Slashdot Mirror


KickassTorrents Lawyer: 'Torrent Sites Do Not Violate Criminal Copyright Laws' (arstechnica.co.uk)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Lawyers representing Artem Vaulin have filed their formal legal response to prosecutors' allegations of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, among other charges. Vaulin is the alleged head of KickassTorrents (KAT). KAT was the world's largest BitTorrent distribution site before it was shuttered by authorities earlier this year. Vaulin was arrested in Poland, where he now awaits 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 Leslie Caldwell said in a July 2016 statement. The defense's new 22-page court filing largely relies on the argument that there is no such thing as secondary criminal copyright infringement. While secondary copyright infringement as a matter of civil liability was upheld by the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster in 2005, Vaulin and his associates have been charged criminally. "The fundamental flaw in the government's untenable theory of prosecution is that there is no copyright protection for such torrent file instructions and addresses," [the brief's author, Ira Rothken,] argued in his Monday motion to dismiss the charges against Vaulin. "Therefore, given the lack of direct willful copyright infringement, torrent sites do not violate criminal copyright laws." "The extradition procedures have formally been started by the US in Poland," Rothken told Ars. "We are in a submissions or briefing period, and our Polish team is opposing extradition." Rothken also said that he has yet to be allowed to meet or speak directly with his client. For now, Rothken has been required to communicate via his Polish counterpart, Alek Kowzan. "Maybe they are afraid that Artem's extradition defense will be enhanced if American lawyers can assist in defending against the US extradition," Rothken added. No hearings before US District Judge John Z. Lee have been set.

5 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Extradition? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    /sarcsam Because America has the "best" government money can buy son.

  2. Because he had a server in the USA by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone seems to miss this tiny detail. He had a server running in CHICAGO. Plus they tied the site to his personal email address. So he wasn't even trying to be discrete.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  3. Re:Cool story bro by KingBenny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i think we all know the actual trial is a farce and the decisions have already been made ... same for demonoid, tpb and all the rest i mean ... EXTRADITION, helllooow ?
    in fact they dont host content so i agree they dont violate shit, and the argument of facilitation is bullshit since smartphones, google, and your fingertips also make it easier to address the content through a certain channel
    load of american horsecrap ... im almost starting to suspect myself of being anti-american today but you gotta admit .... the last two weeks ???
    the textbook definition of OTT

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  4. Re:Extradition? by Trickster+Paean · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The U.S. is one of the few countries that does not block extradition of its own citizens (cf. Brazil, China, France, Germany, Japan, etc.). Getting a Yank extradited pursuant to one of the 109 bilateral treaties the U.S. has signed is very possible, even if the reciprocating party will not extradite its own citizens.

    Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada wasn't extradited under the U.S. Bolivia Extradition Treaty because there is no comparable crime under U.S. criminal law like the one he is charged with in Bolivia. The crime of genocide under Bolivian law, which includes massacres without a specific intent requirement, has no comparable equivalent under U.S. law. Therefore, the charge failed the dual criminality requirement of the treaty, and he wasn't extraditable.

  5. But... eBay..?? by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've never understood why KAT, TPB et al are considered to be the very epitome of modern day evil, yet eBay can carry on selling fakes and bootlegs by the tens of thousands apparently unmolested by the US authorities?