[...] The complaint further reveals that the feds posed as an advertiser, which revealed a bank account associated with the site.
It also shows that Apple handed over personal details of Vaulin after the investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account. [...]
Some aspects which seem interesting to me, from what is reported:
• that apparently KAT owner tried to shield off DMCA takedown requests (which I'd see as trying to affirm being legal);
• that according to the articles he seems to not have used Tor (or fumbled in it).
(Assuming no parallel construction and that he's actually the guy, etc. etc.)
> investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account
The article implies that the investigator had a FB and iTunes IP address and THEN Apple gave the rest of the user's details but that doesn't really make sense.
I'm guessing that they gag-ordered and subpoenaed FB for account info, but how did the investigator get the iTunes transaction IP address prior to getting user details from Apple?
Edit:
I think the more likely scenario is that FB was forced to give up user details and the only valid info was the IP Address, and then Apple (and probably google etc.) was forced to search through their databases and produce any records related to the IP address in question.
Or maybe the USG has a database filled with iTunes transaction information -- I really wouldn't doubt this at all. I'm sure music is a partial indicator of "dissident" level in whatever algorithm is used to assist investigators.
As an American, I wish we would stop doing this. It isn't effective, and it's a waste of time/resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
I'd even argue that its counter-effective to progress. Instead of punishing people for making more efficient systems, we should reward them, and try to integrate.
Uber did develop a more efficient system by stepping on legal lines and gray areas. They did have troubles after a while but not in the same way. Somehow network distribution has no 'economic' values to the eyes of authorities. I'd love to see some stats, in my mind p2p sharing wasn't growing, even going down Compared to the 2000-2010 era since people have other means to share and content (spotify, soundcloud, ...) and the novelty has faded.
I do profit from it from time to time to reach for very old clips, lives or albums that you cant find. It doesnt really hurt business if they dont sell it.
Are you actually suggesting US companies compete on a free and open market, with consumers deciding which services and products deserve to survive based on the quality and price of the service/product? Then they might risk failing as a company just because consumers didn't like what they had to sell. Well I never! /sarcasm
>>>As an American, I wish we would stop doing this...
You can't really blame America. They've decided their jurisdiction extends to the entire planet. And, rather, than argue the point, the rest of the world just bends over and adopts the position. When faced with such supine sycophancy, why would America not keep acting this way?
I have utter contempt for Poland on this [and similar] case/s. What a contemptible lick-spittle, a once fiercely independent nation has become!
Indeed, we should. Comrade Page, comrade Brin, I'd like to have the Google software stack. IP rights are an outdated concept and the collective has decided that Google's stack belongs to the people.
Besides, everything is just bits! If you represent the whole monorepo as a single integer, denying people access to it would be akin to patenting a natural number!
A person in the US who, for example, wants to watch all but the latest season of Game of Thrones can go to iTunes and, within seconds, purchase and start watching. And it will be in better quality than the torrent which was ripped off some TV broadcast and re-compressed. iTunes is available for both Windows and Mac (plus various iOS) and is super simple to use. And the one purchase lets you either stream or download to any of your devices and watch whenever you want.
The very latest content does get artificially restricted due to various business reasons (licensing deals, etc.) and I suspect that will change over time to go to an instant-release model. Ditto for fewer geo restrictions. We're starting to see these changes more and more. For music, there are far more options available: Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play Music, etc. where one low monthly fee lets you play almost anything you want.
However, despite all this incredible ease for lots of different media, people still want content for free. Maybe the solution is to combine enforcement with an educational campaign so that people are aware of the myriad legal options available to them.
It seems like a lot of the most well-known pseudo-legal BitTorrent "groups" (PopcornTime, YIFY, ISOHunt, now Kat) turn out to be one-man shops, and as such, just completely dissolve as soon as their owner crosses paths with law enforcement. In some cases, these services are integral enough to the "scene" to be brought back by others. But other times, everything just stops for a while.
This seems like a bus-factor problem. Why does it keep happening? Why aren't these sites being run by multi-national teams that can survive a loss like this?
Even The Pirate Bay is "just" Swedish, so a sufficiently-motivated Swedish Government could shut TPB down. Meanwhile, there's no single country that could shut down e.g. Wikipedia.
> This seems like a bus-factor problem. Why does it keep happening? Why aren't these sites being run by multi-national teams that can survive a loss like this?
