Demonoid shut down

On August 08 2012 05:13 FabledIntegral wrote:
I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though.

On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote:
Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too?

On August 08 2012 05:13 wozzot wrote:
From the articles I've read, it looks like Ukrainian law enforcement is being vague about exactly what laws have been violated, which isn't surprising given how corrupt its government is.

Maybe they'll actually try to examine the contents of the servers for infringing material, but it's most likely just an excuse to seize them and refuse to give them back under any circumstances.

On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote:
Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too?

On August 08 2012 05:19 mastergriggy wrote:


I agree with everything said here. The laws haven't kept up over time and its reflected in this mass "censoring of the internet" movement. Thankfully many artists release their product for free nowadays, but I'd still prefer there not being a legal issue every time a 12 year old downloads a song they like.

On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote:
Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =(

On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote:
Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too?

On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:

How so? I can't see any downside to it

On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote:
Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.

And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.

Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan!

On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote:
Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =(

On August 08 2012 05:48 Greggle wrote:


Uhh, furthering the precedent of raiding file-sharing sites? Do you work for the MPAA?

On August 08 2012 06:02 Epithet wrote:
More bad news.
Demonoid Operators Face Criminal Investigation in Mexico. Bleh. That was my favorite place for not well-known music & instructional chess videos :/. If anyone knows a good site like Demonoid for chess improvement please send me a PM!

On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:


Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials.

They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical.

The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable.

On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote:
For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D

On August 08 2012 05:31 acker wrote:
Someday people in high places will realize that shutting down torrent sites is a useless and futile endeavor.

Or maybe someday legislators will be able to pass another SOPA somehow.

On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:


Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials.

They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical.

The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable.

On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:


you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol

On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:

you make it sound like it's a bad thing!

On August 08 2012 06:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Bankers put the entire world in jeopardy of bankrupty, hardly an lawsuits many keep their jobs no big deal. Someone distributes files (illegally or not) and can face decades of jail time. Something doesn't add up.

On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:

The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think?

*If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home.

On August 08 2012 06:42 acker wrote:


When 3D printing comes of age, pornography will grab twice the share of the internet it currently has now.

On August 08 2012 06:42 acker wrote:


When 3D printing comes of age, pornography will grab twice the share of the internet it currently has now.

On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:


The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think?

*If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home.

On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:


it is.

On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin

Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?

On August 08 2012 07:23 MisterD wrote:


People who pirate either pirate because they just want to, or because the legal offerings require them to jump through a lot of hoops and end up with a worse product than buying it legally (e.g. tv show only available six months after original airing as boxed set), or because there simply can not purchase the product legally due to age restrictions (15 yo kid torrents pegi 18 title because daddy doesn't give it to him), region restrictions (cf. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones ), or simply not having any money at all (which may or may not be caused by simply being bad at managing it, or something as simple as a teenager who doesn't get any own money from parents).

You have grown up i assume, you have some money now, so of course for you most of these issues aren't issues anymore. But think back a couple of years

On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin

Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?

On August 08 2012 07:27 Zinnwaldite wrote:


I have 5000 albums,, i couldn't possibly afford all that,, and it would be hard to live without at least half of them..

My collection is pretty much complete now though,, most of the music i'll be needing from now on hasn't been released yet.

On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:


You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^

I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.)

I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^

Just my 2 cents.

On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:


..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing?

People who pirate either pirate because they just want to, or because the legal offerings require them to jump through a lot of hoops and end up with a worse product than buying it legally (e.g. tv show only available six months after original airing as boxed set), or because there simply can not purchase the product legally due to age restrictions (15 yo kid torrents pegi 18 title because daddy doesn't give it to him), region restrictions (cf. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones ), or simply not having any money at all (which may or may not be caused by simply being bad at managing it, or something as simple as a teenager who doesn't get any own money from parents).

You have grown up i assume, you have some money now, so of course for you most of these issues aren't issues anymore. But think back a couple of years

On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:

Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good.

On August 08 2012 07:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:

You have at least 121 days straight of music (24 hours a day every day), and you need ALL of it? You couldnt get by with a custom pandora station? You couldnt buy some of the ones that you like the most and supplement with pandora? If you listen to music for 8 hours a day every day thats a full year without hearing a single repeat.

