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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday July 20, 2016 @01:30PM from the justice-will-prevail dept.

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.

160 of 302 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

prosecuted for HTML by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:35 · 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 · 2016-07-20 17:16 · 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 · 2016-07-20 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?de...
3. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Hognoxious · 2016-07-21 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  Trump is a loose canon.
  
  Are you deacon us around?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
4. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Trump is a loose canon.
  Are you sure he's not a loose Nikon?
5. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, he didn't. He merely forgot to mention Trump alongside her name.
6. Re:prosecuted for HTML by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-07-21 05:40 · 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.
7. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Hylandr · 2016-07-21 21:17 · 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.
8. Re:prosecuted for HTML by Grishnakh · 2016-07-22 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  It sure looks that way sometimes.
Some thoughts by Okian+Warrior · 2016-07-20 13:36 · 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 · 2016-07-20 13:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For trial? Hahahahaha
2. Re:Some thoughts by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-20 14:29 · 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.
3. Re:Some thoughts by BitterOak · 2016-07-20 14:32 · 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?
4. Re:Some thoughts by viperidaenz · 2016-07-20 14:40 · 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.
5. Re:Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 16:59 · 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.
6. Re:Some thoughts by sjames · 2016-07-20 18:40 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  So why can't they arrest the scam callers impersonating the IRS and demanding money? Fraud is illegal in most countries.
7. Re: Some thoughts by easyTree · 2016-07-20 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because that doesn't affect anyone with the power to control the actions of the 'Justice' Department?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
8. Re: Some thoughts by easyTree · 2016-07-20 19:07 · 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)?
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
9. Re: Some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 19:21 · 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!
10. Re:Some thoughts by dbIII · 2016-07-20 20:12 · 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.
11. Re:Some thoughts by dbIII · 2016-07-20 20:45 · 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.
12. Re:Some thoughts by lrichardson · 2016-07-20 22:07 · 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'
13. Re: Some thoughts by Alumoi · 2016-07-20 23:19 · 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.
14. Re:Some thoughts by drinkypoo · 2016-07-20 23:29 · 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.'"
15. Re:Some thoughts by sjames · 2016-07-21 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  So follow the money back.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-07-20 13:37 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:38 · 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 dbIII · 2016-07-20 20:20 · 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.
2. Re:Warning by thegarbz · 2016-07-20 23:07 · 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.
3. Re:Warning by drinkypoo · 2016-07-20 23:30 · 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.'"
4. Re:Warning by fred911 · 2016-07-21 01:04 · 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
5. Re:Warning by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 03:40 · 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.
6. Re:Warning by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-07-21 05:50 · 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.
7. Re:Warning by jmcvetta · 2016-07-21 07:02 · 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.
8. Re:Warning by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-07-21 09:16 · 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"
9. Re:Warning by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2016-07-21 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I believe he hiding in France or Switzerland not Poland.
10. Re:Warning by Feral+Nerd · 2016-08-04 19:04 · 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.
Justice? by roman_mir · 2016-07-20 13:38 · 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.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Justice? by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-07-20 13:49 · 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 roman_mir · 2016-07-20 15:27 · 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.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re: Justice? by jonwil · 2016-07-20 17:11 · 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.
4. Re: Justice? by Hylandr · 2016-07-20 17:22 · 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.
5. Re: Justice? by zrobotics · 2016-07-20 17:26 · 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.
6. Re: Justice? by easyTree · 2016-07-20 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  How does one get this message out to the masses? These same interests control the news outlets.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
7. Re: Justice? by easyTree · 2016-07-20 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, my air quotes around the word 'news' didn't make it into the post.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
8. Re: Justice? by hackwrench · 2016-07-20 19:32 · 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.
9. Re: Justice? by easyTree · 2016-07-20 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Start a kickstater campaign
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
10. Re:Justice? by dbIII · 2016-07-20 20:14 · 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.
11. Re:Justice? by abies · 2016-07-20 20:24 · 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.
12. Re:Justice? by dbIII · 2016-07-20 20:42 · 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.
13. Re:Justice? by munch117 · 2016-07-20 21:36 · 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.
14. Re: Justice? by johanw · 2016-07-20 22:53 · 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.
15. Re:Justice? by johanw · 2016-07-20 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  What's so howly about a contract then? It's just a piece of paper anyway.
16. Re:Justice? by cdrudge · 2016-07-21 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  But it was very far from being 'rape'
  No, I think that's pretty much the definition of rape, specifically statutory rape.
17. Re:Justice? by abies · 2016-07-21 00:49 · 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..."
18. Re:Justice? by abies · 2016-07-21 00:54 · 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'.
19. Re: Justice? by abies · 2016-07-21 01:06 · 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'
20. Re:Justice? by abies · 2016-07-21 01:34 · 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.
21. Re:Justice? by jdavidb · 2016-07-21 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://biblehub.com/isaiah/5-2...
  
