Slashdot Mirror


Feds Seize KickassTorrents Domains and Arrest Owner In Poland (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Federal authorities announced on Wednesday the arrest of the alleged mastermind of KickassTorrents (KAT), the world's largest BitTorrent distribution site. As of this writing, the site is still up. Prosecutors have formally charged Artem Vaulin, 30, of Ukraine, with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and two counts of criminal copyright infringement. Like The Pirate Bay, KAT does not host individual infringing files but rather provides links to .torrent and .magnet files so that users can download unauthorized copies of TV shows, movies, and more from various BitTorrent users. According to a Department of Justice press release sent to Ars Technica, Vaulin was arrested on Wednesday in Poland. The DOJ will shortly seek his extradition to the United States. "Vaulin is charged with running today's most visited illegal file-sharing website, responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials," Assistant Attorney General Caldwell said in the statement. "In an effort to evade law enforcement, Vaulin allegedly relied on servers located in countries around the world and moved his domains due to repeated seizures and civil lawsuits. His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice." KickassTorrents added a dark web address last month to make it easier for users to bypass blockades installed by ISPs.

302 comments

  1. prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if I Google kickass torrents and Google returns a link to their site, shouldn't Google be prosecuted as an accessory?

    See how fucking stupid these charges are?

    I guess the DOJ needs something to distract everyone from the whole letting Clinton commit treason thing.

    1. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      especially the cake.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Blymie · · Score: 1
    3. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look up what treason is.

    4. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled 'Trump'

    5. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as bad as Bush Jr. committing genocide.

    6. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laws are not for rich people, or for Hillary's campaign staff (Google).

    7. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Trump is a loose canon.

      Are you deacon us around?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Trump is a loose canon.

      Are you sure he's not a loose Nikon?

    9. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't. He merely forgot to mention Trump alongside her name.

    10. Re:prosecuted for HTML by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      It is possible for more than one person to be a lying sack of shit simultaneously. So let there be no distractions. They are all awful people that shouldn't be in charge of anything.

    11. Re: prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how logical your reasoning is. The law is made, enforced and interpreted by those who gain from it. Now back to the dungeon for you and your silly ideas of justice. We are a nation of laws.

    12. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary hired Trump to be the distraction.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    13. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It sure looks that way sometimes.

    14. Re: prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never thought of it like that... You're a genius! What are your thought on fixing world hunger and stopping police brutality? Vote this guy for president.

    15. Re: prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treason is a pretty serious accusation. I don't think carelessness with email constitutes such a thing, and it's distracting to use such hyperbole.

      Talk about REAL things she is guilty of. Otherwise you just seem like a partisan fool, or a cynical young person.

    16. Re: prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willful mishandling of classified documents in time of war is treason. A declared state if war exists and she is an educated attorney who knew her email set VC er was illegal when she did it. She ran her personal email server to circumvent us laws that document state Dept emails for Congress. The real question is what was she hiding? I am a Bernie Sanders supporter by the way. So as a leftist I must join the majority of Americans both left and right in thinking she deserves prison.

  2. Some thoughts by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We just saw an article explaining how China had just outlawed ad-blockers.

    Does this mean China can accuse the maker of ad-blocking software with a major crime, and require that person to be extradited to China for trial?

    1. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For trial? Hahahahaha

    2. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh....no?

      Your logic is strained.

    3. Re:Some thoughts by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      better to punch the cop in the face and do the time in club fed vs china but china still has death penalty on books for hacking so you can fight it on that alone.

    4. Re:Some thoughts by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      We just saw an article explaining how China had just outlawed ad-blockers.

      Does this mean China can accuse the maker of ad-blocking software with a major crime, and require that person to be extradited to China for trial?

      Only if he's arrested in another country where ad blockers are illegal. Presumably aiding and abetting copyright infringement is illegal in Poland as well as in the United States.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:Some thoughts by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's hard to extradite someone from somewhere what they have done it not a crime

      That's probably why the DOJ is slapping on "conspiracy to commit money laundering" because a lot of countries have treaties to combat money laundering.
      They won't have to argue Artem has committed a crime that Poland recognises in relation to copyright infringement.

    6. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL but no. I don't think has any extradition treaties with any country as they don't extradite their own citizens.

    7. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ennetcom springs to mind, the Dutch encrypted phone the Dutch police raided to shut it down. That had a 'money-laundering' charge tacked onto it. But the Dutch press reported that the money-laundering was because criminals were reselling the phones to other criminals, allegedly to clean their drug money. Except how can it be cleaned if they're selling to other criminals? The other criminals money must also be tainted too! It made batshit sense.

      The core two complaints: a fake money laundering charge (which would not be reason to close the phone company), and that the owner had an unregistered gun (which would not be reason to close the phone company), neither of them justified seizing the servers for what the police admit isn't a crime.

      I wonder now if that fake money laundering charge is used to justify the cross border seizure of the servers.

    8. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Access a Chinese website from the US with an adblocker installed. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation.

    9. Re:Some thoughts by sjames · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So why can't they arrest the scam callers impersonating the IRS and demanding money? Fraud is illegal in most countries.

    10. Re:Some thoughts by Thanshin · · Score: 0

      Only after they build the largest aircraft carrier army in the world and add some hundreds of drones to it.

      And only in the name of freedom and democracy.

    11. Re: Some thoughts by easyTree · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Only the US had the temerity to allow its internal corruption to be cast as justice and applied outside its borders.

    12. Re: Some thoughts by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Because that doesn't affect anyone with the power to control the actions of the 'Justice' Department?

    13. Re: Some thoughts by easyTree · · Score: 1

      What does one do in a situation where it's clearly a case of the 'good guys' (hahaha) are prepared to corrupt the system to achieve their goals? Surely their disregard for their own principles (fake charges) should prevent them from punishing sometime else in another country for not sharing their principles (allowing humans to be entertained without advertisers being involved)?

    14. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's so funny? The Chinese T.R.I.A.L. (Totally Relaible Indictment and Lockup) is famous for its efficience. First they gather all the criminal, and you can be certain they'll come up with a crime too!

    15. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the lesson here is: don't do things your government doesn't like. Is that so hard to understand?

    16. Re:Some thoughts by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's hard to extradite someone from somewhere what they have done it not a crime

      I've lost track of all the Julian Assange articles on slashdot and have got no idea how you managed to forget all of them.
      However extradition is still hard, especially from Poland where a very high profile convicted pedophile rapist has been evading US justice for decades.

    17. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using a Lynx-based screen reader for blind people? Clearly we've finally caught the infamous hacker known as Fore Chan.

    18. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that is a great example. Regardless of your view of whether what he is accused of should be criminal, or whether he did it or not, in that case his extradition is based on him having committed the crime in the country that wants to extradite him not. If Sweden was trying to extradite him for doing something legal in the UK while in the UK which was illegal in Sweden then it would be a relevant comparison.

      Based on the information provided it here it really isn't possible to determine if this is US overreaching or not. It doesn't say where the servers were located, it doesn't say where revenue was coming from, and it doesn't specify what the money laundering offence is. It is perfectly possible that one or more of these crimes would be considered to have taken place within US jurisdiction; and of course it's perfectly possible that this is America flexing its muscle to protect its multimedia cash cows.

    19. Re:Some thoughts by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's Poland and extradition so a perfect example of a non violent property crime being considered above and beyond a violent crime.

    20. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      If you are American then shame on you. The forefathers knew this time would come.

    21. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I am a European so I don't care about your "founding fathers". The truth is that people do not and can not understand what's best for them. You need experts for this and you can't allow popular vote to override their call, or stupid things happen (Brexit). People must realize that democracy has reached its limits long ago and that it's far better to let a pool of experts not beholden to the whims of public opinionmake the decisions, and follow them without discussion. And that's all there is to it, really.

    22. Re:Some thoughts by lrichardson · · Score: 2

      "Dual criminality" used to be pretty important ... of course, that got thrown out the window in the EU when they introduced the EAW (European Arrest Warrant).

      Since its introduction, abuses of the EAW have been well documented. Poland and Greece have been using them as means of simply extorting money from tourists. e.g. You claim you didn't steal that five euro towel when you visited their country, but the staff swore the towel was missing. A criminal charge was lodged, and an EAW granted. You can either fork over a few hundred Euro, or head back to the country, and try and fight the charge in the (obviously corrupt) courts there.

      Evidence? What, some countries require more than "An unnamed informant told us the suspect was seen near the crime"? Among other things, this is why the US kind of has a low percentage of extradition requests honoured. Other countries tend to view forced confessions and anonymous sources - and, increasingly, sworn US LE Officer testimony - as insufficient grounds.

      Yep, the US does its best to game the system, to the benefit of the corporations running the place. That's also why it should properly be referred to as 'The Legal System', NOT 'The Justice System'

    23. Re: Some thoughts by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Pool of experts? Like politicians? Or reknown scientists? Or the bunch of 'experts' that keep popping on TV explaining how we should understand what's happening?
      How about a panel of Nobel Peace Prize winners like Obama, Arafat, Rabin?
      Do elaborate, please.

    24. Re:Some thoughts by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So why can't they arrest the scam callers impersonating the IRS and demanding money? Fraud is illegal in most countries.

