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Any more I only seem to torrent things that I already own. Often it is faster to just download an 'illegal' copy than to find the disk in a box somewhere. Other times I opt to just re-buy via steam. If they sold movies and mainstream software I would re-buy those too.

The only time that it at all becomes morally ambiguous for me is when I download something that is cracked merely because the proper version does not work as expected. It is against the law to do so, but then again shouldn't selling a license to something that does not work as advertised also be illegal?

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

> KAT.ph has served up malicious malware-infecting ads and solicitations for what are obviously scams for a long time

Did it? Thank fuck for Noscript / Adblock and so on. Of course, I only enabled them altruistically so that the owners of the kat.* domains couldn't be accused of profiting from my traffic.

Re:You know

[jones_supa]

Any more I only seem to torrent things that I already own. Often it is faster to just download an 'illegal' copy than to find the disk in a box somewhere.

I know what you mean. I have downloaded albums which I own due to it being easier than going to my CD archives and ripping the original. With software though, ain't you scared of malware?

Re:You know

[MysteriousPreacher]

I'm just not seeing causation in your story.

1) Is this broadly representative of the record business, or is it like my arguing for lower pensions across the board by citing the example of some rich London pensioner who lives in a palace and has loads of dogs?

2) Really, all of this decline is due to file sharing? Nothing else happening there? Is he reliant on a segment of the market that's being disproportionately affected by file sharing? Is he a drinker? Is he almost entirely focussed on disco music, and for some odd reason has seen his revenues steadily decline since the 80s? How about 9/11? Oddly enough my income in the IT industry has more than doubled since 9/11. Thanks, Osama!

I agree with you that creators should be allowed to assert control over their works (for a way shorter time period than we currently see). I just think your story of this producer is a bit "my cousin Billy said..."

Re:You know

[LocalH]

Copyright, in its current form, is entitlement. Many people infringe nowadays as "revenge" against media conglomerates who want to lock up our culture.

Re:You know

[girlintraining]

... it doesn't pass a strict Constitutional muster.

Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.

The law as it stands is clearly following a different philosophy than the only justified one...

"The only justified one" mandate is not listed in the Constitution. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out?

Believe it or not, the law can be wrong, and often is.

Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences. Well, I disagree with the speed limit down my road... it's not in the "public's benefit", as I'm the public, and I see no benefit in it. VRRRRRrooooom!

Also, your broken latin phrase doesn't apply, since the law is not harsh, but injust.

This just in: Fining Grandma a couple hundred grand, stealing away her retirement fund, and shoving her into the street over circumstantial evidence she may have downloaded a single song is not harsh.

but the bigger flaw is that it's based in medieval economics, and has no place in the modern world.

So we have a complex marble-cake system of Demesne, feudal lords, and serfdom, and more urgently: We don't have taxes to worry about, just as long as we produce at least one son for the military? Or... perhaps, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about and are going for emotional rhetoric.

'Copyright' originated from the right to copy, back when it conveyed a positive right to make copies, because it was part of a censorship regime in which proliferation of unsanctioned knowledge was forbidden.

The term "asshat" originated from the two root words, ass, which refers to a donkey, and hat, an ornamental head wear. Therefore, to call someone an "asshat" means they are a hat-wearing donkey. When the king hears of your blaspheme, it'll be off with your head.

Sweat of the brow arguments are legally invalid in regards to copyright law, per Feist v. Rural

Amazing. First "the law can be wrong, and often is", so I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find your rhetoric including an argument about the legitimacy of the law. Perhaps it's only certain laws we should follow. You know, like a law buffet. Just put on your plate what looks tasty and ignore the rest.

And ethically, sharing information is generally a good thing, with only a few exceptions. I do no oppose supporting the arts, and I likely have done more towards that end than you have.

Well, as I have done more than just "support" the arts, but actually been the starving artist, I do oppose the arts... unless of course you're going into them either because you're gay, or really really want to piss off your parents. Otherwise, get a real job -- there's no money in art. Okay, maybe I don't oppose it per-se, but let's just say don't quit your day job, mmm?