  --
  Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
22. Re:Justice? by roman_mir · 2016-07-21 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Gary Johnson
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
23. Re: Justice? by ultranova · 2016-07-21 02:13 · 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.
24. Re:Justice? by Hognoxious · 2016-07-21 02:18 · 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."
25. Re: Justice? by dbIII · 2016-07-21 02:27 · 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.
26. Re: Justice? by dbIII · 2016-07-21 02:33 · 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.
27. Re:Justice? by dbIII · 2016-07-21 02:48 · 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.
28. Re: Justice? by ultranova · 2016-07-21 02:52 · 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.
29. Re:Justice? by serviscope_minor · 2016-07-21 03:02 · 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.
30. Re:Justice? by operagost · 2016-07-21 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  And it doesn't matter if the "victim" lies about his/her age, either.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
31. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 03:53 · 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.
32. Re:Justice? by citizenr · 2016-07-21 04:10 · 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.
33. Re:Justice? by TsuruchiBrian · 2016-07-21 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  What about enforcing laws against murder?
34. Re:Justice? by Altrag · 2016-07-21 06:29 · 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.)
35. Re:Justice? by rubycodez · 2016-07-21 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  guess again, first cousin marriage legal in many states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  many countries too
  also, ewwww!
36. Re:Justice? by rubycodez · 2016-07-21 08:01 · 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
37. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 11:21 · 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.
38. Re:Justice? by Jhon · 2016-07-21 11:47 · 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.
39. Re:Justice? by Altrag · 2016-07-21 13:27 · 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!
40. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 15:17 · 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.
41. Re: Justice? by doccus · 2016-07-22 05:34 · 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?
42. Re:Justice? by Grishnakh · 2016-07-22 11:36 · 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.
Pointless appeasement still pointless by fafalone · 2016-07-20 13:42 · 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 · 2016-07-20 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Legally, it should have.
2. Re:Pointless appeasement still pointless by Travis+Mansbridge · 2016-07-20 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Works for Google.
3. Re:Pointless appeasement still pointless by Hylandr · 2016-07-20 17:25 · 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.
Re:Need a new system by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 14:08 · Score: 1

Freenet exists if people would use it.
Update by Areyoukiddingme · 2016-07-20 14:13 · Score: 3, Informative

As of this writing, KAT is down, both through conventional DNS and through their onion address.
1. Re:Update by evilviper · 2016-07-20 14:46 · 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 · 2016-07-20 16:12 · 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 · 2016-07-20 16:14 · 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 · 2016-07-20 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  how exactly is eztv.ag compromised?
5. Re:Update by Hylandr · 2016-07-20 17:41 · 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 · 2016-07-20 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  ...or just torrentz.eu
  
  --
  >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
  >life
7. Re:Update by sjames · 2016-07-20 19:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Arrests for what?
  For looking at a page that offers magnet links that you might or might not access?
8. Re:Update by Mashiki · 2016-07-20 21:22 · 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...
9. Re:Update by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-21 01:36 · 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
10. Re:Update by Hylandr · 2016-07-21 03:47 · 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.
11. Re:Update by GameboyRMH · 2016-07-21 05:34 · 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
12. Re:Update by Hylandr · 2016-07-21 21:23 · 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.
Re:Need a new system by CRCulver · 2016-07-20 14:16 · 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:
Prosecuted for posting about searching for torrent by ZipK · 2016-07-20 14:17 · 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?
Re:Prosecuted for posting about searching for torr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 14:19 · 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?
Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for tor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 14:25 · Score: 2, Funny

just reading this makes us all guilty
Torrent Sites? by 0100010001010011 · 2016-07-20 14:33 · Score: 4, Funny

People still use those? Google is still the fastest and best:
filetype:torrent [your query]
1. Re:Torrent Sites? by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-20 19:49 · 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
2. Re:Torrent Sites? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 04:56 · 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.
Tails 1.4.1 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 15:07 · 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 · 2016-07-20 15:37 · 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 · 2016-07-20 15:41 · 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
Poland? by boudie2 · 2016-07-20 15:36 · Score: 2