      Telcos in those special countries where all the fraud comes from are complicit, they make it possible for people to do that without reporting their identities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I waste time to educate the obviously intellectually impaired? Go hug your gun, wave your ridiculous flag and vote Trump. It won't change the fact that we can't afford mob rule.

    26. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy *is* a mob rule and you live in it, whether you like it or not.

      The days of old Republics died with the Ancient Greece and Rome.

    27. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately the European Commission is not elected by know-nots and that's where the real decisions are taken. We need safeguards against the dangers of having the public making uninformed choices and they're being implemented, whether you like it or not. :)

    28. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TTIP will take care of those details. ALL extradition requests will be complied with no matter what or... They will be complied with anyway.

    29. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to people extradited to the US for copyright infringement, who will get justice for their crime... by getting a longer sentence than murderers and rapists. Their isn't any governmental sainthood here, we all know that this guy is going to get treated like a terrorist for running a torrent site. I'm quite sure that this investigation only happened because of US money and generous servings of political pressure - only in the US does the media lobby have the temerity to throw people in jail for file sharing, and the millions of dollars into campaign funds make it seem like there's one of these huge arrests every two years just around when there are elections for the congress and senate.

      It's comfortable seeing how twisted the justice system is in other places. It's even funny from the outside. A shame that nowhere is safe from judicial stupidity.

    30. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter where they are when they're arrested, it matters where the "crime" was committed. Otherwise a country like Iran could issue a warrant for an American citizen who offended Allah in the United States and have that person arrested as they climbed K2 in Pakistan on the principle that whatever it is you did only has to be illegal where you are arrested.

    31. Re:Some thoughts by sjames · · Score: 1

      So follow the money back.

    32. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who chooses these "experts"? Other self appointed "experts"? What happens when these experts disagree? We can't allow the majority of them to decide else it would be "mob rule". God you are such a fucktard

    33. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three cheers for oligarchy! Hup, hup, hurrah!

    34. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for major death.
      and the bullets charged upon family .. ?

    35. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another foul-mouthed teen (or retarded adult) on the internet. Great. I'm not even going to explain why a debate among experts is better than ask the clueless in the streets what their "opinion" is. The sooner we restrict internet access the better.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning. Last time the Feds seized a site (some child porn site on TOR) they kept hosting it themselves for a month with malware on it. Accessing KAT right now would be foolish.

    1. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "if you accessed KAT in the last month or so watch out".

    2. Re: Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be silly, that's why i use my neighbors wifi.

    3. Re:Warning by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Warning. Last time the Feds seized a site (some child porn site on TOR)

      The irony here is they can extradite someone who links to things but not an actual child rapist such as Roman Polanski who is evading US justice in Poland. That's a pretty huge double standard considering the "think of the children" excuse used for internet crackdowns.

    4. Re:Warning by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is KAT we're talking about. Of course there's malware on it.

      Don't surf the internet without a condom. Whether you invite the FBI over for a threesome is irrelevant.

    5. Re:Warning by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The irony here is they can extradite someone who links to things but not an actual child rapist such as Roman Polanski who is evading US justice in Poland.

      Time for a Roman Polandski child rapist meme. Bonus points if you can work a pun about "poles" in

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Warning by fred911 · · Score: 1

      " for a month with malware on it. Accessing KAT right now would be foolish."

        Only if you are ignorant enough to allow your browser to execute foreign processes blindly or grant them permissions. As far as any swarm being infected, same deal, running unknown executables / scripts or "installers" without a sandbox is just plain stupid.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony here is they can extradite someone who links to things but not an actual child rapist such as Roman Polanski who is evading US justice

      In the Polanski case, the girl was old enough to be of the age of consent in some countries. Thus, Polanski is not considered to be a criminal in those countries -- which explains why he has not been extradited.

      Your characterization of him as a "child rapist" is not legally correct in numerous countries in the world.

      Roman Polanski who is evading US justice in Poland.

      Polanski resides primarily in France. The government of France does not consider Polanski to be suspected of a crime.

    8. Re:Warning by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't follow. Would it be foolish because the feds might get your IP and try to come after you, or because you might catch some malware?

      If it's the latter, what's foolish is running an OS that's susceptible to this malware.

    9. Re:Warning by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      As if anyone really has control over what their browser does... All you can do is turn off javascript and flash and hope your browser isn't attacked via any of the other many security vulnerabilities left over.

      Unless you are running your actual browser in a sandboxed VM, you are still at the mercy of the ability of a team of humans to not make any mistakes.

    10. Re:Warning by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      If it's the latter, what's foolish is running an OS that's susceptible to this malware.

      That's why I do all my torrenting on a PDP-11.

    11. Re:Warning by Chromium_One · · Score: 0

      This argument is dead, burned, and getting in the way.
      You can pick a browser without a history of stupid abuses, you can limit plugins allowed, you can use adblockers, you can use privacy screening tools, you can use sandboxing, you can use zero-state virtual machines, etc etc et-fucking-cetera.

      --
      When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
    12. Re:Warning by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      So I say "You can't have X unless you do Y", and you say "Your argument is dead, you can have X if you do Y"

    13. Re:Warning by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      I believe he hiding in France or Switzerland not Poland.

    14. Re:Warning by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      The irony here is they can extradite someone who links to things but not an actual child rapist such as Roman Polanski who is evading US justice in Poland.

      Time for a Roman Polandski child rapist meme. Bonus points if you can work a pun about "poles" in

      He avoids US justice in Poland because he greased a few Poles.

  5. Justice? by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Vaulin is charged with running today's most visited illegal file-sharing website, responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials," Assistant Attorney General Caldwell said in the statement. "In an effort to evade law enforcement, Vaulin allegedly relied on servers located in countries around the world and moved his domains due to repeated seizures and civil lawsuits. His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

    - is this what passes for 'justice' today?

    I guess he, who has the most guns defines what justice is. Justice is the opposite of what this Orwellian prick says. Justice is in non initiation of violence by any government. Justice is in equal treatment of individuals by law regardless of their circumstances. Using government oppression to enforce copyright has nothing to do with justice.

    Government may have a function, that function being enforcing contract law and dealing with fraud. That is all that any government should ever have any power to do. Everything else is oppression, not justice.

    1. Re:Justice? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

      While ransomware distributors prey on us at will, because the priority is on protecting Hollywood from copyright violators.

    2. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So governments should have no power to curtail violent gangs? Or lock up serial killers? Or making sure I can get from A to B with a reasonable chance of surviving traffic? I could go on and on, but I feel the point is made: your view of government is naive and simplistic.

    3. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not just today. Who do you think writes history?

    4. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "his arrest in poland, however demonstrates again that"

      if the u.s. government sends enough money, aid, and military support to much smaller countries, those smaller countries will usually bend over at-will, for the u.s. government, and allow them to extend their greedy jurisdictional reach right up their collective asses.

    5. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it not? ( i ask out of an honest desire to read your reasoning, not to feed a troll, or attempt to troll, or whatever bullshit people say.)

    6. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody forces other countries to accept American foreign aid, nor are those countries entitled to it. Stop whining.

      You also completely missed his point. He's saying that arresting and prosecuting criminals who use ransomware for extortion should be a higher priority. If what you're saying is true, there would be a lot of ransomware authors being extradited to the United States. You're wrong, but he's right that law enforcement has some awful priorities.

    7. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

      While ransomware distributors prey on us at will, because the priority is on protecting Hollywood from copyright violators.

      The ability to destroy hospital files is insignificant compared to the power of Hollywood.

    8. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have run for president as a Democrat.

    9. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me this. Suppose we have a group of individuals living in a given area. One individual - let's call him A - decides he's going to start stealing from the others - let's call them ~A. He's a strong individual, and well armed, so there's not much the other individuals can do as individuals. So ~A get together and decide they're sick of A stealing their stuff, that's it's best for their own selfish interests to stop A from stealing, and that while no individual can take on A alone a group of them could. So they select a subgroup B of ~A and send them off to do what is required to stop A.

      Is that legitimate? You could look at it as a purely private transaction, which by your logic is fine. Or you could say that ~A have formed a (rudimentary, possibly temporary) democratic government, made laws, elected a police force and charged them with enforcing the law, which by your logic is bad.

      Now scale that example up to, say, a continent of clearly delineated region. The number of bad guys will go up, and hence so too will the complexities of dealing with them, but the principle doesn't change. Whether you call this government or a group of people coming to a private agreement seems arbitrary to me.

    10. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.

      "His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that people who provide links to websites can run, but they cannot hide from corporations who get absurdly rich by making everyone pay and pay for stuff they don't produce themselves."

    11. Re: Justice? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Sure, it is the scale that changes the equation because it creates a monopoly on violence and it is seen as 'legitimate' just because some form of a government is initiating it.

      My position is easy to understand if you realise that there is something called voluntarism. Voluntary participation is the defining metric. Using group violence to force participation and of-course the inherit taxation that comes with such participation is the key difference between a government and a private activity.

      Being forced into participation via the law and taxation system is what makes the difference when we are talking about a government monopoly that grows the problem because its function is to thrive based on the existence of the problem versus private enterprise that is solving the problem in the most efficient manner because there is competition in the industry.

    12. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anarchy complaint boils down to the reality that there are governments everywhere, so you can't just opt out of what's going on where you live , and if you move anywhere else there are more people with their own rules.