And as for sharing information; I suppose now's a bad time to point out that information comes in more than two varieties (one and zero)... and amazingly, different kinds of information has different value. You can't abstract so far away from what it represents to say it's just "information"... This is a false equivocation in the extreme.

ou've also thrown out the term 'freeloading,' yet another sign of an incompetent copyright propone

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

Read comments, scan the files, and make sure the uploader has a good reputation. Doing those three things make it highly unlikely that you'll get malware.

Re:You know

[cffrost]

Please don't give me the excuse that, if you look long and hard enough you may find a handful of legal torrents on the site.

I'm not sure what an "illegal" torrent is, but you might be interested in this: Law and Order SVU S14E24 720p HDTV X264-DIMENSION

Re:You know

[coId fjord]

Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.

Ah, the catch-all argument that the government loves using so they can feel justified in doing just about anything they want with regards to such matters. That said, the constitution does say "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," so if that's not happening, something is indeed wrong.

Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences.

That part just seems like a straw man.

Re:You know

[Maxo-Texas]

You didn't even mention youtube. Massive infringement there.

But that's owned by the big boys and they are trying to figure out a way to monetize it so infringement is okay.

Of course youtube also has a TON of legal useful files.

It's sad but I think the end is coming for torrents, the internet, etc. Less than a decade most likely.

You kids will be back to sneakernet and small private sites.

Re:You know

[Camembert]

It is also typical for this site to be very aggressive towards those that think differently.

Re:You know

[Jane Q. Public]

"What? Someone linked to the site directly above. /. staff do have the ability to remove posts and as such are every bit as liable for links in the comments as for links in the summary."

No, they aren't. This reflects ignorance of how the law in the US actually works. (No insult intended. A great many people don't know how it works.)

First, the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA -- the only good provisions in the DMCA -- free them from liability from any content uploaded by their users... as long as they don't mess with that content.

Another important legal precedent says that if they DO mess with that content, including editing, censoring, or even top-down moderation, then they DO become liable for that content. Because then they are controlling that content, and if they control it they become liable for it. (Question: if you remove one "illegal" post but not another, why would you NOT be responsible for leaving that other post up? The law says you are. You made a choice.)

There is an exception: if a DMCA take-down request comes from an outside party, then they may be obligated to take down that post. That's one of the many BAD provisions of the DMCA, because it imposes a sort of "prior restraint": forcing people to act before there is any proof or court determination of illegal conduct.

So the upshot is: except for stupid parts of the DMCA (that is to say, most of it), they are far better off just leaving content alone, and not trying to censor it. They stand a much lower chance of running into legal difficulties.

Re:You know

[gothzilla]

Why do they even bother with domain names anymore? Wouldn't it be easier at this point to just get an easy to remember IP address?

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because one of these sites works for the NSA safeguarding America from terrorists, while the other is a bunch of brown-skinned nerds who probably hate us for our freedoms like all the other terrorists."

Yeah, it'll get phrased more eloquently, but that's the gist of it.

Re:You know

[Kjella]

It doesn't take a PhD to use the TOR Browser bundle, you could also direct users to a TOR gateway service like onion.to if you only care about protecting the anonymity of the site. I think the main reason it's not happening is because the current whack-a-mole game is not working very well. Search for any popular item + torrent on Google and you'll find plenty sites, public torrents usually refer to many independent trackers and on top of that there's trackerless peer exchange. It doesn't really matter where you get the torrent/magnet link, you'll be part of the same swarm. They can't win unless they shut down that down and if they shut that down moving the torrent sites to TOR wouldn't help.

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, what I really want to know is why torrent sites aren't going to .onion domains ... which can't be taken down by any government order. As a 'hidden service', they're just a new tor circuit connection away from restarting... no DNS, no jurisdictional issues... not much chance of finding out even where they really are. And the .torrent files and magnet links don't take up much bandwidth, unlike the P2P transfers, which don't involve the site anyway...