That does it, I'm not buying anything more from Poland!
ROFL by shaitand · 2016-07-20 15:49 · 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 · 2016-07-20 17:54 · 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 abies · 2016-07-20 19:26 · 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.
My favorite part of the DOJ preso release by basecastula+ · 2016-07-20 16:58 · 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.
Treason? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 17:03 · 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 · 2016-07-20 18:05 · 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 · 2016-07-20 23:08 · 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?
3. Re: Treason? by avatar+avatar · 2016-07-20 23:34 · Score: 2
  
  Not if it's rough, apparently.
4. Re:Treason? by blackomegax · 2016-07-21 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has been a loose ally with the US since the cold war ended.
5. Re:Treason? by operagost · 2016-07-21 03:30 · 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.
6. Re:Treason? by thoromyr · 2016-07-21 06:53 · 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.)
HERO by Lumby · 2016-07-20 17:41 · Score: 1

hope he escapes
We are shameful by fred911 · 2016-07-20 18:06 · 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 · 2016-07-20 19:33 · 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 · 2016-07-20 21:42 · 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 · 2016-07-20 22:53 · 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 Mashiki · 2016-07-21 00:41 · 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...
5. Re:We are shameful by dunkelfalke · 2016-07-21 00:46 · 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
6. Re:We are shameful by ultranova · 2016-07-21 03:48 · 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.
Whew! by fahrbot-bot · 2016-07-20 18:08 · 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 CanadianMacFan · 2016-07-21 01:13 · 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
2. Re:Whew! by rubycodez · 2016-07-21 08:02 · 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
Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for to by easyTree · 2016-07-20 18:57 · Score: 1

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

--
Requiem for the American Dream
He made millions by Camembert · 2016-07-20 18:58 · 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 · 2016-07-20 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  What you've just said can apply to Google as well. It doesn't actually make any sense.
2. Re:He made millions by thegarbz · 2016-07-20 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  And yet only 2 days ago Slashdot ran an article from a judge declaring that torrents themselves are not copyright infringement.
3. Re:He made millions by Gilgaron · 2016-07-21 00:07 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose he ought to have pulled a Youtube and shared the ad revenue with the copyright holders...
4. Re:He made millions by misexistentialist · 2016-07-21 00:22 · 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
Re: Legal Defense Fund? by johanw · 2016-07-20 22:16 · Score: 1

That mostly should not have existed in the first place.
Re:Prosecuted for posting about searching for torr by F.Ultra · 2016-07-20 23:47 · Score: 1

But it sure would be patentable! Run to the USPTO!!!
His fatal mistake by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-07-20 23:51 · 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 · 2016-07-21 05:05 · 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 mmdurrant · 2016-07-21 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nice Polanski reference.
  
  --
  I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
Re:Legal Defense Fund? by Bruinwar · 2016-07-20 23:52 · 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
The Polanski case by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2016-07-21 00:23 · 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 Trailer+Trash · 2016-07-21 01:58 · 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.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
2. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · 2016-07-21 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  The reason is that because she was so underage at the time
  And also because she was violently raped.
3. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · 2016-07-21 02:42 · 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.
4. Re:The Polanski case by operagost · 2016-07-21 03:35 · 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.
5. Re:The Polanski case by Grishnakh · 2016-07-21 03:45 · 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.
6. Re:The Polanski case by Trailer+Trash · 2016-07-21 05:01 · 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.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
7. Re:The Polanski case by dbIII · 2016-07-21 13:31 · 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.
How interesting! by Weaselmancer · 2016-07-21 00:52 · Score: 1

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

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
1. Re:How interesting! by oh_my_080980980 · 2016-07-21 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  See extradition.
2. Re:How interesting! by rubycodez · 2016-07-21 08:04 · 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 · 2016-07-24 02:49 · 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?
  
  --
  ...
Re: Prosecuted for posting about searching for tor by MitchDev · 2016-07-21 02:30 · Score: 1

And that's what they want. Now they can do what ever they want without a warrant, because we're all criminals....
Crowd sourced verification by DarthVain · 2016-07-21 03:18 · 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 · 2016-07-25 08:42 · 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.
America! by gatfirls · 2016-07-21 05:50 · Score: 1

Criminalizing civil matters at the behest of profit motives since forever.
Re:Betteridge's law by doccus · 2016-07-22 05:09 · 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...