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.

Comments

Cool story bro

[bcarson]

What's really important is that the judges agree.

Re:Cool story bro

[penguinoid]

What's really important is whether the judge follows the law or makes a ruling that is against the law because the judge thinks the law is flawed and should be changed at his discretion.

Re:Cool story bro

[KingBenny]

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

Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get how everybody on this planet an his dog can be extradited to the fucking USA at their whims. The guy isn't even a US citizen...

Re:Extradition?

[freeze128]

Maybe because Hollywood is in the US....

Re:Extradition?

[BarbaraHudson]

And if it's not a crime in the country where the person being sought is staying, it's generally not extraditable. Canada is one such country where the treat with the US allows Canada to refuse to extradite such a person. Another reason in the same treaty is if the extradition is of a political nature:

Article 4, section 1, subsection iii

(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

Additionally, Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the death penalty is in play unless the US agrees beforehand not to seek it, of if such judgment is made, not to follow through with it. And in the case of minor children, extradition can be refused if it is determined that such extradition

ARTICLE 5

If a request for extradition is made under this Treaty for a person who at the time of such request, or at the time of the commission of the offense for which extradition is sought, is under the age of eighteen years and is considered by the requested State to be one of its residents, the requested State, upon a determination that extradition would disrupt the social readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, may recommend to the requesting State that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor.

ARTICLE 6

When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.

It can be argued pretty easily that Snowden, Manning, and Assange all have a defense under Article 2.1(iii) to have safe haven in Canada, since the whole mess has taken on a HUGE political angle, overshadowing everything else. Unfortunately, Obama's kill list has no geographical limit - it's fine to kill Americans anywhere in the world, even in the USA, in violation of their constitutionally protected right to due process. Looks like Obama is taking a page from Bush's "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" playbook and ran with it.

Re:Extradition?

[OneHundredAndTen]

It's why Snowden is still in Commie Russia.

Autocratic Russia, yes. Commie, no.

Re:Extradition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats really ironic is he was extradited from poland.

One of the countries that won't hand over roman polanski for being a guilty as hell pedo.

rape kids? thats ok. put up a website? we'll hand you right over.

Re:Extradition?

[UnknownSoldier]

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

Re:Extradition?

[Trickster Paean]

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.

He's also charged with money laundering.

[BitterOak]

Although I personally don't think the "crime" of money laundering should even exist, it does exist and it is a criminal matter. Even if secondary copyright infringement is a purely civil and not a criminal matter, he is also charged with money laundering and could be extradited on those grounds.

Re:He's also charged with money laundering.

[bloodhawk]

have to disagree on the money laundering part. The creation of money laundering laws was pretty much essential to prevent organised crime from hiding ill gotten gains by pumping them through shop fronts, casinos and international exchanges and then labelling their proceeds of crime as legitimate profits or winnings. Casinos, banks etc were more than happy to be complicit in these transactions as they got a healthy cut, you can't just ask nicely for them to not do this.

Re:He's also charged with money laundering.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that everything covered by money laundering is covered by other laws that were existing at the time, either the root crime generating the ill gotten gains, or the account fraud that takes place with laundering. The problem is that it's easier just to make up magic new laws than do police work.

Re:It doesn't matter if you're violating the law

[chuckugly]

It's more like if you publish a map of where the banks are, and someone goes in and copies their letterhead, then YOU are a felon.

Because he had a server in the USA

[ArchieBunker]

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.

But... eBay..??

[Harold Halloway]

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?