I've been wondering about that too. Its completely bizarre that torrents are stored on a site which has an IP address that can be tracked, and 'taken down'. You could have 100 torrents stegenographically embedded in a music video that you send out every week. You could upload 20 videos per week, and one of them has torrents embedded. The videos get taken down at the end of the week, and the next week a site has the word 'fred' which means the video titled fred is the one. All the torrents are already downloaded and just need to be decoded locally. The word 'fred' can also be sent in an email. You could also bypass the word and just try to decode all the videos and see if checksummed torrents pop out. There are 1000 other ways to send thousands of torrents every week, these ideas are just off the top. You could send a single word via tor or a million other ways. I have every expectation that there are a number of sites already doing this.

Re:You know

[Sean]

I don't care what it's hosting. Censorship of any kind is unacceptable.

Re:You know

[Sean]

Count me as one. I view sending any money to that industry as an immoral act. I believe the world would be a better place without them. I'd rather no one watch or listen to their output at all, but if it's going to be consumed I'd much rather it be pirated than purchased.

Re:You know

[king neckbeard]

Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.

No, copyright is not covered under the commerce clause. If it were, then Sonny Bono could have legitimately gotten his wish of explicitly eternal copyright.

"The only justified one" mandate is not listed in the Constitution. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out?

I'd love to: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It's so firmly entrenched as the reason, that the promotion of progress is the actual power given to congress, with copyright being simply the means of doing so.

Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences. Well, I disagree with the speed limit down my road... it's not in the "public's benefit", as I'm the public, and I see no benefit in it. VRRRRRrooooom!

Strawman argument. Also, other Congressional powers are not as strictly bound as copyright. That's why, for example, trademarks can last forever, while copyrights can not.

Amazing. First "the law can be wrong, and often is", so I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find your rhetoric including an argument about the legitimacy of the law. Perhaps it's only certain laws we should follow. You know, like a law buffet. Just put on your plate what looks tasty and ignore the rest.

Yes, certain laws are valid and certain laws are invalid. One of the Supreme Court's roles is to assess whether those laws are valid in regards to their Constitutionality, although a law can be Constitutional and still unjust. Exercise of a power not given is as blatantly illegitimate as a legal process can be. In regards to the legal theory of copyright as rooted in labor, this has been correctly ruled as not within the bounds of copyright law.

Well, as I have done more than just "support" the arts, but actually been the starving artist, I do oppose the arts... unless of course you're going into them either because you're gay, or really really want to piss off your parents. Otherwise, get a real job -- there's no money in art. Okay, maybe I don't oppose it per-se, but let's just say don't quit your day job, mmm?

As have I, although I still have my day job as well.

And as for sharing information; I suppose now's a bad time to point out that information comes in more than two varieties (one and zero)... and amazingly, different kinds of information has different value. You can't abstract so far away from what it represents to say it's just "information"... This is a false equivocation in the extreme.

I see no point in differentiation relevant to this argument. Sharing music is good. Sharing knowledge is good. Sharing visual art is good. Sharing film is good. There are some exceptions, such as privacy, but they are completely unrelated to copyright. Sharing copyrighted works is itself good. The justification for limiting such sharing is that it will ultimately lead to having more or better works to share. If that fails to pan out, then this exception is not justified.

So we have a complex marble-cake system of Demesne, feudal lords, and serfdom, and more urgently: We don't have taxes to worry about, just as long as we produce at least one son for the military? Or... perhaps, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about and are going for emotional rhetoric.

No, we had a system of censorship and cronyism that was slightly modified for a nominally benevolent cause. It's pretty well established fact that this was the purpose of the Stationer's Company's

Re:You know

[chipschap]

Yes, I understand that, mathematically there is "nothing lost with additional transactions". But, I think that we both agree there are some sales lost, some people would have bought the work if they couldn't get their hands on them for free.