      Is there no place where you can go to live free as you like? Nope, people with guns enforcing their own rules are everywhere.

      Well, there are still wild areas in many places but some are restricted access, and even if you buy a remote plot of land you can legit inhabit, you don't have total freedom... you still owe taxes to a govt that acts in ways you abhor, and if you don't pay the people with guns come to take you away.

    13. Re: Justice? by jonwil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that most of the malware out there comes from countries like Russia that dont have an extradition treaty with the US, that have one but where the treaty doesn't allow extradition of malware authors or that are powerful enough that the US cant make them bend over in the way they can for smaller countries like Poland.

    14. Re: Justice? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Sure, it is the scale that changes the equation because it creates a monopoly on violence

      Are you suggesting we allow a competitive market for violence? Declare open source violence? We have that in the form of Mobs, Gangs, and the occasional serial killer. Yea lets just open the gates of violence to include people other than what the majority vote for * to keep that very thing from happening*

      and it is seen as 'legitimate' just because some form of a government is initiating it.

      Most often 'some form of government' was chosen by the majority to be found suitable by the populace. IF the populace has control of the vote.

      My position is easy to understand if you realize that there is something called voluntarism. Voluntary participation is the defining metric. Using group violence to force participation and of-course the inherit taxation that comes with such participation is the key difference between a government and a private activity.

      Voluntarism that is so rare that people that finally do go and accomplish what's expected by everyone else to be done *for them* receives a fucking medal. It *could* be a defining metric if it was insanely more common. Which it's not. We have too few people that run *towards* trouble and too many more that run from it. Like New Yorkers running from aircraft in the sky.

      Taxation helps pay for the people that run towards trouble, since the best most people can do is criticize them from their fat fluffy arm chairs.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    15. Re: Justice? by zrobotics · · Score: 1

      But if you truly believe that all governments are illegitimate, then the concept of buying a plot of land is also impossible. Without government, how exactly does one own a plot of land? Sure, you can defend yourself and force others off of that land, but what stops a better armed group from occupying 'your' land? Without government, the concept of private property becomes fiction, ownership is a merely temporary matter determined by whomever currently has possession.

    16. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called bribes, you moron. The U.S. dangles all this money and aid, and expects "cooperation" in future endeavours. Back room deals are a staple of "diplomacy"; it's the stuff you don't hear about on the news that you should be afraid of.

      Of course, the countries don't "have to" accept it, but they often do, because it's free money, an easy avenue into the lucrative U.S. trade market, and sometimes they even provide the lube, so it don't hurt quite so much. The U.S. is sometimes "nice" in that regard.

    17. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want open source DEFENSE that is heavily funded and doesn't go other places unless it is absolutely necessary. A massive team of scientists, engineers, philosophers, poets and artists that help guide us into the future as safely as possible.

    18. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vaulin is charged with running today's most visited illegal file-sharing website, responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials," Assistant Attorney General Caldwell said in the statement. "In an effort to evade law enforcement, Vaulin allegedly relied on servers located in countries around the world and moved his domains due to repeated seizures and civil lawsuits. His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

      - is this what passes for 'justice' today?

      I guess he, who has the most guns defines what justice is. Justice is the opposite of what this Orwellian prick says. Justice is in non initiation of violence by any government. Justice is in equal treatment of individuals by law regardless of their circumstances. Using government oppression to enforce copyright has nothing to do with justice.

      Government may have a function, that function being enforcing contract law and dealing with fraud. That is all that any government should ever have any power to do. Everything else is oppression, not justice.

      You sound wonderful saying that but why do I suspect you are voting Clinton

    19. Re: Justice? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      How does one get this message out to the masses? These same interests control the news outlets.

    20. Re: Justice? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my air quotes around the word 'news' didn't make it into the post.

    21. Re: Justice? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything like anybody forces other countries to accept American foreign aid,or those countries entitled to it. The previous two comments made sense. Yours did not.

    22. Re: Justice? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Start a kickstater campaign

    23. Re:Justice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile you can still hide from justice in Poland after being convicted of raping an American child (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski).
      Once again, protecting Hollywood.

    24. Re:Justice? by abies · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is a lot less obvious case then many people like it to be. Girl was pimped by her mother to extort money from Polanski. She lied to him about her age and then they were supposed to settle for a lot of money. Unfortunately (for both mother and Polanski) judge wanted to gain some political fame, so he blocked the settlement. Mother and girl ended up with no money, Polanski ended up being fugitive.

      Yes, Polanski at that time certainly had a taste for girls which were on the edge of being legal age. But it was very far from being 'rape', it was a prostitution+blackmail arranged by girl's mother. In moral terms, she is as guilty as Polanski is (if not more, if you believe him that he thought girl was of proper age) - but putting mother in jail would not score political points for judge as much as standing tough against Hollywood.

    25. Re:Justice? by dbIII · · Score: 1, Troll

      You forgot to mention the injuries, and that he was found guilty.
      Very odd to see someone here as an apologist for a convicted pedophile rapist, perhaps that "Men's Rights" stuff is far more toxic than I imagined.

    26. Re:Justice? by munch117 · · Score: 1

      - is this what passes for 'justice' today?

      Prosecutors and police enforcing the laws passed by your democratically elected representatives? Yes, I should hope so.

      Government may have a function, that function being enforcing contract law and dealing with fraud. That is all that any government should ever have any power to do. Everything else is oppression, not justice.

      That's democracy for you. Sometimes the 51% passes laws that the 49% doesn't like. I'm sorry you don't like it.

    27. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an intellectual type loved by liberals does it, it's not a crime and you're a fascist for thinking otherwise.

    28. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While ransomware distributors prey on Windows users at will...

      FTFY

    29. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's old news. The current government wants him extradited if he sets foot in Poland again. And no, he is not hiding in Poland.

    30. Re: Justice? by johanw · · Score: 1

      Those countries that don't accept "protection" by the US are quickly confronted with a "regime change". Unless they have nuclear weapons and delivery systems of course, that's why North Korea is developing both now.

    31. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What a complete nutter.

      I hope your dad gave you this slashdot account in his will, and you really were born yesterday.

    32. Re:Justice? by johanw · · Score: 1

      What's so howly about a contract then? It's just a piece of paper anyway.

    33. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with "justice", its everything to do with protecting Sony's profit margin, justice has nothing to do with it. It's greedy people with no new ideas desperately defending profits and that's it.

    34. Re:Justice? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      But it was very far from being 'rape'

      No, I think that's pretty much the definition of rape, specifically statutory rape.

    35. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If watching a movie involved a contract ("pay me X dollars and you can watch the movie I made") there would be some other rationale for pirating movies, and torrent sites would still exist.

    36. Re:Justice? by abies · · Score: 1

      Can you link to the information about injuries? Because, at least from wikipedia, Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that..."

    37. Re:Justice? by abies · · Score: 1

      But it was very far from being 'rape'

      No, I think that's pretty much the definition of rape, specifically statutory rape.

      You are right - sex with anybody below age of consent is rape by definition, even if that person is willing, because she or he is not legally allowed to 'give consent'.

    38. Re: Justice? by abies · · Score: 1

      Nobody says it was not a crime. I was trying to say that:
      - it is lot more complex situation than just crying 'child rapist' and putting him in same box as all similar criminals
      - that mother whoring her underage daughter in hope of blackmailing and earning millions should got some flak as well, but she is not, as she is not from 'bad Hollywood establishment'

    39. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading a lot of your comments because you seem sincere and intelligent, but I'm having a really hard time figuring out if you believe your ideas are practical or simply represent some kind of theoretical or utopian ideal. It seems to me that what you describe only works in the case where everyone is a 'good guy' capable of defending their own interests (physically and economically). In a practical sense, that's never going to be true, and various kinds of associations will evolve as people who can not defend their interests on their own realize they can band together to defend common interests (like survival). Some of these bands might reasonably be called governments.

    40. Re:Justice? by abies · · Score: 1

      Actually, after doublechecking, it is more complicated - it differs from country to country. In US, you are right. In Poland (where the extradiction was being considered), it is not a 'rape', it is ''sexual intercourse with minor', which has separate penalties from rape and one does not imply the other. For people who might be interested (I hope nobody _really_ does), here are the penalties:
      - for sexual intercourse with minor: 2-12 years in prison
      - for sexual intercourse with close relative: 3months-5years in prison
      - for rape: 2-12 years in prison
      - for rape on minor or relative: not less than 3 years in prison
      - for brutal rape: not less than 5 years in prison
      In Poland they are not being summed together, you take worst one and as you can see, certain laws just increase the minimum, but do not define the penalty itself, as it is defined elsewhere.

    41. Re:Justice? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Gary Johnson

    42. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justice is in equal treatment of individuals by law regardless of their circumstances.

      That's actually the textbook definition of injustice. Law has to consider the circumstances, or it will produce no justice. You have to treat individuals as they merit, not all the same. If you reject that, and demand all be treated the same, well, regardless of your response, you will be unjust since what people get will be fixed, not weighed, measured, and deserved.

      Government may have a function, that function being enforcing contract law and dealing with fraud.

      Then you'll have to admit that the operator of Kickass Torrents is violating both of these. Because in case you forgot, copyright is a contractual agreement, and this site is engaging in fraud on a widespread scale.

