This article leaves some really crucial parts of this timeline ambiguous. These things happened in some order:

1. Guy downloads stuff from website 2. Guy publishes stuff from website 3. Stuff becomes unavailable on the website 4. Website owners go to police, report “illegal access” 5. Police arrest guy

Either the police arrested him, and the company declined to inform the police that these illegally accessed files has been free to access, thus actively misleading the police, or company did inform the police and the police acted heinously by arresting him anyways. Maybe there’s a third option here that I’m not seeing. Seems pretty wild, and likely to me that the org should be criminally liable here (not that I know the laws or if they would be criminally liable.)