I don't know what the studies show on this (it's kind of hard to find an unbiased study), but I would guess just offhand that the number of truly lost sales due to downloading and downloading alone are small. High prices (relative to what a person can afford) cause lost sales (and possible acquisition by downloading). (Ridiculous DRM restrictions also cause some lost sales. I won't buy iTunes stuff for this reason.)

How many people do you know say they'd love to buy X or Y but they just can't afford it? I am not saying that makes downloading "right" but I am saying that this isn't a true "lost sale" due to downloading. I think music industry prices and policies cause many more lost sales than simple illegal downloads. They are their own worst enemies by far.

Re:You know

[Paperweight]

There must be plenty of .onion torrent indexers, not that I've checked because you can still access all the largest indexes quickly and easily with DNS.

They're just playing a game of whack-a-mole.

Re:You know

[darkfeline]

By your logic, the Internet is illegal, since you can access all manner of illegal content in as few as three clicks. Hell, illegal pron viruses sometimes flows to your computer without you even doing anything.

Heck, by your logic, people are illegal because they enable piracy. We should ban those annoying buggers.

Re:You know

[Sabriel]

Possibly a dumb question, but does that mean any site that removes spam or has a profanity filter becomes liable?

Re:You know

[Anonymous Coward]

if i wasn't too lazy to log in, i would plus you

Re:You know

[Jane Q. Public]

"Possibly a dumb question, but does that mean any site that removes spam or has a profanity filter becomes liable?"

That's not dumb at all, it's actually a pretty good question. I don't know for sure but I don't think that has really been established yet.

But we do have a general legal precedent that says if you attempt to control the content, you assume liability for it. And it's actually a pretty reasonable concept, if you think about it.

Re:You know

[DRJlaw]

No, they aren't. This reflects ignorance of how the law in the US actually works. (No insult intended. A great many people don't know how it works.)

First, the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA -- the only good provisions in the DMCA -- free them from liability from any content uploaded by their users... as long as they don't mess with that content.

Another important legal precedent says that if they DO mess with that content, including editing, censoring, or even top-down moderation, then they DO become liable for that content. Because then they are controlling that content, and if they control it they become liable for it. (Question: if you remove one "illegal" post but not another, why would you NOT be responsible for leaving that other post up? The law says you are. You made a choice.)

A great many people don't know how it works, including you.

The Communications Decency Act provides a safe harbor for editing/moderation. The section 230 immunities include an immunity for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." This section 230(c) immunity has been interpreted by the courts to include essentially any editing decision short of creating content.

Thus, if a service provides choses to "mess" with content, they will not automatically become liable for that content. Instead, they are only potentially liable for any content that they might add. When you combine that with various exceptions to the DMCA user-generated content safe harbor, most particularly "red flag" knowledge of infringement, most service providers have an incentive to moderate. They are usually not obligated to do so because proving that they knew that content was infringing is difficult, but they certainly are not biased toward leaving user-generated content "as is" in order to avoid liability.

New Domain

[cffrost]

http://kickass.to/

No https yet.

Re:New Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

LATEST SEARCHES

1. Donald Fagen

2. Games of Thrones, Season 3, Episode 4

3. Porno

Not sure whether Donald would be pleased that he outranks porno...

Re:New Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks best site in Asia

Re:New Domain

[cffrost]

For anyone who just want the encryption https provides, you can enter https manually and accept the "wrong domain" warning; I've done so, and confirmed that the kay.ph certificate is compatible.

KAT has been pretty diligent about their certs, so they should have one for .to soon.

Re:New Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks man I'am a very big fan of torrent traffic and this domain makes it a lot more at a glance to my find.
"take what u can and instanly leave no trace behind and vanish like the wind" it's a harsh world for the poor toys

Re:New Domain

[Ubi_NL]

Tis is great, Ive never heard of this site untill now. As our local riaa branch cut me off from the pirate bay, this place is brilliant! Thanks MPAA!