That actually seems unreasonable to me, tbh.

On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's theft, lol.

edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.

On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:


The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects.

On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's theft, lol.

edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.

understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.

On August 08 2012 07:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:

You have at least 121 days straight of music (24 hours a day every day), and you need ALL of it? You couldnt get by with a custom pandora station? You couldnt buy some of the ones that you like the most and supplement with pandora? If you listen to music for 8 hours a day every day thats a full year without hearing a single repeat.

That actually seems unreasonable to me, tbh.

On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's theft, lol.

edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.

understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.

On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's theft, lol.

edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.

understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.

On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin

Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?

On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:

theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not.

I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with.

On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's lost money, so yes, it's gone.

i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor.

On August 08 2012 08:10 BanditX wrote:


It isn't as black and white as "it's theft." Studies have shown that artists actually have made an increase of money since downloading music became popular due to ticket and merchandise sales. It isn't the artists who are hurting, its corporate america. And unlike you, corporate america doesn't care if their baby gets stolen because they worked hard on it, they care because it affects their bottom line.

Personally, I think corporate america could stand for a some more bleeding.

On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:


it's lost money, so yes, it's gone.

i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor.

On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:

you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely.

besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways.

On August 08 2012 08:23 starfries wrote:

eh, I would love it if more artists would release their music freely or under less restrictions, and I try to support artists that do that. but if they explicitly don't want you copying their stuff for free, then it's kinda a dick move to go ahead and do it anyways even if "in theory" their business is being improved.

having said that, I like free stuff and will take whatever I can get. I will readily admit that I'm an awful person.

On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:


i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no?

On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:

keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait...

On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:

you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely.

besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways.

On August 08 2012 08:30 Tom Cruise wrote:


lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument

On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:

How so? I can't see any downside to it

On August 08 2012 08:33 Nizaris wrote:

okay, no. but not like they can do anything about it, short of cutting the internet.

Piracy gives us a way to vote with our wallets and say fuck you, adapt to the changing world or at least put on a condom before you rape us.

On August 08 2012 05:04 starfries wrote:
Yeah, kind of funny the way it happened

http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-busted-as-a-gift-to-the-united-states-government-120806/

On August 08 2012 08:01 turdburgler wrote:


(music) artists have never made their millions from record sales. they use record sales and radio air play as adverts for their live shows. look at the lists every year of the highest earning mussicians. almost none recorded an album that year, its all the biggest tour of the time.

the people making money from record sales are the record labels. and this is the part where you say that record labels advertise bands and nuture talent, except they dont. record labels use their power and influence battling each other and suppressing truly original artists that they cant pin to a demographic. in the modern age, many artists from youtube stars to radiohead have shown that they make more money, and become just as famous promoting themselves and working hard. giving away music for cheap/free.

but you wouldnt want to actually think through things beyond "its illegal therefore bad".



on the subject of the movie industry, them losing money is what a lot of people actually want. the big 7(?) studios have been around since the beginning of time and have been through crashes before. with the advent of age control on movies and the artistic collapse of the 70s. each time the movie industry has really had its back to the wall its turned to new younge talent to produce real movies that dont fit the current mold. you think all the 'great' directors of this time being of the same age group is a fluke? speilberg, lucas, scorsese all come from the 70s revival in film art. bringing new films to the table to bring people back to the cinema.

with the success of recent films like batman or avatar. record numbers can easily be broken if they put out a quality product that people value. instead what most studios do is look for the next quick buck and throw out fast and the furious 27 for ever decreasing profit margins because its still a safe bet for now. but this treasuring of sequential safe bets seen in music, games and movies is whats driving people away from seeing value in the experience, and so taking a knock off version for free doesnt seem so bad.

industry needs to deliver a product people actually want, rather than try and dictate the mood and then they will recover. piracy is a symptom not a disease.

On August 08 2012 05:37 FabledIntegral wrote:


Well, I disagree slightly. I'd rather there be an issue preventing that 12 year old from doing it. It's hard to explain, but even if I agree with the statement "it doesn't cause any financial harm to the company" in a large portion (probably large majority) of scenarios, my main gripe is that I feel the burden of proof should be on the consumer, not the distributor/producer.