      You've lost this argument, not only is your above assertion regarding justice faulty, your own assertion is exactly in line with what is happening.

      Too bad, I guess.

    43. Re: Justice? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      My position is easy to understand if you realise that there is something called voluntarism. Voluntary participation is the defining metric.

      And yet you want the government to enforce contracts. Entering contracts is no more voluntary than obeying someone with a knife on your neck: sure, you can opt out, but then you die, either by having your throat cut or through starvation.

      Using group violence to force participation and of-course the inherit taxation that comes with such participation is the key difference between a government and a private activity.

      Whereas forcing participation by locking away all the resources one might use to sustain oneself and using group violence against anyone who tries to use them without first entering a "voluntary" contract with the owners - which, of course, is also enforced through group violence - is fine.

      The only world where voluntarism is more than propaganda is a socialist paradise where everyone can simply take what they need - and won't take more than that - without needing anyone's permission, and contributes according to their abilities from the goodness of their heart.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    44. Re:Justice? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What's so howly about a contract then?

      I promise to supply to johanw (1001493) , on the 1st of September, 200 wolves in return for the sum of ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re: Justice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It appears you are trying to say that the extenuating circumstances made rape of a child a less serious crime than copyright violation.
      Is that really how you want to say it?
      You can backtrack if you didn't really mean that, but that is how you have put it so far.

    46. Re: Justice? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      To address your concern, this comment, second paragraph, I don't think government should exist at all, even to 'enforce those two rules'. It is all a private matter.

    47. Re: Justice? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      it is lot more complex situation than just crying 'child rapist' and putting him in same box as all similar criminals

      Yes I get it - he's a Hollywood aristocrat and she's just common muck whored out by her mother. George Washington fought hard to stop that sort of attitude but here you are as if it never happened. The Hollywood PR machine said the little girl liked it but the transcript of the trial said she was injured and that's why it came to the attention of the police in the first place.

    48. Re:Justice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but in his case the Judge described it as both - if she was 23 instead he still would have been convicted.
      There are many books on this case. Even if all the very nasty rumors are discounted the stuff that came out in court made it very clear.

    49. Re: Justice? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Correct, it's all about you defending your own property

      Please explain what makes some land your property? Because you say so? Why should anyone else care about that? Because you'll kill them if they don't?

      Everybody defending their own property, some people doing it on their own, some hiring companies to do it for them.

      So basically, whoever has the most resources can hire the largest private army to capture - excuse me, "defend his claim to" - more? Because, in the absence of a government, what's stopping them?

      Also, I guess those unlucky enough to not own - or be able to afford a private army to protect - any land will starve to death, unless the new nobility are generous enough to allow them to voluntarily enter a slavery contract with them.

      I do not see any government as legitimate at all, just for the record here.

      No, you want to have all the benefits of a lawful society without carrying any of the duties, which is what taxation is ultimately about.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    50. Re:Justice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Girl was pimped by her mother to extort money from Polanski.

      So her mother's a scumbag too. But dude, she was 13. Just because her mother was complicit doesn't make Polanski any less of a kiddie fiddler.

      Yes, Polanski at that time certainly had a taste for girls which were on the edge of being legal age.

      13 is not on the edge of being legal. Dude's a kiddie fiddler.

      But it was very far from being 'rape', it was a prostitution+blackmail arranged by girl's mother.

      How the hell is it not rape just because her mother forced her into it? And don't forget the drugs.

      would not score political points for judge as much as standing tough against Hollywood.

      That and you know puting a kiddie fiddler in prison.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    51. Re:Justice? by operagost · · Score: 1

      And it doesn't matter if the "victim" lies about his/her age, either.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why is sexual intercourse with a close relative a jailable crime? A 40-year-old brother and sister screwing each other can go to prison? That's a pretty stupid law. And how close is "close" anyway?

      And they say we Americans are prudes... I can sorta understand not letting them legally marry (though this will be obsolete soon thanks to genetic engineering), but even here in the US there's no laws I've heard of against relatives having sex, as long as everyone is of-age and consenting. Any such laws (probably old state or local laws) would have been made unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision that overturned all anti-sodomy laws a while ago.

    53. Re:Justice? by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Yes, Polanski at that time certainly had a taste for girls which were on the edge of being legal age.

      age of consent is 15 in Poland

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    54. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators: please don't mark legit opinions as troll. The whole reason I come here is to get different perspectives than my own. Your mistake has been corrected.

    55. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading a lot of your comments because you seem sincere and intelligent, but I'm having a really hard time figuring out if you believe your ideas are practical or simply represent some kind of theoretical or utopian ideal.

      The word to describe roman_mir is glib. He can make grandiloquent statements, but often fails in detailed analysis, and cannot rebut criticism however he manages to skip over them without even noticing.

      It's difficult to say if roman_mir is sincere, but he does not appear to be to me, as that very smoothness reflects a desire to present a long-con and many of his self-claims are so bombastic that he's just short of Trump-level claims of achievement.

    56. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    57. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a practical sense, that's never going to be true, and various kinds of associations will evolve as people who can not defend their interests on their own realize they can band together to defend common interests (like survival). Some of these bands might reasonably be called governments.

      See medieval Iceland as an example of this happening. There's more about libertarianism from an anarchist POV here, as well.

    58. Re:Justice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What about enforcing laws against murder?

    59. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they meant he is a Democrat that supports Clinton and he didn't "intend" to do it.
      You can get a pass from DOJ now just by supporting Clinton and claiming no intention to break the law.

      You make an anti-Clinton movie or run a torrent link site, you end up in prison. Written laws no longer matter, whoever gives Clinton the most money gets their way now.

    60. Re:Justice? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      There's anti-incest laws all over the place. Whether they're still relevant or useful in our modern age of understanding (and birth control!) is another question -- the biggest downside of incest is the genetic gamble which only really matters when you make a child. But incest creates one heck of an "ick" factor in most people so even if the law isn't especially useful, it would be political suicide in many cases to try and revoke it.

      Heck you can still find places with anti-sodomy laws (and not all of them are specific to male/male intercourse) and I believe there's even a few places that still have anti-oral laws. Those don't even fall into the "ick" category for most people anymore but even if its not political suicide to try to revoke them, there's still little pressure to bother as long as they remain (mostly) unenforced.

      Check out dumblaws.com for a whole lot of stupid things like this (though they cover all dumb laws including things like making it illegal for bees to buzz after 9pm and other totally unenforceable crap, not just sex-related laws.)

    61. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is sexual intercourse with a close relative a jailable crime? A 40-year-old brother and sister screwing each other can go to prison? That's a pretty stupid law. And how close is "close" anyway?

      Almost every US state and territory has some type of a law regarding sex with relatives (and often mirrors marriage laws). It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but usually it's up to 2 generations away of blood relatives. So siblings, parents, kids, grandparents, grandkids, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins. 2nd cousins can sometimes is permitted. Beyond 2nd cousins is generally if not always allowed.

    62. Re:Justice? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      guess again, first cousin marriage legal in many states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      many countries too

      also, ewwww!

    63. Re:Justice? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      by what brain fart did you arrive at that conclusion from DOJ bragging about arrest of a guy who was NOT hosting any infringing content on any of his websites?

      entertainment cartel scum with gov thugs in their pocket is all this is

    64. Re: Justice? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 0

      Please explain what makes some land your property? Because you say so?

      Because he put it to productive use at a time when no one else had any prior claim to it, or someone else did so and then voluntarily transferred their rights to him. (The process is called "homesteading"; look it up. It's the basis for any legitimate claim to ownership of private property.)

      The idea of property pre-dates government; they didn't invent the concept, and are not necessary for its implementation.

      Why should anyone else care about that? Because you'll kill them if they don't?

      Mostly because if you choose to ignore others' property claims, they'll be free to ignore yours. It's extremely difficult to argue that someone else is wrong to do to you what you did to them first. Of course if you want to engage in war then that's your decision, but don't expect to receive a lot of help. Alliances among aggressors tend to be fleeting at best. The majority who prefer a more stable and civilized environment will band together to fight you, and you'll probably lose. In the end you'll most likely find that it would have been easier and more productive to simply earn what you wanted instead of trying to take it by force.

      Because, in the absence of a government, what's stopping them?

      Natural law. Going to war is expensive, and ultimately self-defeating. Even the more successful empires founded on conquest tend to self-destruct when they inevitably run out of "barbarians" to pillage. Civilizations based on voluntary coexistence are more stable and sustainable, and thus tend to dominate over the long term.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    65. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is sexual intercourse with a close relative a jailable crime?

      The potential for abuse. It's very high in families when power and dependence are often unequal, as is emotional maturity.

      Hence provisions are made against it, even absent genetic concerns.

      I can sorta understand not letting them legally marry (though this will be obsolete soon thanks to genetic engineering), but even here in the US there's no laws I've heard of against relatives having sex, as long as everyone is of-age and consenting.

      Well, your genetic engineering issues are moot anyway, what with artificial insemination and IVF, but why would you hear about them?

      Unless you're involved, I wouldn't expect it. I wouldn't know, except I examined things a bit after Obergefeld.

      Any such laws (probably old state or local laws) would have been made unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision that overturned all anti-sodomy laws a while ago.

