[speeder]

The old kat, that had nothing to do with USA, complied with dcma requests.

Now that this obviously doesn't work, what prevents new kat to ignore them?

Also, why USA can force random people from random countries that doesn't do business in USA to follow their laws? If they keep doing that, they will end with random dictators pulling a Turkey and demanding arrest of political opponents that live in USA

[csydas]

Treaties. The nebulous amount of treaties across the world, specifically with the US can make it incredibly easy for just about anyone to be subject to its jurisdiction in some manner. As long as the US is politically active and persuasive enough to get foreign governments into these agreements, their reach will extend very far. As an aside, it's part of why Britain's EU Exit is such a mess; all the treaties and agreements formerly drawn up were based on Britain in the EU - those agreements were discussed for years before being agreed upon. There are thousands of discussion points and it takes a really long time.

As to why keep attacking KAT? (or any other torrent site for that matter?) To scare your average citizen. When Napster was huge in the US and the RIAA got involved, you'd have almost daily stories in newspapers or on TV about the RIAA suing college students, high school students, etc, with huge lawsuits. You'd think this would result in a revolt against the RIAA, but the reality is that these had sticking power in the US courts. Most US citizens, despite the relative wealth they have compared to other countries, could not pay off the few thousand dollar per song fines they would receive if sued. Most couldn't even afford a single $1000 fine. The idea for the RIAA/MPAA wasn't that you need to stop every download every - it's that you need to make a big enough splash to scare the majority of citizens into not downloading.

While many streaming and download services have arisen since that time, offering cheap and legal options for on-demand shows/music, the companies still would rather that stuff went back to the way it was, with only their authorized publishers being the source for media. Attacking torrent sources isn't about recouping loss from piracy - it's about recouping losses from the media conglomerates' inability to rapidly adjust to new technology, and the change in how many citizens choose to get their entertainment.

[petra]

>> Attacking torrent sources isn't about recouping loss from piracy

Actually it's part of the battle preventing something extremly easy like popcorn time becoming great, easy, and safe - because if that happens, the media industry will be in big trouble.

[Nagyman]

The current spat of cheap Android boxes preloaded with Kodi (which itself isn't an issue) and all of the third-party stream-torrenting plugins (the real issue), are posing enough of a threat for big Canadian telcoms to go after them here. They're too easy to use, not to mention stream a lot of sports which is the last bastion for many cable companies to hold onto subscribers.

[StavrosK]

> If they keep doing that, they will end with random dictators pulling a Turkey and demanding arrest of political opponents that live in USA

And they just won't comply, because the USA does whatever they want without much regard for laws.

[tn13]

This is pretty much like the drug war. El Chapo's interview was extremely insightful in this regard. He basically asked if he going to jail had any impact on the drug trade in first place. The answer is resoundingly NO. There is a huge market for drugs and if not El Chapo, Chloe Epa would take it over. Same goes for torrents. They will always exist, American law thugs just want to justify their own existence jailing some.

[asdfzxc]

I loved Kat and have used it countless times to get things I can't afford or just can't buy even if I could because of where I live. I wish the founder hadn't got caught.

That being said, the point of punishing criminals is to punish crime, not to end it. El Chapo is a violent criminal. It is extremely optimistic to think that putting him in jail ends drug trade. The point is to punish the crimes that he had committed.

Finally, I agree that torrents will exist for a long time to come. And thank God for that.

[tn13]

> the point of punishing criminals is to punish crime

True when the definition of crime and the procedures around punishing crime borders on even serious crime I would question if the crime should be crime in first place or not.

If USA had unleashed its capitalistic hounds and allowed Target and Wallmart to deal in drugs El Chapo and many people like him would either be selling tacos on a food truck (euphemism for honest hard working job) or be shot dead in some alley as result of their non-lucrative crime.

Drug industry has been super innovative and invested their mental energies in drugs. If the drugs are channelised they will get invested into something else which might actually lead to good result.

[tripzilch]

> That being said, the point of punishing criminals is to punish crime, not to end it.

No it's not.

Justice is not necessarily about revenge.

In some justice systems (like the US) it is, but in others justice is also about rehabilitation.

Another part of justice is deterrence. Please take a moment to consider how this is also different from revenge.

Revenge is a personal individual emotion that can sometimes be enjoyable. In my very personal opinion, revenge is not justice and only tangentially related to deterrence, and rehabilitation is the most important thing about justice.

[tomjen3]

They almost certainly did business with with US based banks, which, given that at least one of the charges is money laundering, is likely to be enough.

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