For example, if I torrent some movie I legitimately would never pay for, I understand that in reality I didn't cause any financial harm to the producer/distributor. But I can't prove it. The general argument at the moment is that because they can't prove financial loss, they can't sue/fine etc.

But I think that argument breaks the system completely, and since I don't believe anyone has a "right" to copy products. And since no "right" exists, we look to the law, which is supposedly on the producer side as they are able to copyright their product (information). I honestly and truly believe that information that is complex enough and clearly took time to develop (as opposed to the stupid "it's all a bunch of 0's and 1's" argument) should be able to be protected - somehow. Of course, this is highly subjective, but the system in place is highly subjective in the same regard. It's just that it's fucking devolved into a stupid petty system where anything can be copyrighted (and patented... my god the patents are even worse).

Arguments of whether or not piracy helps sales I also deem irrelevant, at least personally. It is up to the producer to decide how to market his or her product, not the consumer. Of course, consumers place heavy amounts of pressure on the producer to conform to certain ways, but ultimately it's in the producers hand on what route to take (which will ultimately result in whether or not they fail...).

TLDR: Regardless of whether or not copyright infringement results in financially loss for the producer, it's still the producer's product and they should be able to determine its method of distribution/redistribution (although the feasibility of prevention is an issue). People talk about a "right" to information that has been far too warped and twisted; not all such "information" should be inherently free in my eyes, which is highly subjective and depends on the inherent complexity of the product.

On August 08 2012 08:34 Tom Cruise wrote:


well, you're right, they can't do anything about it. but that doesn't really make it right, either.



no, it gives us a way to look at stuff, tell ourselves it's not worth paying for, get it anyway without paying, and then do whatever we want with it whether we like it or not. that's what we do, all of us, and people like you and me don't give a shit. we really don't.

On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote:
Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block.

On August 08 2012 09:01 xParadoxi wrote:



http://torrentfreak.com/swizz-beatz-on-megaupload-i-was-giving-artists-90-of-the-shit-120726/

Your views are sadly mistaken. It's ignorant people like you that keep the bankers and other fat corporations happy.

On August 08 2012 08:58 xpldngmn wrote:


You can't produce stuff that is too easy to copy, this will never be lucrative in the long run. It is not a (marketable) product any more.

I produce a lot of CO2, which is very important for the growth of plants. Can i sue farmers? No, because C and O are very easy to reproduce, just like 0s and 1s. Getting the 0s an 1s in the right order just isn't enough any more. 1000 monkeys and 1000 typewriters + enough time = shakespeare.

On August 08 2012 09:05 xParadoxi wrote:


Yeah, while the CEOs are getting massive bonuses during the layoffs.

On August 08 2012 08:33 Greggle wrote:


I dare you to find one musical artist outside the top 40 list that loves record companies and is genuinely supportive of them. The fact is most of them don't give a shit about CD sales since they make pennies on the dollar and sustain themselves by touring (which is a much better way to spend your money, by the way). Bands don't even need labels to release their material anymore in this age. Look at Radiohead. Neither do comedians as a matter of fact, look at Louie CK! All labels have ever done is pressure bands into conforming into a top 40 radio friendly homogeneous blob of suck. Know how a band can succeed? It can distribute its music for free online or at a reasonable price ($5 for a CD is reasonable) which in turn promotes their merchandise and live shows. They can also license their music to commercials, TV shows and movies themselves. There isn't any need for a giant middleman, just a lawyer and an accountant tops.

And movies... Jesus fuck could they waste any more money. Do we really think spending a $100,000,000 on some movies is worthwhile? We're throwing tens of millions at shit-eaters like Tom Cruise for no reason. $100,000 is more than enough for a few months of shooting. Hell, $100,000 is enough for a years work for 99% of professions.

TV shows... where to start? First of all there is no way I'm picking up a new series by tuning in every day at 11am for a rerun whichever year they decide to start airing the series from the start again. There's also no way I wait a year after the finale of the newest season to pick up the DVD. And why can I only purchase these massive packages of channels? I don't want fucking Oxygen and Own, I just want CBS, ABC, NBC, TBS, HBO, AMC, a few movie channels and shitty GSN. I could seriously live with <10 channels with no problem, but I need to pay for 200 shitty music channels and BET to get what I want. Then Dish Network has a feud with AMC and I can't watch Breaking Bad and I miss out on LinSanity because of a dispute which I have nothing to do with and no say in.