      Nope, hasn't happened yet. That is just an appellate court, and the Supremes could overrule, but they haven't yet, and as I indicated above, they can be distinguished by the potential for abuse.

    66. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are ellipses binding?

    67. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the thing is, none of those laws are at all enforceable within the USA, because we had a Supreme Court decision that invalidated all of them in one fell swoop (because some gay guys charged with sodomy in Texas appealed their conviction).

      You don't need to repeal old laws when they're invalidated by the courts.

    68. Re:Justice? by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "That's democracy for you. Sometimes the 51% passes laws that the 49% doesn't like. I'm sorry you don't like it."

      And thats why our founders thought it was very dangerous -- about as scary as monarchy. It's a good thing they set up a republican (little "R") form of government and a constitution which is difficult (not impossible) to modify.

      Oh wait -- many of their safe-guards have been tossed out the window for current popular opinion... I guess you are right.

    69. Re:Justice? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Seems like that only applies to the anti-Sodomy laws unfortunately. Its been used as a basis for suits related to other sexual activities but with mixed success (including an incest case which failed -- Frank v Muth. And those folks got 8 (guy) and 5 (sister) years, significantly more than Poland's law it would seem.)

      Of course that's all from 20 minutes of Wikipedia after reading your reply, so I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the context and wider discussion, but its good to find out that they got it right for at least one case!

    70. Re: Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of property pre-dates government; they didn't invent the concept, and are not necessary for its implementation.

      How do you know? Do you have a time machine, or are you just conjecturing about both parts of your belief?

      How can you prove to us that you will be able to achieve a state that is as good as we have now, let alone better?

      That's all you have, belief. Assertion. Conviction. Faith. Not proof.

    71. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I did see that about Frank v. Muth. That's ridiculous IMO. Grown adults should be able to screw whomever they want as long as it's consensual and of-age.

    72. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I did see that about Frank v. Muth. That's ridiculous IMO. Grown adults should be able to screw whomever they want as long as it's consensual and of-age.

      The issue of determining consent is a spotty one, and with family members, it can get even more complicated.

    73. Re: Justice? by doccus · · Score: 1

      It's called bribes, you moron. The U.S. dangles all this money and aid, and expects "cooperation" in future endeavours. Back room deals are a staple of "diplomacy"; it's the stuff you don't hear about on the news that you should be afraid of.

      Of course, the countries don't "have to" accept it, but they often do, because it's free money, an easy avenue into the lucrative U.S. trade market, and sometimes they even provide the lube, so it don't hurt quite so much. The U.S. is sometimes "nice" in that regard.

      "Sometimes they even provide the lube"
      LOL! Thanks for that! I needed a laugh.. I was starting to get really frustrated reading about all this sickening behavior from the "Purveyors of denmocracy and freedoms".
      Hmmm.. afterthought.. What would they consider the best lube to allow US to enter via the back door most easily?

    74. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How so, if they're adults? Now if it's a father and a daughter that just turned 18, yeah, I can see that being problematic as he may have been molesting her before that age and no one knew (or did anything).

      But if it's a brother and sister and they're both 35, I'm sorry, that's none of the government's business or anyone else's. Really, once you get over 30, I don't see how it's complicated at all, because by that age, someone who didn't consent has had plenty of time to leave the situation.

    75. Re:Justice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How so, if they're adults? Now if it's a father and a daughter that just turned 18, yeah, I can see that being problematic as he may have been molesting her before that age and no one knew (or did anything).

      But if it's a brother and sister and they're both 35, I'm sorry, that's none of the government's business or anyone else's. Really, once you get over 30, I don't see how it's complicated at all, because by that age, someone who didn't consent has had plenty of time to leave the situation.

      Yet the experience of abuse in family relationships shows that it can last for decades.

      But really, it's not a priority situation. There's no Incest Police going around checking everybody, even the Social Services groups in areas with historical patterns of abuse have more focus elsewhere.

      It's only if it comes to attention that likely there will be anything going on in a legal sense, and it usually does when there is some abuse.

  6. Pointless appeasement still pointless by fafalone · · Score: 1

    Did he really think responding to DMCA takedown notices and removing the content was going to keep this from happening?

    1. Re:Pointless appeasement still pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Legally, it should have.

    2. Re:Pointless appeasement still pointless by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Works for Google.

    3. Re:Pointless appeasement still pointless by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      *Hint*

      Laws only affect the lawful.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  7. Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moral of the story: don't hang out in Poland. -PCP

  8. is anywhere safe from US imperialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the world is fucked

    1. Re: is anywhere safe from US imperialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia seems to be a nice choice

    2. Re: is anywhere safe from US imperialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that, although the US can ask Poland to extradite someone, Poland isn't required to do so. Also, the international treaties involving copyright mean that Americans also don't get to pirate works created by Europeans or others outside the US. If you want out of those treaties, don't expect Americans to respect your copyrights, either. This works both ways.

    3. Re: is anywhere safe from US imperialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they block torrent sites too. Their reason is they don't want any truth to leak in.

    4. Re: is anywhere safe from US imperialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poland doesn't care about foreigners in their country.

  9. Most visited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still use TPB. I don't go anywhere else.

  10. Need a new system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to create a new system so that the Feds can't take down our websites.

    1. Re:Need a new system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Freenet exists if people would use it.

    2. Re:Need a new system by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, Freenet, where once quantum computing breaks commonly used encryption algorithms, everyone is going to be revealed to be hosting child porn (unwittingly, but still) on their computers. Yeah, sounds like a really worthwhile network. :rolleyes:

  11. Update by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Informative

    As of this writing, KAT is down, both through conventional DNS and through their onion address.

    1. Re:Update by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

      As of this writing, KAT is down, both through conventional DNS and through their onion address.

      The main sites are down, but that doesn't surprise me, as they often have capacity problems and can be hard to reach for several hours, nearly every day.

      Still reachable domains are;

      - http://kickasstorrents.ee/
      - http://kickasstorrentsan.com/
      - http://kickasstorrents.cr/
      - http://kickass-torrents.to/

      And since I'm here, a few alternatives:

      - https://eztv.ag/showlist/name/
      - https://thepiratebay.org/
      - https://isohunt.to/torrents/

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it wise to continue using KAT? I expect the sites would be under the complete control of 'The Powers That Be' at this point, and they may just go after anyone who downloads torrents from there.

      Though if you're downloading torrents without using a VPN, you're asking for trouble anyway.

    3. Re:Update by TypoNAM · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty sure eztv was compromised and none of 'eztv' domains are real. Same goes for all those supposedly KAT domains you've listed. Why are you linking to fake copies of the sites?

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    4. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how exactly is eztv.ag compromised?

    5. Re:Update by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      What's to say this press release wasn't published for a full year after the domains were seized?

      Fed:
      - Captures Domains
      - Waits a year while hosting site.
      - Publishes press release
      - Statute of limitations has not expired.
      - Begin arrests.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:Update by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      ...or just torrentz.eu

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    7. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck you all still play the MAFIAA cat and mouse game is beyond me. You're risking your cash and freedom and peers.

      If you even had a clue about the anonymity and privacy offerred by anonymous overly networks such as I2P and TOR, you'd ditch clearnet in a minute and be using them 24x7x365 from now on thus making you completely untouchable.

      # kickass torrents
      http://lsuzvpko6w6hzpnn.onion/
      # the pirate bay
      http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/
      # rutor
      http://rutorc6mqdinc4cz.onion/
      # btdigg
      http://btdigg63cdjmmmqj.onion/
      # torrents md
      http://tmdwwwebwyuuqepd.onion/
      # demonoid
      http://demonhkzoijsvvui.onion/

    8. Re:Update by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arrests for what?

      For looking at a page that offers magnet links that you might or might not access?

    9. Re:Update by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Even downloading the torrents isn't copy infringement. There has to be an element of transfer for anything to happen.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Update by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      None of the KAT domains seem to be working properly, like the backend database isn't reachable. All they have is some cached data.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google eztv takeover. They are being run by a completely different group of people.

    12. Re:Update by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      You all may well be correct, but in America it's not who's right or wrong but who can afford the lawyers to prove their point.

      He who has the biggest lawyer wins.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    13. Re:Update by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      With a magnet link, it's impossible to tell "downloading torrents" from "looking at torrent descriptions" ;-)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:Update by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I think the answer here is obvious.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  12. Prosecuted for posting about searching for torrent by ZipK · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if I Google kickass torrents and Google returns a link to their site, shouldn't Google be prosecuted as an accessory?

    If you post to /. about the idea of using Google to search for Kickass Torrents, shouldn't you and /. both be prosecuted as accessories?

  13. Re:Prosecuted for posting about searching for torr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you post to /. about the idea of using Google to search for Kickass Torrents, shouldn't you and /. both be prosecuted as accessories?

    If you quote a post about the idea of using Google search for Kickass Torrents shouldn't you be prosecuted?

  14. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    just reading this makes us all guilty

  15. Torrent Sites? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    People still use those? Google is still the fastest and best:

    filetype:torrent [your query]

    1. Re:Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know if there are any peers? Or the filesize, etc?

      Not very convenient.