Re:New Domain

[Inda]

Blocked in the UK. Oh no. The legal system in the UK is too strong to handle. Whatever will we do?

http://kickassproxy.info/

Censorship bitch.

Re:New Domain

[jones_supa]

There is always some proxy site found to access TPB anyway.

Re:New Domain

[Ubi_NL]

yeah but they are ridden with porn popups, to such an extend that they are actually unusable on ipad

You're just going to make DNS obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS is one of the few old protocols still in use, but it's not irreplaceable. If you keep pissing of the people who grew up breathing the internet, they'll make sure that you'll have no say in whatever replaces DNS.

Re:You're just going to make DNS obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Steven Hyde?

Re:You're just going to make DNS obsolete

[Osgeld]

few? really?

ok chief

Re:You're just going to make DNS obsolete

[Cenan]

tcp, ip, http, https, ftp, smtp.... you get the picture?

Re:You're just going to make DNS obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

And it runs on WATER, man!

Interesting

[dido]

The .PH domain administrator, a certain fellow named Joel Disini whom I once met several years ago, has been known to have treated the domain as his proprietary interest. He has vigorously resisted several efforts over the years to redelegate the domain to the agencies of the Philippine government and other interested organisations, ever since it was granted to him by Jon Postel in 1990, and he has taken a dim view of attempts to control the registry ever since, so I wonder what might have gone down behind the scenes to make this happen.

Re:Interesting

[ArcadeMan]

They just went over his head? It doesn't matter if the guy was listed as the domain administrator or not, the real control is at the DNS servers themselves.

Re:Interesting

[Jonah Hex]

I posted this earlier but it's buried, looks like no one else caught it though and it relates to your post:

... they weren't seized, at least not according to the blog post 15+ hours before this story appeared on /.

Moving to Kickass.To posted 14 Jun 2013, 14:42 by KickassTorrents

We had to drop Kat.ph as a part of our global maintenance and move to Kickass.to. This was a hard decision, but it was necessary for the further development of KickassTorrents. Stay tuned for more news.

Maybe they gave it up and the Government are now taking credit for it after the fact. Either way, hasn't screwed with their service, still working great. SickBeard Torrent version might need an update, maybe Couchpotato too. - HEX

The damage must be incalculable

[mwvdlee]

Well... actually it's is calculable: https://www.dot.ph/services

Re:The damage must be incalculable

[ArcadeMan]

Wait their currency is actually called... "PHP"? O.o

Re:The damage must be incalculable

[Jherek Carnelian]

Wait their currency is actually called... "PHP"? O.o

And their terrorists are MILFs.

This is getting annoying, let's go to Tor

[fa2k]

For someone who just needs a torrent every 3 months or so, this cat-and-mouse game quite annoying. How about making a Tor hidden service for things like thepiratebay, just like the silk road? ( https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en ). I am wary of suggesting it, because it will turn the powerful media lobby against Tor, but someone is going to have a fit about Tor sooner or later anyway. In fact, Tor is quite extreme, because it allows hosting of *anything* without any possibility for censorship. Most people (excluding me of course) would want to be able to censor some kinds of (more or less extreme) information, be it porn, exploits, national secrets or copyrighted material.

Culture

[VicRS]

Nobody could tell this wasn`t over, maybe a change in labels revenue could be lot more effective. If that don't work, let's shift it to a local brazilian search of acompanhantes sp, sao paulo for a least some cool moments away from music.

Re:Culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes could do just better http://booksp.com.br/ acompanhantes sp

It Would Be Great Fun...

[rally2xs]

...to see such magic that everyone who acquires something of value against the wishes of those that created the value go directly to jail for, say, 90 days. Don't want to pay for movies or music? Then make your own. Oh, wait, whats that? You're a talentless slug that can't find middle C on any instrument? Well... that's the point - you pay people who know things and can do things to do them for your benefit.