On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin

Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?

On August 08 2012 10:02 MichaelDonovan wrote:
I don't really care too much about torrenting sites getting shut down. But if they touch Mediafire, I'll be upset. I use it to send my own music to my friends and various other files that are my own intellectual property. Just because you CAN send copyrighted material using this service doesn't mean the service should be shut down, imo. I mean, we CAN stab people with knives, but does that mean that kitchen knives should be made illegal? Unless they can prove that the service is specifically made for transferring illegal material, I don't think it's fair to shut it down.

On August 08 2012 09:51 Raysalis wrote:
aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there

On August 08 2012 09:51 Raysalis wrote:
aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there

On August 08 2012 11:27 SausageLinks wrote:
oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008.
i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now

On August 08 2012 10:56 TehPrime wrote:
Does anyone know how piratebay is still alive and kicking?

On August 08 2012 11:27 SausageLinks wrote:
oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008.
i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now

On August 08 2012 09:04 ampson wrote:
If you're gonna pirate things you should at least feel bad about it.

On August 08 2012 11:45 turdburgler wrote:


because there are places in the world that arent in the united states of america?

On August 08 2012 11:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:


I've been using Demonoid for quite some time as well, but meh, lately I haven't really needed too. Either way, I'm sure there's other site's out there such as waffles. I wish I can get into waffles, if anybody can invite, I would love you.

On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote:
My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.

On August 08 2012 09:04 ampson wrote:
If you're gonna pirate things you should at least feel bad about it.

On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote:
Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block.

On August 08 2012 10:56 jodogohoo wrote:

yeah, i mainly used demonoid for... books ;_; sigh...

On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:


This is very true.

Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right".

On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:


This is very true.

Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right".

On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:


Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.

On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:


Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.

On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:

What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?

On August 08 2012 10:01 Lightwip wrote:

1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these.
2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media.
3. These things probably came about because of piracy.

On August 08 2012 12:31 semantics wrote:

Mostly in the US where Legal "cheap" and convenient sources are plentiful and the US has never quite had the piracy rates of south east asia or russia, or even most of europe to begin with.

On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:


There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here.

On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:


Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.

On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:

What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?

Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare.

On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:


Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal.

On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:


Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you?

I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that.

On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote:
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.

On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:


How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie?

If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs.

On August 08 2012 12:55 rd wrote:


uploaded it to*

Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison.

On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote:
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.

On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:

This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office.

On August 08 2012 13:05 Critter wrote:


I've already stated that I pirate when something I want to support gives me no simple way to do it. IE: HBO forcing me to buy ~$120 worth of cable to watch one show. I would love to be able to buy the episodes as they come out, or purchase a subscription to just HBOGO (which will hopefully be allowed before S3 comes out) but they don't give me those option. I'm excited about their product, I want to watch it when it comes out, I WANT to be a paying customer but they give me no viable options to do it. So I pirate it and 10 months later I buy the blu-ray box set to support the show.

On August 08 2012 12:54 overt wrote:


When you go to your friends house to play a video game with him you are playing it for free. Without giving the developer who made it any money.

I think that in some cases piracy can actually help the entertainment industry. For example, in lots of countries there are
services that are unavailable to them (like Netflix) or entire television shows or films unavailable to them. Piracy eliminates that problem. And, in fact, piracy likely leads to sales by consumers that would never have been interested in a television show or a movie or a band before.

Going back to the example of a lent DVD, you might not have had any interest in it or any plans to purchase it. But upon watching it you really enjoyed it and you go out and buy it. Or after playing a game at a friend's house you go out and buy said game. This was basically my childhood. And there are countless things I wasn't interested in that I torrented and ended up purchasing later.

As I said earlier, I don't pirate that often. Pretty much only if I can't easily access media through legal means. I think that the entertainment industry should continue to expand on things like Hulu into new regions instead of throwing their money into a giant pit to lobby against piracy.