    2. Re:Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. People do. Some of those people have written scrapers that monitor certain pages on those sites and download their shows automagically. I like ETTV's stuff, so I watch his page(s) on a couple different sites.

    3. Re:Torrent Sites? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      filetype:magnet is even better, as Google usually supplies an actual working magnet URL that you can use to directly start your download. Exactly the same as Kickass Torrents.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re: Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very convenient, but a crime nonetheless.

      Once Trump gets in office, google will get what's coming to them.

    5. Re:Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If hollywood was serious about their copyrights, they would require Google to not give results for torrent searches

      As long as it's possible to search torrents on google, this witchhunt is a pathetic joke.

    6. Re:Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > filetype:magnet is even better

      Is it?
      Did anyone who modded you up actually try it first?
      Because I did. For about 10 different popular titles.
      Not a single legit hit.
      Magnet isn't even a type of file, its just a really long hexadecimal number.

      Give us one query for "filetype:magnet" that actually works.

  16. Re:Legal Defense Fund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1

    Links are free speech.

  17. Re:Justice? Nawww, just a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man, nice troll, you present us with a classic slippery slope fallacy, how creative, definitely the way to win an argument without supplying any actual facts.

    Thanks for making it clear that your ability to make a point is "naive and simplistic".

  18. And the point of this was ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to make me use any one of a hundred other bookmarks?

  19. Re:ROTFLMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell us, have you managed to get Kim Dotcom to the US yet ?

    Also, better head over to US Navy HQ, seems like they pirated software too worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Do as we say, not as we do.

  20. Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They did it because it hosted the only version of uncompromised Tails.

    There are many other torrent sites. Stupid fuckers. As you take away, your shit is taken away harder.

    1. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://www.sendspace.com/file/w35ddl

      Here is the actual real sig and real sha and real torrent that had been hosted on kat.cr. It is in that 7z. Unzip it with peazip or whatever you want. That torrent was placed on kat.cr by some place called TNTVILLAGE or something like that. It is a very high traffic forum I think it was in Spanish. The .iso of Tails is multilanguage. Nothing different from the original. It's sig and sha matched the ones from the originally downloaded one I have from when 1.4.1 was distributed originally. It is the only place i've seen it hosted so get this and share it.

      The government doesn't give a fuck if you watch a movie or listen to TV unless they are paid to care. They aren't. It was because that version of Tails is Ed Snowden's. After that, the CIA fucked it up.

      This was in the comments of the kat.cr multi-language TNTVILLAGE torrent as well. It remained seeded, it probably still is. I saved the torrent from there because I know for a fact it is the last OK version of Tails.

      As if the US government is the actual international movie and music police. Get fucking fucked. America is broke. Bankrupt. They spend time and tax payer money to reel in torrents give me a break. Poof, theres another one.

    2. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also this should be seen.

      http://i.imgur.com/QLGyQYf.jpg

      https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140124/10564825981/nsa-interception-action-tor-developers-computer-gets-mysteriously-re-routed-to-virginia.shtml

    3. Re: Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Qubes?

    4. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did it because it hosted the only version of uncompromised Tails.

      There are many other torrent sites. Stupid fuckers. As you take away, your shit is taken away harder.

      There have been a number of security patches to Tails since then though, with the vulnerabilities in 1.4.1 being made pretty public. I'm not saying that newer versions aren't compromised, but you can be pretty sure that the older ones are by now. No?

    5. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this for? Someone who doesn't trust the government and thinks everything around them is compromised, except for this one anonymous posting?

    6. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the debt look at the wars look at 9/11 look at immigration look at Ed Snowden then come back here and suck all of our dicks bitch.

    7. Re:Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

  21. tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from tyranny."

    ftfy

  22. Poland? by boudie2 · · Score: 2

    That does it, I'm not buying anything more from Poland!

  23. Re: Legal Defense Fund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's convenience, not justice, to go after the message board, instead of the people who actually infringed these copyrights.

  24. These fucking US kangaroo court money fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >"Vaulin is charged with running today's most visited illegal file-sharing website, responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials,"

    The government who ripped the public off TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars.. are going after a billion for the music and record industry. Paying these heroes salaries' are the same taxpayers they ripped off. This is a mother fucking racket.

    How about the guy who only ripped off $1 billion (even though he did not really) .. goes after the government that ripped off 20 + TRILLION chasing terror and other homosexual racism shit (they really did and do). How about smash your government in the fucking face?

    Assholes.

  25. ROFL by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

    What does justice have to do with it?

    1. Re:ROFL by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What does justice have to do with it?

      Depends who you ask.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. This was an anti-terrorism operation against alone cyber freedom fighter.

    3. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a transcription error. What he actually said was "they cannot hide from Just Ice(TM)"

    4. Re:ROFL by abies · · Score: 1

      This was stated by 'Department of Justice'. As in, 'department owned by Justice'. Justice Hollywood, daughter of Torquemada McCarthy, son of Prohibition Rush, daughter of Saint Methody. Justice Hollywood asked for him to be caught and he was caught, so she is very much involved.

  26. the world is fu.ked.up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world we live in is seriously screwed up.
    And I blame the capitalism and corporations for most of it. Greed is the root of all evil.

  27. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you are ill makes me nauseous.

  28. My favorite part of the DOJ preso release by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

    “Artem Vaulin was allegedly running a worldwide digital piracy website that stole more than $1 billion in profits from the U.S. entertainment industry,” said Executive Associate Director Edge. Stole? Okay.

  29. Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    apparently, you have no idea what how treason is defined by the US Constitution. let me help...

    US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

    1. Re:Treason? by quenda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      apparently, you have no idea what how treason is defined by the US Constitution.

      Of course, that document was written by a bunch of guys who had just willingly committed treason, justified or not, against their former country and king ('a man do levy war against the king in his realm') by so they should know exactly what they were talking about.

    2. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently, you have no idea what how treason is defined by the US Constitution. let me help...

      US Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

      The interesting part there is the and between aid and comfort.
      Just aiding enemies of the states isn't enough, you also have to give them comfort.

    3. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The interesting part there is the and between aid and comfort.
      Just aiding enemies of the states isn't enough, you also have to give them comfort.

      So, sleeping with an enemy soldier is treason, right?

    4. Re: Treason? by avatar+avatar · · Score: 2

      Not if it's rough, apparently.

    5. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was helping run arms through Libya to arm ISIS against Syria at the time. Seeing as Chris Stevens was probably killed by one of those weapons, and how many are used against our troops there to this day, I would say treason is appropriate for her.

      She also helped sell Uranium to Russia and got a $143million payday personally for it by directing the State Department to approve the sale. Once again, treason might be appropriate. story the $143 million total number came out after that story was written.

      I don't think you fully understand how completely corrupt Clinton actually is.

    6. Re:Treason? by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      Russia has been a loose ally with the US since the cold war ended.

    7. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they wanted a clear definition thereof- because the term's so often flung round with varying meanings.

    8. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You apparently have a reading comprehension thing going on.

      "or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"

      That part right there? It can very much be applied to her with much of this- and if not that, Benghazi. We just came up with a bunch of silly laws that defined lesser punishments (Execution or 10 years in prison, 10k in fines, and forever barred from serving in **ANY** role of any level of government is the punishment specified by 18 USC 2381...) that partitioned off things so they could reach for a "lesser charge" for people.

    9. Re:Treason? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Actually, since the King initiated hostilities in 1774 and 1775, I'd say they were off the hook.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, clintons actions since 1980 amount to a collection of clearly treasonous activity against the united states.
      Since our oligarchy likes to tell us we are always at war with someone or something, then all clintons treasonous activity happened during war time, and hundreds of We The People witnessed the treason ourselves.

      Of late, we have seen clapper and comey commit treason when we all watched and heard them lie to various 'authorities' and commit clear dereliction of duties.

      We The People need to recognize that the u.s. government does not follow laws, does not follow any tenets of the Constitution, violates oath of offices daily, and commits treason with every act that is unwanted by the constituents.

      Then we need to work together to Remove Them from Office. Nothing else will work.

    11. Re:Treason? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%. Now, we need to exhume Reagan and the various people in his administration who provided weapons to extremist muslims in Iran. Or was that before you were born?

      (For the history impaired, Bush pardoned the few who were convicted, though most of the conspirators were never even convicted thanks to massive destruction of evidence.)

    12. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US doesn't have any allies they have interests. Foreign countries use the US as their favorite whipping boy for all the problems in the world which helps them keep their proles in line. They only proclaim their undying love and respect to the US when they get their nuts in a vice and then expect financial, diplomatic, and military support.

  30. HERO by Lumby · · Score: 1

    hope he escapes

  31. Team America, FUCK YEAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USoA DoJ, if it hasn't always defined that way, certainly now defines "justice" as "whatever we do", and since they're Americans they don't have to wait for other countries' legal niceties, borders, or anything. In a sense this is an outgrowth of the Barbary pirates thing, and the USoA has never stepped back with a "problem solved". No, it liked the fight and went looking for more. The USoA has a culture of fighting, down to fighting abstract concepts if there's nothing else available, and its DoJ does it just as much as the rest of the USoA government, or most any other part of the USoA. In fact, even the government will let itself be called in for a good fight on iffy odds by its friends, like the racketeering copyright bunch. We've seen that with their destroying of mr. Dotcom's business that like this, was only very tenuously connected to the USoA.