Trust. You have to be sure the people you're working with are diligent, careful, and won't turn you in (and likewise for them).
> This seems like a bus-factor problem. Why does it keep happening? Why aren't these sites being run by multi-national teams that can survive a loss like this?
I mean, I would assume it's because it's shady business. Even if you made it multi-national, there are probably only a few places where you could reasonably keep the server hidden for an extended period of time (Keep in mind, these aren't Tor services or anything, they're pretty out in the open as far as I can tell) - and you're making money off of ads, so actually getting paid is another complicated issue. And really, if you only need one person, why bring in the risks of a second one? I don't think you'd be very concerned about "keeping the scene alive" if you're going to jail.
Wikipedia is easy in comparison because most countries don't throw you in jail for running a Wikipedia server.
I'm interested in the problem of how you would solve a distributed system that is moderated yet guards against bad actors.
To answer your question I think these are one man shops because they get shut down before reaching the size that you could have a larger team involved. Maybe if someone without a profit motive started something up they'd build a system that solved the problem above and could therefore last longer than a lone individual's contribution.
Because realistically speaking nobody cares. Having people trust wikipedia to stay open or be at least backed up and not controlled makes them more likely to contribute to the upkeep of the site. If i'm downloading software for free from a list of public trackers, it is more or less completely interchangeable to me and everyone else involved in the process.
> Meanwhile, there's no single country that could shut down e.g. Wikipedia.
You don't have to shut it down, you can simply prevent access to it, like in China. Problem solved, if that's something you considered a problem in the first place.
Because these sites do not matter? Torrent sites are pretty much bottom feeders but public torrent sites doubly so? The important sites are scene FTP sites, especially topsites where releases actually happen.
Aside from the legal technicalities here, I mostly ponder the future of IP. I think Napster positively affected the music distribution world in the long run. I am not very black-and-white on this issue, however, since there are many contradictions by both sides.
I read the majority of comments here on HN about dated business models, big corporation dislike, the old executives don't understand the new market, etc..., but then a young indie artist in LA finds out Zara the clothing retailer has obviously copied her designs, and the lynch mobs are out to boycott Zara, send letters and other things to Zara and their attorneys. [1]
I have not inquired directly, but I am guessing a number of the indie artist's supporters have downloaded a torrent or two. How do they morally distinguish the two, or how does anybody who is against copyright or property rights of IP?
I think the moral difference may lie in the balance of power between the IP holder and IP infringer :
In Zara vs indie designer, Zara steal the design and uses its power to distribute and sell it to the whole world. The indie designer cannot compete, or fight. The fact that Zara used her designs will not advertise her own products or make her money (maybe it did after the public outcry, but I guess it will not be the case for every indie designer).
In torrent website vs content producers, the torrent website or its user are not more powerful than the producers. They do not put the producers' business at risk. Everyone knows who made the original product, and may buy some genuine products or derivatives : torrenting can act as advertisement.
One of the other justifications for torrenting is that the content is not available in your country. Similarly, the indie design was not available in all countries. But the source of the issue is different : a small business may not distribute to the whole wold because of logistics, whereas producers and distributors voluntarily block content from being available when it could be.
I get where you're coming from, and I think you make a good point, so I'll attempt to answer it.
--------
Note that the following is an analogy.
I have no idea about the facts of the case,
but I'm trying to compare it to downloading
illegal torrents.
--------
Imagine there's one designer for most of the world's t-shirts but she won't sell them to the UK so you can't buy one. Zara attempts to do a licensing deal which is profitable for the designer, but she's greedy and thinks she can get more money without the licensing deal. So Zara simply copies the t-shirts, UK customers get their t-shirts and the designer gets nothing.
This is essentially the problem. Disney has an almost complete monopoly over the distribution of kids films, and like all monopolies, they end up over-priced with poor service. The government doesn't seem to care. But torrents allow us to break that monopoly.
It's not just about the cost. It's about how the digital distribution industry fails to service customer needs because its monopoly means the status quo is so profitable.
Because the people who run those companies are literally extremely old, very ignorant about technology, and they do not care what people want, only what they perceive as the best money-making investment.
They don't want change, they want business as usual, but their business model is dead, it's dead and rotting and they are going to accept that one of these days. Meanwhile pirates will keep stealing their worthless products.
You can do all of those things on iTunes or Amazon Video. Why would the movie studios run their own content distribution when it gives them little competitive advantage.
of course torrents still win in content. Especially newer movies.