On August 08 2012 13:03 NEOtheONE wrote:


Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?

On August 08 2012 12:55 Divergence wrote:


Wow you really are an entitled person.

There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie.

On August 08 2012 13:12 Chocolate wrote:

Yes when you go to your friends house you can play a game for free, but it's really not the same thing (I guess the whole DVD camparison isn't either). When you go to your friend's house, you don't possess the actual game. You are borrowing for a very short while it, and piracy is not borrowing. It is copying.

Sure piracy can be good. But if the producer of content doesn't approve of piracy of his or her products, then it's wrong (and illegal) to pirate that person's material. If material is seriously unavailable, as in, you can't buy it, you can't watch it on the web, and you can't rent it, then I guess piracy isn't hurting anyone, but the vast majority of pirated content surely isn't pirated under those circumstances.

As for buying something after pirating it, I would say that this is a frequently touted statement, but in all honesty do you think this is common? If someone is willing to pirate content, then why would they pay for something that they already have because they liked it? I could see this happening to access multiplayer features, but this can't be common.

On August 08 2012 13:03 NEOtheONE wrote:


Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?

On August 08 2012 13:12 Divergence wrote:
Maybe the video rental people have some sort of a special license that lets them lend out the movies?

On August 08 2012 13:23 StarStrider wrote:


You're being disengenuous when you use the word charging. Something a bit stronger is in order. Let's go with raking over the coals. 12 dollar movie tickets are profiteering not compensating, and that's not even considering their projected profits on the same product by repackaging it into a dvd or digital copy. No other discussion neccessary.

Yes, I buy sandwiches for money. Why don't I have a problem with that? Because there is always a cheaper and cheaper alternative based on quality. The exorbitant sandwich shops don't get my business unless I think they warrant it based on something unique, and they don't run inexpensive alternatives out of town. But I really don't have alternatives when it comes to media do I?

The media holding companies have created a system such that in order to sell your 'sandwich' (record), the only way is to use their system, which does, in fact, extort consumers. There is no cheaper alternative without going 'indy', which goes back to the starving artists example. There is no moderate system for moderate profits and moderate compensation....it's all taken to the extremes because of corporate greed.

There are a multitude of problems in your analogy with comparing sandwiches and songs. One fills a basic human need of hunger, and the other fills just a 'want' of entertainment. I admit that it is a 'take it or leave it' scenario for whether or not I want to buy it, but it shouldn't be, and if piracy poses a threat demands change to the profiteering than I support it. Also, you can't share a sandwich without reducing your own serving size like you can with a movie, a comparison can't be made between the products, so sandwich shops don't have a problem with so called 'theft' of sharing. Also, you're not addressing the question of whether art is just a product like a sandwich, or maybe something deeper like a shared expression of humanity, which time after time gains more mass appeal when it is most accessible.

Turning art into a business is lucrative for businessmen. And they share that wealth with a select few to keep the product (creative content) machine generating content (+ crazy high profits). Appealing to feelings of sympathy for the lot worker in Hollywood is ignoring the root of the problem. If people are freely sharing something because they can't afford to buy it, and ridiculous profits aren't being made, then yes, the joe schmoe is the first one hit, but honestly maybe they should have never been employed in the first place if the movie needs to sell for 12bucks a seat and 25bucks a dvd in order to justify his employment...changes would be made to make it more affordable if more people pirated because it is out of reach, that's the nature of the free market.....if it was this unreasonably priced because of that guy, then he needs to go, in order to make the project more accessible. But we all know it's not the reason.

On August 08 2012 13:56 yOngKIN wrote:
This is the end of the world!

On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:


Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.

On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:


Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made.

What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made?

On August 08 2012 13:47 Divergence wrote:


You have alternatives for media. Netflix is inexpensive and it may not have what you want but it is nevertheless an alternative.

If you believe people should not be allowed to profit off of art then you are entitled to that opinion, but just know that such a rule will undoubtedly have an effect on the quantity and quality of work produced (and I expect this effect to be negative).

I would respond in greater detail but I am on my mobile.

On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:


Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made.

What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made?

On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:


HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world.

Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents?

I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own.

If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads.

If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.

On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:


HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world.

Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents?

I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own.

If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads.

If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.

Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)

If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.