    So yes, this, and other things like this, do pass for "justice" in the Empire of the USoA these days.

    Want to change this? Well, mr. "Yes We Can" is still in office for a few months. In fact, he should call me, he has my number, and talk "internet" with me. There is an easy solution to this sort of bullshit and he can play the big enabler in it, yet.

  32. We are shameful by fred911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

    No, what his arrest demonstrates is how low we have become allowing Hollywood to buy laws, how little understanding judges and juries have of technology, and how weak Poland is permitting us to fuck with a sovereign citizen.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:We are shameful by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      If you think that Poland bowed down before USA in this case, you are mistaken. They happily assisted. Poland has been sucking American dick for decades. Even though they are, for some reason, a member of the EU, they are far more closely allied to the US.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:We are shameful by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Probably because the US did far more to help Poland when it was a soviet satellite state then their 'neighbors' in the rest of Europe did.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:We are shameful by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      This is not what I have questioned. My question was, WTF does Poland do in the EU in first place?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:We are shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same thing your mother does, whoring herself

    5. Re:We are shameful by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      This is not what I have questioned. My question was, WTF does Poland do in the EU in first place?

      That's not what you asked though. What do you think any country in the EU does? Exploit the market, and create business opportunities. In Poland's case, it's mainly for protection against Russia.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:We are shameful by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What part of "Even though they are, for some reason, a member of the EU" is so difficult to understand?

      Poland is already a NATO member, they should have stayed out of the EU. They don't belong in the EU. They have voted for an anti-EU government for several times.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:We are shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean "help" when you wrote help? Because the U.S. has never helped anyone when it comes to politics, they only help themselves.

    8. Re:We are shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poland joined EU because the country, in between its time in the Soviet Union and the mass sellout of industrial assets for scraps right after '89, was so messed up most people did not see a future in it. Which is one of the main reasons why there are more ethnic Poles living outside of the country than within (and this number is quickly approaching double of Poland's total population count).

      Poland remained in the EU because, for a time, it was a handy "Mexico of the EU" - cheap labor, good opportunities to seize monopolistic market areas, and strong economic policies of the government making it easy pickings for "investment" companies.

      Nowadays Poland runs on foreign companies exploiting the licensing laws of the EU to ensure maximized profits. It also helps that so many Poles would go ballistic if the free movement within the EU was lost to them the government authorities have little ammunition to go after most egregious exploiters.

      Hell, my own home town got hit by a Korean car manufacturer. They came in after heavy "tax incentives" (read: no taxes paid for two years), bought out the old Soviet-developed car manufacturing industrial plant, did partial manufacturing on the old equipment and imported the newer stuff from Korea (or other factories). After the tax incentives ran out, they scaled down production a bit, and suddenly had "financial difficulties." People worked for a year without receiving their full wages (and some worked half a year without being paid at all, because "next month" promises and no jobs is hardly a combination for workers to get uppity).

      After another half a year of making proper arrangements, the Polish branch of the Korean company declared bankruptcy. People ended up still unpaid, the industrial plant was sold for scrap metal to a company owned by family member of one of the politician overseeing the bankruptcy process, and the foreign company is estimated to have pulled out quite a lot of profit during the short operation.

      That's just something I was very well informed about from first-hand sources. There are plenty (some still ongoing) similar stories in Poland. Another gem is a retail company that demanded cashiers to wear adult diapers because they were not allowed any breaks during their 10 hour shifts (yeah, for real).

      Another joyous thing was EU production quotas. Poland's agriculture has long been using beet sugar as core export product. But because EU needs France to sell its sugar and corn syrup, suddenly Poland is not allowed to sustain its export economy.

      Which is one of the major reasons why the current elected government consists of pretty hard-core rightists. Think Catholic "Sharia" wannabees and you get the idea - but at least they are less likely to sell Polish economy out to whomever happens to have enough of a bribe. Which is about the only marginally positive thing I can say about the currently ruling party.

      So, tl;dr: Poland under EU laws made for easy pickings for foreign corporate vultures. Also, we are collectively so dumb that it's very easy to economically fuck us over.

    9. Re:We are shameful by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What part of "Even though they are, for some reason, a member of the EU" is so difficult to understand?

      The part where their reasons aren't completely obvious:
      1) Economic benefits from a common market.
      2) Protection against Russia.
      3) Protection against Germany.

      Poland is in the EU both because it benefits them and because their alternative is being sitting ducks between the continent's natural leader and worst enemy.

      Poland is already a NATO member, they should have stayed out of the EU. They don't belong in the EU. They have voted for an anti-EU government for several times.

      NATO is a military alliance which was born in a specific geopolitical situation and will eventually dissolve. EU, on the other hand, could potentially evolve into a real federation, solving Europe's internal problems for good and allowing it to compete in a world that's quickly catching up. There's currently a strong anti-EU sentiment due to the current migrant crisis, economic mismanagement and various nationalist demagogues seizing the opportunity, but with luck we can weather the storm and continue building "The United States of Europe" we need to have a future in the modern world.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:We are shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i love when someone from outside Poland is stating something about my country, nerveless forgetting how US is breaking their own laws on their soils.
      before you start cleaning someone else press, maybe you should do it on first in your own room ?

  33. Whew! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    So glad they captured this foreign copyright infringer -- making the World a *much* safer place for everyone. Now maybe the Feds can finally spend some time on this "people keep killing other people" thing that seems to be going on here in the US and, I hear, other countries.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're protecting us from terrorist. This and many other laundering sites are funding, al-qaeda, or sunni... or was it isis.

    2. Re:Whew! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      But just think what resources will now be available to the Feds with the tax revenue coming in because the copyright holders will be getting their $1B a year that was being stolen because of KAT. /s

    3. Re:Whew! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      well, they didn't actually do that, they captured a guy who hosted links to copyright infringers. which is surely just as bad as pulling the trigger on Oswald's rifle

  34. Isn't this against Democratic Values??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are more people accessing content on P2P platforms. This does mean that masses are interested in sharing.

    The only people against this are the rich few, who haven't been able to adapt to the changing times, and have seen their cashflows decline. I would rather put it this way, they are so greedy that they want to increase their customer base and ring in a lot more profit.

    It is disheartening to see that the democratically elected Government acting in favour of he influential few.

    Well, considering the democratic process, the governments should do away with the copyrighting laws.

  35. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for to by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Guilty of living in a cross'border police state which operates a system where only the powerless are punished.

  36. He made millions by Camembert · · Score: 1, Insightful

    According to the ars article, it looks like the arrested man made millions of dollars in advertising revenue from his site. It is one thing to engage in filesharing - copyright infringing and all, but in addition he was profiteering big time from his activity. That makes it to me quite different from a legal point of view - he obviously made money from an illegal activity, and I expect that the punishment will be harsher because of it.

    1. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Undercover IRS agent." Since when does a tax collector go after people for civil offences?

    2. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you've just said can apply to Google as well. It doesn't actually make any sense.

    3. Re:He made millions by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And yet only 2 days ago Slashdot ran an article from a judge declaring that torrents themselves are not copyright infringement.

    4. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      torrentfreak has a good article on this, with a close look at the affidavit.

      https://torrentfreak.com/can-kickasstorrents-make-a-comeback-160721/

      The lessons here:
      1) if you are going to build, run and maintain a torrent site, use TOR or similar
      2) don't buy stuff from iTunes, Apple will cooperate
      3) restart TOR each time you access something like TOR, iTunes, GMail, etc.
      4) donate the millions of euros or dollars you make in advertising to cancer research or the Red Cross, etc.

    5. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the case against TPB too. They made millions from ads. Except that there was no proof of that, and apart from the Nazi guy that inherited his fortune, they had no money to pay their fines with. brokep apparently owes record companies almost 10 million dollars, and has spent almost half a year in prison.

    6. Re:He made millions by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      I suppose he ought to have pulled a Youtube and shared the ad revenue with the copyright holders...

    7. Re:He made millions by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      What was the cost of operation? You can't even find a charitable organization anywhere that isn't sucking in huge amounts of cash. If you're not making money you're losing it

    8. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except what he was doing isn't illegal.

      I wonder if everyone started posting magnet hashes in comments on the IMDB site, if the feds would shut that site down too.

    9. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently google made billions of dollars linking to sites that linked to sites that ...

      So when are they going to arrest everyone at google?

    10. Re:He made millions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason YouTube became popular was because before they were bought by Google they would literally host anything. Other sites took down infringing videos but they wouldn't. They wee the Mega Upload of video sites. If it weren't for the illegal content they would not have been popular at all and would have never been acquired by Google.

  37. Betteridge's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I Google kickass torrents and Google returns a link to their site, shouldn't Google be prosecuted as an accessory?

    No.

    1. Re:Betteridge's law by doccus · · Score: 1

      So if I Google kickass torrents and Google returns a link to their site, shouldn't Google be prosecuted as an accessory?

      No.

      I'm sorry, but I seriously disagree, I think YES. However, the alternative would be censorship, which I can't countenance either. And as far as the "Mastermind" behind KAT.. Seriously? Mastermind? And how is it that the US government hat authority in Poland, anyways, of all places? That they can just enter any country with immunity and arrest someone? Shouldn't that be illegal? Or do all these countries just let 'em in with open arms?
      This whole thing stinks worse than a rat's nest...