I want to watch a newer movie.
Is it on netflix/hulu/hbo/prime? Nope
Is it on AIV paid? Yes.
How much? 20 dollars.
That's too much for a movie I probably will only watch once. Any other options? At best a rental on AIV for a few bucks. That's pretty borderline. I'd pay that to see a movie I really want to see, but for one I'm taking a risk on it's a bit much.
I'd pay more for Netflix if it meant they get those new movies quicker. People seem to lose their shit when they announce a 1 dollar price increase though. Ridiculous, but there you go.
vs torrents I can just go into a webapp and pick out a movie. It gets downloaded and organized for me. I can watch it on my PC, my TV, via streaming, copy it to my iPad. Whatever. Easy, reasonably quick, free. Downside is it's illegal and immoral. I avoid pirating any content that I can easily access (I have some older shows that never made it past DVD, and are hard to find in general), because there really is no justification. When I was a student and content was mostly in expensive blu rays, I absolutely pirated.
I find it interesting that a Polish man was charged by US laws, rather than under Polish law.
I think he opened himself to US law by hosting the servers at one point in the US. Regardless, it is rather fascinating that his first visit to the US could potentially be from extradition.
> It also shows that Apple handed over personal details of Vaulin after the investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account.
I find it darkly ironic that a legal purchase of music helped them catch the guy.
Does anyone know if there is data somewhere on how much money has been spent by governments (specifically the USA) on attacking copyright related stuff?
My main complaint about this is that I'd rather my tax dollars be spent stopping crime that causes physical harm.
Another black market business opportunity brought to you via fed money. DOJ, FBI, polish police, etc, etc all spent tax money on this takedown. All working so the next guy can make a website and make $16 million / year. And it only takes one guy to run the site apparently.
Who knows maybe the next guy will use Tor, Bitcoin, read Grugq's blog and be 5x as expensive to hunt down. Thanks US tax payers!
This will be interesting to watch. Torrent sites only host torrent files; I'm sure he'll argue that the DMCA requests were invalid because the people filing them didn't own copyright to the torrent files, which were the only thing that the site distributed. Where do we draw the line? Do we prosecute people for posting a magnet link? If a movie studio puts an MP4 of a not-yet-released film on its servers, is it illegal to link to it?
It will be an interesting case to watch if he takes it all the way to trial. I don't think it's nearly as open-and-shut as the DOJ would like everyone to believe every case it files is though.
So if extradited he may be tried. Now has jury of your peers (fellow citizens) any meaning in case of trying a non-US citizen? Jurors must be US citizens, but they will not be his peers, really.
If I was making millions of dollars from illicit activities I would practice incredibly rigorous opsec. I realize modern lifestyles don't align with any kind of anonymity but come on. Here's a short list:
- No Apple
- No Facebook
- No Google
- Don't live in a 5 eyes or affiliated country
- Know the extradition and legal precedent in all countries visited
Is there a legal lesson to take from this when it comes to using cloud services hosted in the US where you can be affected by US laws just because you hosted a site with links to PDFs from Elsevier in an S3 bucket which itself happens to be pointing to a US datacenter? I haven't read it all, but there must be more to it than having used a US hoster that made the guy an easy litigation target.
[+] [-] akavel|9 years ago|reply
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/kickasstorrents-a...
Somewhat more/complementary details seem to be available on: https://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-kickasstorrents-domains-... — e.g. regarding methods:
[...] The complaint further reveals that the feds posed as an advertiser, which revealed a bank account associated with the site.
It also shows that Apple handed over personal details of Vaulin after the investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account. [...]
Some aspects which seem interesting to me, from what is reported:
• that apparently KAT owner tried to shield off DMCA takedown requests (which I'd see as trying to affirm being legal);
• that according to the articles he seems to not have used Tor (or fumbled in it).
(Assuming no parallel construction and that he's actually the guy, etc. etc.)
EDIT: I couldn't really find any Polish sources — suppose because it's middle of the night here... (the single article — http://www.dobreprogramy.pl/Zalozyciel-Kickass-Torrents-zatr... — seems to be written based on the above English-language ones)
[+] [-] robotkilla|9 years ago|reply
The article implies that the investigator had a FB and iTunes IP address and THEN Apple gave the rest of the user's details but that doesn't really make sense.
I'm guessing that they gag-ordered and subpoenaed FB for account info, but how did the investigator get the iTunes transaction IP address prior to getting user details from Apple?