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[ArcadeMan]

You must work for the industry for suggesting something as stupid.
1. You're asking the government to waste an average of USD$5887 to incarcerate someone for 90 days
2. 90 days is extreme for something like copyright infringement
3. The real losses are nowhere near what the MPAA and RIAA wants you to believe. If they can sell a song for 99 cents then the actual damage for downloading a song is 99 cents, not thousands of dollars. You really need to watch this and get back to reality.

Insane people like you are the reason why the USA is in rapid decline and under so much debt.

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[coId fjord]

3. The real losses are nowhere near what the MPAA and RIAA wants you to believe. If they can sell a song for 99 cents then the actual damage for downloading a song is 99 cents

Actually, copyright infringement causes no real losses; all it does is cause someone to not gain something, and even that is not certain. Yes, it is not even certain that copyright infringement causes someone to not gain money, and that is because it is also not certain that the person would have purchased the product if he/she could not download it.

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[ArcadeMan]

Well, yeah, we can debate wether or not there is actual losses because there's a lot of "IFs" involved, but if we take for granted that there IS losses, it should be the same as the sticker price. In the case of songs, it's an average of 99 cents on almost all Internet music stores.

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[rally2xs]

Music industry? I don't have a thing to do with the music industry, beyond being an occasional customer. Naw, I'm just some guy that had parents that taught him that stealing is WRONG, and should be punsished. And 90 days would be insanely light punishment for STEALING - should be more like 1 - 5 in the state pen. But between that, and having my car broken into by thieves so many times I lost track, and losing 10's of 1000's of dollars of tools, ham radios, CB radios, and various optics, there's nothing that p's me off as much as thieves. Hate 'em. And you just try to picture yourself working 2 weeks per track on an album, and then recording it and polishing it and expecting to make maybe $5M on it, which would maybe be $800K per band member, and then a bunch of termites downloads the thing for free, and sales amount to $20K per band member, and you're getting paid less than auto workers for your time. Imagine that? Why would you make music for sale?

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been brainwashed by the MPAA and RIAA. Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. With copyright infringement there is a loss of a potential sale. With actual theft, you lose physical things.

Re:It Would Be Great Fun...

[rally2xs]

Its stealing, termite. You take something that doesn't belong to you, its stealing. Duh...

Impact on torrent traffic?

[rbarreira]

I wonder if there's any visible impact on torrent traffic from this. Obviously torrents will continue working and many people will just go to another website, but there could still be a small short-term impact. Would be interesting to see.

Re:Impact on torrent traffic?

[Voyager529]

I wonder if there's any visible impact on torrent traffic from this.

If memory serves, kat.ph doesn't have a tracker, or if they do, they're one of several trackers per torrent. Also, because they're a public tracker, even if the tracker went down, most swarms would be able to continue for a while using DHT and other trackerless technologies. If kat.ph went down and remained down, by time the people who had files all had them seeded, the masses would move on to the next major public tracker, as was done with suprnova, mininova, demonoid, and depending on where you live, the pirate bay.

Why the open internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we continue to use the open-net for things like this? All sites should be moved to I2P or free net. The transfers could be done via regular net, but the sites not. Doing this would solve the problem of a single point of failure for the 'list' and the constant whack-a-mole game that is placed, and solve the problem of traditionally slow speeds thru these types of anonymous proxies which would put off all but the hard core paranoid..

Its 2013, not 2003. It's time to change tactics.

A better solution needed

[timmyf2371]

It now seems obvious that downloading torrents from a centralised website has had its day.

Countries all over the world are blocking access to trackers and taking away the domain names, and the centralised nature of trackers has always been a weak point.

What we need is for a major player, e.g. TPB, to step up the game and go TOR only (for website access - actual data transfer would still be over clearnet). By providing access via a TOR hidden service, you reduce or remove the possibility of the site being taken down, you provide a degree of anonymity for website operators and you have the added effect of educating the wider public about the private browsing benefits that TOR allows.