  38. Re: Legal Defense Fund? by johanw · · Score: 1

    That mostly should not have existed in the first place.

  39. Re:Prosecuted for posting about searching for torr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://kickasstorrentsan.com/

    COME GET ME MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

  40. Re:Prosecuted for posting about searching for torr by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    But it sure would be patentable! Run to the USPTO!!!

  41. His fatal mistake by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Not being a banker or broker; that would have rendered him impervious to the rule of law.

    1. Re:His fatal mistake by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      Or if he was presidential candidate. Especially one who was secretary of state, and once married to the president.

    2. Re:His fatal mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or a film director

    3. Re:His fatal mistake by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

      Nice Polanski reference.

      --
      I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
  42. Re:Legal Defense Fund? by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    I would like to believe that this guy has money stashed all over the place & should be able to fund his own defense. Even so, no matter how much money is spent, no matter what the source, he is likely to be found guilty of something. Something serious enough to give him a few years in prison.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  43. The Polanski case by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    The irony here is they can extradite someone who links to things but not an actual child rapist such as Roman Polanski who is evading US justice in Poland. That's a pretty huge double standard considering the "think of the children" excuse used for internet crackdowns.

    You obviously don't understand in reality how the US government works in some cases, so I'm gong to explain it to you. First of all, the US actually did submit papers to Poland requesting that Polanski be extradited. The Polish government rejected them. However, I'm pretty sure that Polanski feared that the Polish government might not always reject such requests, so apparently he's now back in France. French law prevents his extradition.

    What you also need to know is that US government will never, ever, admit this but in some cases they don't really and truly care all that much about getting the person extradited. It's more about political grandstanding than anything else. Polanski's victim has long asked for the case to be dropped because she says that she long ago forgave him and she can't get past it because the US government won't stop making an issue of it and the press won't leave her alone about it. Are her wishes being listened to? No they are not. The reason is that because she was so underage at the time (What was it? 13 years old maybe...) that the US government doesn't want to seem to be soft on abusing minors and giving preferential treatment to Polanski when they go after child porn people all the time. The government won't admit it, but I think they were pretty satisfied with Switzerland confining him to his home for 2 months and the ongoing attempts to extradite him do prevent him from ever returning to the USA, which I believe is the true but unstated goal of the US government. His punishment in reality is that he can't come back to the USA again. Bobby Fischer, the former world chess champion, was locked up in Japan for about half a year while they "investigated" his situation. Fischer violated US law with his rematch against Spassky because it was held in Yugoslavia which was under embargo at the time. Fischer was a very mentally disturbed person and his constant complaints against the USA and flaunting the fact that he broke US law with the rematch eventually got the US government interested in proving a point to him, so they got the Japanese to lock him up on nebulous charges. Fischer was eventually released and given Icelandic citizenship, which pretty much assured both that he was punished for his crime with the Japanese lockup and that he wouldn't return to the USA, which I think were the real goals of the US government. Similarly the US government doesn't really want Polanski to come back to the US nor are that really all that keen to lock him up any more than they've already done, but they can't admit that.

    1. Re:The Polanski case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean she is interfering with a police investigation by not cooperating now... I say she needs to be arrested!

    2. Re:The Polanski case by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Just a nit - there's a difference between a civil case and a criminal case. It's nice that Polanski's victim has forgiven him - that means he doesn't have to face a civil case. But that doesn't absolve him from criminal liability. Statutory rape (and, if I remember the case correctly it was actually just plain "rape" - big difference for those of you who are scratching your heads) is a crime and is considered an offense against everybody, hence the criminal aspect of it.

    3. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The reason is that because she was so underage at the time

      And also because she was violently raped.

    4. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · · Score: 1

      His punishment in reality is that he can't come back to the USA again

      Do you think this torrent guy is going to be given that same "punishment" or do you think he is going to be extradited from Poland and do time in the USA if found guilty?
      Consider that and you will get my point.
      In this situation copyright violation is being taken far more seriously than a fugitive found guilty of rape. One is being extradited from Poland but not the other.

    5. Re:The Polanski case by operagost · · Score: 1

      France is a true haven for rapists and murderers. We convicted a murderer who stuffed his victim into a chest and left her there until her decomposing body fluids leaked into the apartment below, and France refused to extradite him because Pennsylvania has a death penalty.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:The Polanski case by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's true that for criminal cases, it's the state bringing charges against you, not the victim. That's what that stuff in cop TV shows about the victim refusing to "press charges" is sort-of BS. However, not completely: a prosecutor who pursues charges against a (alleged) criminal, but has a victim who is completely uncooperative, is going to have a hard time winning that case, so in practice they rarely pursue cases like these because it's a waste of time and money, and makes them look bad too.

    7. Re:The Polanski case by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's true that for criminal cases, it's the state bringing charges against you, not the victim. That's what that stuff in cop TV shows about the victim refusing to "press charges" is sort-of BS. However, not completely: a prosecutor who pursues charges against a (alleged) criminal, but has a victim who is completely uncooperative, is going to have a hard time winning that case, so in practice they rarely pursue cases like these because it's a waste of time and money, and makes them look bad too.

      Yes, acknowledged - if the main witness is uncooperative then it's difficult. Given the instant case, though, I'm not sure the witness is needed at this point.

    8. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The torrent guy is in Poland and I was discussing how copyright violation appears to be worth the trouble of extradition from Poland but not rape. That is sort of on topic. While you may be entirely correct (at least I think you are) and Polanski may be in France now we're wandering a bit off the reservation.

  44. How interesting! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware the DOJ had jurisdiction in Poland.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:How interesting! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      See extradition.

    2. Re:How interesting! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      extradition for those who didn't infringe copyright but merely had links to alleged copyright infringers? wow, how meta

    3. Re:How interesting! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      Extraditing someone from Country C that Broke Country A's laws in Country B seems kind of ridiculous. When do we start extraditing political dissenters from America to China?

      --
      ...
  45. Kickasstorrents Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This link seems to be working for now :]
    https://kattorrentes.com/

  46. Complaint analysed by torrentfreak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the analysis of the complain by torrentfreak to learn how the feds tracked him down and what led to his undoing:
    https://torrentfreak.com/can-kickasstorrents-make-a-comeback-160721/

    main thing: not using TOR, using a static IP address from home to do everything from manage KAT to buying songs on iTunes.

  47. Arrest the Yellow Pages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am certain that many businesses listed in the yellow pages break various laws on a regular basis, knowingly or not.

    So, by this logic, we should arrest the publisher of the Yellow Pages for providing referrals to those businesses that commit crimes.

    I look forward to the US Government vigorously prosecuting these criminals who print the Yellow Pages.

  48. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for tor by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    And that's what they want. Now they can do what ever they want without a warrant, because we're all criminals....

  49. I always wonder how much they paid Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever I hear of the US expending time, effort, and money to shut down something that no one really cares about, I wonder how much the people in power were paid to perform these exercises. Probably several million to the Clinton Foundation I would guess....

  50. Dear countries of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you please stop letting America police your sovereign state?

    Thanks,
    American that would prefer the entire world not be like the US.

  51. Crowd sourced verification by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    KAT was never about finding torrents, as you say, it isn't hard by various methods. The real value of KAT was the community. The KAT community would comment and rate torrents. As you're probably aware, there are a lot of bad torrents, and simply fake ones generated by the various copyright associations. The only thing KAT really did was enable a large group of people to crowd source the verification of torrents enabling people to find good ones. Otherwise yes you can most easily find a "torrent" you are looking for, but is it any good, or is it a fake.

    However, none of this has anything to do with technology, so any site can do it, it just helps to be a popular one (i.e. a larger community to manually verify torrents). Should KAT go away, people will just move to a different one, and things continue as before. There will likely be some disruption, but it will only really be a temporary win for the copyright associations. They of course will simply use this is justification of their existence to continue to leech money from the various media industries (hence the "BILLION" dollar figure which is complete BS, as the simplistic example goes the car thief wasn't going to buy the car if he hadn't stolen it)... Rinse, repeat, etc...

    1. Re:Crowd sourced verification by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to build the community features into the torrents themselves somehow. You would interact with the 'community' through your bittorrent client instead of a website that can be taken down.

  52. America! by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    Criminalizing civil matters at the behest of profit motives since forever.

  53. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you are nauseous makes me throw up in torrents.

  54. How in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How in the world can a foreigner be tried for breaking US law? It is quite sickening.

  55. sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll send him a link to a copy of a $100 bill

  56. Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't worry, trump will take care of that with his view an illegal website go to jail policy.

  57. can't hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice." ....But apparently Hillary doesn't even have to run from Justice. Justice runs from her.

  58. maybe hilary too should arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the truth us has far as the site is running no cause for alarm then.

    Serena Williams Stuns in Racy Revealing Selfie|CREEBHILLS

  59. Re:My favorite part of the DOJ preso release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, just how much is Hollywood/media paying in taxes to the IRS each year?
    Or is it like Apple and others that just can't seem to run up a domestic profit?
    A lot of SONY emails were leaked. Did the IRS or DOJ actually follow up on these?

    If one calls it money laundering then the DOJ should be going after bigger fish, which would be much of corporate America, and quite a few political donations.