Edit:
I think the more likely scenario is that FB was forced to give up user details and the only valid info was the IP Address, and then Apple (and probably google etc.) was forced to search through their databases and produce any records related to the IP address in question.
Or maybe the USG has a database filled with iTunes transaction information -- I really wouldn't doubt this at all. I'm sure music is a partial indicator of "dissident" level in whatever algorithm is used to assist investigators.
[+] [-] dang|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xanderstrike|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptSpify|9 years ago|reply
I'd even argue that its counter-effective to progress. Instead of punishing people for making more efficient systems, we should reward them, and try to integrate.
[+] [-] tn13|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zouhair|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|9 years ago|reply
I do profit from it from time to time to reach for very old clips, lives or albums that you cant find. It doesnt really hurt business if they dont sell it.
[+] [-] jamaicahest|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HoopleHead|9 years ago|reply
You can't really blame America. They've decided their jurisdiction extends to the entire planet. And, rather, than argue the point, the rest of the world just bends over and adopts the position. When faced with such supine sycophancy, why would America not keep acting this way?
I have utter contempt for Poland on this [and similar] case/s. What a contemptible lick-spittle, a once fiercely independent nation has become!
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mSparks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 99127912|9 years ago|reply
Besides, everything is just bits! If you represent the whole monorepo as a single integer, denying people access to it would be akin to patenting a natural number!
[+] [-] biot|9 years ago|reply
The very latest content does get artificially restricted due to various business reasons (licensing deals, etc.) and I suspect that will change over time to go to an instant-release model. Ditto for fewer geo restrictions. We're starting to see these changes more and more. For music, there are far more options available: Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play Music, etc. where one low monthly fee lets you play almost anything you want.
However, despite all this incredible ease for lots of different media, people still want content for free. Maybe the solution is to combine enforcement with an educational campaign so that people are aware of the myriad legal options available to them.
[+] [-] derefr|9 years ago|reply
This seems like a bus-factor problem. Why does it keep happening? Why aren't these sites being run by multi-national teams that can survive a loss like this?
Even The Pirate Bay is "just" Swedish, so a sufficiently-motivated Swedish Government could shut TPB down. Meanwhile, there's no single country that could shut down e.g. Wikipedia.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|9 years ago|reply
Trust. You have to be sure the people you're working with are diligent, careful, and won't turn you in (and likewise for them).
[+] [-] DSMan195276|9 years ago|reply
I mean, I would assume it's because it's shady business. Even if you made it multi-national, there are probably only a few places where you could reasonably keep the server hidden for an extended period of time (Keep in mind, these aren't Tor services or anything, they're pretty out in the open as far as I can tell) - and you're making money off of ads, so actually getting paid is another complicated issue. And really, if you only need one person, why bring in the risks of a second one? I don't think you'd be very concerned about "keeping the scene alive" if you're going to jail.
Wikipedia is easy in comparison because most countries don't throw you in jail for running a Wikipedia server.
[+] [-] josho|9 years ago|reply
To answer your question I think these are one man shops because they get shut down before reaching the size that you could have a larger team involved. Maybe if someone without a profit motive started something up they'd build a system that solved the problem above and could therefore last longer than a lone individual's contribution.
[+] [-] airza|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnmarius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|9 years ago|reply
You don't have to shut it down, you can simply prevent access to it, like in China. Problem solved, if that's something you considered a problem in the first place.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|9 years ago|reply
USA government always have a way though, there's no way either place would stand up for their own citizens once the USA start threatening sanctions.
[+] [-] chx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zouhair|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eggy|9 years ago|reply
I read the majority of comments here on HN about dated business models, big corporation dislike, the old executives don't understand the new market, etc..., but then a young indie artist in LA finds out Zara the clothing retailer has obviously copied her designs, and the lynch mobs are out to boycott Zara, send letters and other things to Zara and their attorneys. [1]
I have not inquired directly, but I am guessing a number of the indie artist's supporters have downloaded a torrent or two. How do they morally distinguish the two, or how does anybody who is against copyright or property rights of IP?
[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriasanusi/an-independent-artis...
[+] [-] samzub|9 years ago|reply
In Zara vs indie designer, Zara steal the design and uses its power to distribute and sell it to the whole world. The indie designer cannot compete, or fight. The fact that Zara used her designs will not advertise her own products or make her money (maybe it did after the public outcry, but I guess it will not be the case for every indie designer).
