The DMCA is complicated, but you may not qualify as a safe harbor if you have actual knowledge of infringing content or if you're aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. Running a website called "Kickasstorrents" may not qualify.
But in the realpolitik sense, I agree. Foreign company, angry US business interests, etc. I doubt this was argued out reasonably in a court beforehand.
>Torrents aren't necessarily illegal so I'm not sure why running a website called "kickasstorrents" is relevant.
Because we all know that website and what torrents it had. That "torrents aren't necessarily illegal" are neither here, nor there. Their torrents were illegal.
(Not that I'm against it, but well, it's not like they're fooling anyone with the "torrents aren't necessarily illegal" defense for their particular case. That wasn't some FOSS/PD software torrent site, and that wasn't why people visited it, or why it was run...).
That's more like a drug dealer caught with 200 plastic bags of cocaine saying plastic bags are not illegal, they contain no drug substances at all. Sure, but most of the torrents they had there pointed to copyrighted data, and facilitated their download, which is illegal.
Interestingly, copyright for video is very complicated, and the remastering process necessary to convert from film stock to digital generally has enough creative input legally to be considered valid for copyright protection. I don't think it's currently possible for a digital film to be aged out of copyright.
But in the realpolitik sense, I agree. Foreign company, angry US business interests, etc. I doubt this was argued out reasonably in a court beforehand.