In torrent website vs content producers, the torrent website or its user are not more powerful than the producers. They do not put the producers' business at risk. Everyone knows who made the original product, and may buy some genuine products or derivatives : torrenting can act as advertisement.
One of the other justifications for torrenting is that the content is not available in your country. Similarly, the indie design was not available in all countries. But the source of the issue is different : a small business may not distribute to the whole wold because of logistics, whereas producers and distributors voluntarily block content from being available when it could be.
[+] [-] blowski|9 years ago|reply
--------
--------Imagine there's one designer for most of the world's t-shirts but she won't sell them to the UK so you can't buy one. Zara attempts to do a licensing deal which is profitable for the designer, but she's greedy and thinks she can get more money without the licensing deal. So Zara simply copies the t-shirts, UK customers get their t-shirts and the designer gets nothing.
This is essentially the problem. Disney has an almost complete monopoly over the distribution of kids films, and like all monopolies, they end up over-priced with poor service. The government doesn't seem to care. But torrents allow us to break that monopoly.
It's not just about the cost. It's about how the digital distribution industry fails to service customer needs because its monopoly means the status quo is so profitable.
[+] [-] kayman|9 years ago|reply
Remember The Pirate Bay?
Why don't studios have their own similar sites where they allow free torrents of some shows and offer paid torrents.
As a busy person, I'd much rather pay for something which guarantees:
- high quality - no subtitles - no buffering issues - no viruses - click and play
[+] [-] gmuslera|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simbalion|9 years ago|reply
They don't want change, they want business as usual, but their business model is dead, it's dead and rotting and they are going to accept that one of these days. Meanwhile pirates will keep stealing their worthless products.
[+] [-] mason55|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply
Generally hits good enough on all categories.
of course torrents still win in content. Especially newer movies.
I want to watch a newer movie.
Is it on netflix/hulu/hbo/prime? Nope
Is it on AIV paid? Yes.
How much? 20 dollars.
That's too much for a movie I probably will only watch once. Any other options? At best a rental on AIV for a few bucks. That's pretty borderline. I'd pay that to see a movie I really want to see, but for one I'm taking a risk on it's a bit much.
I'd pay more for Netflix if it meant they get those new movies quicker. People seem to lose their shit when they announce a 1 dollar price increase though. Ridiculous, but there you go.
vs torrents I can just go into a webapp and pick out a movie. It gets downloaded and organized for me. I can watch it on my PC, my TV, via streaming, copy it to my iPad. Whatever. Easy, reasonably quick, free. Downside is it's illegal and immoral. I avoid pirating any content that I can easily access (I have some older shows that never made it past DVD, and are hard to find in general), because there really is no justification. When I was a student and content was mostly in expensive blu rays, I absolutely pirated.
[+] [-] josho|9 years ago|reply
I think he opened himself to US law by hosting the servers at one point in the US. Regardless, it is rather fascinating that his first visit to the US could potentially be from extradition.
[+] [-] spodek|9 years ago|reply
So, two or three files, by Hollywood accounting.
[+] [-] blackflame7000|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|9 years ago|reply
I find it darkly ironic that a legal purchase of music helped them catch the guy.
[+] [-] jerrac|9 years ago|reply
My main complaint about this is that I'd rather my tax dollars be spent stopping crime that causes physical harm.
[+] [-] dmix|9 years ago|reply
Who knows maybe the next guy will use Tor, Bitcoin, read Grugq's blog and be 5x as expensive to hunt down. Thanks US tax payers!
[+] [-] downandout|9 years ago|reply
It will be an interesting case to watch if he takes it all the way to trial. I don't think it's nearly as open-and-shut as the DOJ would like everyone to believe every case it files is though.
[+] [-] megous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve19|9 years ago|reply
bullshit of course. He simply hosted hashes of torrents that other people uploaded.
As far as I know he even acknowledged dcma takedowns.
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|9 years ago|reply
Two things: If you're going to build a torrent indexer, don't profit from it. Keep it alive yourself, with NO ads, just plain HTML and JS and images.
Second: This is why I vastly prefer usenet.
[+] [-] neurocroc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_jones|9 years ago|reply
- No Apple
- No Facebook
- No Google
- Don't live in a 5 eyes or affiliated country
- Know the extradition and legal precedent in all countries visited
[+] [-] codecamper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm3|9 years ago|reply